101-Draft Minutes 10-09-2012.pdfCITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. October 9, 2012 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2012 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Don Sun
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Clinton Brownley
Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao
Assistant Planner: George Schroeder
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Minutes of the September 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Vice Chair Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve the September 11, 2012 Planning Commission minutes
as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Amit Goel/Ruchi Aggarwal Appeal of a Director’s Approval of a two-story
Appellant: Scott Hughes permit for a new 2,692 sq. ft. single family residence.
7738 Huntridefge Lane Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for the appeal of a Director’s Approval of a two-story permit for a
new 2,692 sq. ft. single family residence. He reviewed the background of the application
beginning with the approval of the project on August 23, 2012 and the appellant’s appeal of
the Director’s approval on September 4, 2012. The appellant has included three reasons,
including the neighborhood opposition to the proposed project because of the compatibility of
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 2
the proposed two story residence in a predominantly single story neighborhood; the apparent
bulk, mass and height of the residence; and privacy impacts. The appellant feels that the
proposal does not meet the city’s R1 Ordinance requirements, as outlined in detail in the staff
report. The proposed two-story home is modest in size and there are other two story homes in
the immediate neighborhood as well.
• Staff’s responses to the three concerns are detailed in the staff report. In addressing the
concerns of the neighborhood, the applicant has agreed to plant more privacy trees than what
is usually required and agreed to increase the height of the side yard fences. The proposed
project is designed to be within the prescriptive building envelope, height, setback, and FAR
requirements and is also consistent with other conventional new homes in Cupertino. All the
residential homes located in the same zoning district have the equal development rights which
include the ability to construct two story homes; and the neighborhood does have the ability to
initiate a rezoning request with the city to place a one story zoning overlay in the
neighborhood if they so desire.
• Staff believes that the proposal does not meet the city’s R1 ordinance requirements as detailed
in three different R1 sections which primarily deal with neighborhood compatibility, in scale
and mass and bulk. The ordinance requirements are intended to ensure reasonable level of
compatibility and gets at the intent at the purpose of the R1 ordinance. He reviewed Appeals
1, 2 and 3 and staff responses, as outlined in the overhead presentation and the staff report.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s
original approval of the two story permit.
Scott Hughes, 7752 Huntridge Lane; Appellant:
• Said he resided in his home since 1995 and the neighborhood is a triangle bounded by Stelling
Road to the east, McClellan Rd to the north and Hwy 85 to the south and west. Excluding the
townhomes and subdivisions,, the neighborhood is predominantly one-story ranch style homes
built between 1960 and 1961; 93% of the R1 properties in this area are one-story. He said he
believes the proposed two-story project will degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood.
• Said he felt the project did not satisfy R1 in at least three different areas: second story
bathroom windows should be frosted; there are at least four items which could help with some
privacy mitigation because even though there has been some, it is not adequate; and
unanimous signed opposition from all the noticed neighbors. Part of the mitigations states the
mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant, most
common neighborhood pattern; the new construction should not be disproportionate larger
than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern.
• He reiterated that he felt the project does not meet the requirement, and staff feels otherwise.
He presented photographs of various streets in the neighborhood depicting a pattern of one-
story ranch style homes; he said they did not consider Jollyman Lane as part of their
neighborhood, since it is an isolated cul de sac across the street, with a different building
pattern, two-story homes, large FARs built in 1986, 1999 and 2007. It is comparable to the
adjacent Jollyman area built in 1986 and 1988.
• R1 also states that the proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood; he said he did not feel the project meets the requirement. Both staff report and
resolution states that the project is compatible in terms of mass and bulk with other two-story
ranch style homes on Huntridge Lane, etc.
• Referring to the draft resolution he said he disagreed with the statement that the neighborhood
is in transition. He reviewed the trend over the years with additions and remodels and said that
since 1990 all remodels have been one-story. He said that Cupertino is not like other cities; it
cares about its neighborhoods and citizens. It is important to work together to preserve the
quality of life in the neighborhoods. He urged the Planning Commission not to move the
proposal forward at this time.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 3
Gary Chao:
• Explained the changes in the R1 zoning ordinance over the years. In 2011 City Council did a
comprehensive R1 revamp; essentially allowed two levels of two-story permitting process; one
is the two story that the project being presented is more of the limited design review; limited
discretion meaning the Council was specific in that as long as the property owners built within
the building envelope, setbacks, and height, there are not a lot of questions asked because it is
within the development rights.
• The other change that the Council did in 2011 was those who wish to build larger second
floors can do so, but they will be challenged more in terms of design review; it is called the
residential two-story design review process. Prior to that and in doing so, the Council
authorized larger, more lineal rules in terms of second floor to ground floor ratio.
City Attorney:
• The Planning Commission needs to determine if the findings can be made and if the findings
can be made, it is well within their discretion to grant it. If the issues raised by the neighbors
are not appropriate, it should not be passed.
Gary Chao:
• Said based on the limited review of the two story process, you don’t have to make a finding to
support two-story or one-story; you don’t need to demonstrate or be justified to support two-
story; it is allowed, up to a maximum of 28 feet. There are some interesting points that the
appellant brought up to potentially discuss with the property owner such as frosting the
windows, making sure that the tree type is appropriate. If you examine more into it, if you
look at the minimum setbacks prescribed by the R1 ordinance, you can see if the applicant is
pushing the envelope, is he within reason. You will find that most of the setbacks being
proposed on the second floor are well within, if anything, the property owner provided more
setback along all sides to give that respect to the neighbors.
Chair Miller:
• Said the city has a mechanism to limit development to one-story houses called the one-story
overlay; and asked Mr. Hughes if he had considered requesting a one-story overlay.
Mr. Hughes:
• Said he had not considered it but I believe it was done in the 70s; so there is one home on the
corner done in 1975. I tend not to be one who moves in a neighborhood and try to tell people
what they need to do; I have been here 17 years now, and as pointed out, all the remodels that
have been done, there have been no remodels since 1989 in our neighborhood which are two
story. These are small rectangular lots and doesn’t make sense to go straight out, it makes
sense to go front and back; there is some going on now. I had not considered it yet, it was
pointed out to us by George Schroeder during the process; I didn’t pursue it at that point.
Amid Goel, Applicant:
• He said they planned to build a two-story house to better utilize the small lot; resulting in
bigger back yard, bigger setbacks. He showed a slide presentation reviewing proposals to
mitigate impact on the neighbors; side windows are 5 to 6 feet above, no side window, and
frosted glass in the bathrooms. He reviewed the setbacks and said he was willing to install high
fences and plant trees to ensure privacy for both him and neighbors. He said that he has taken
care to meet the requirements of the R1 ordinance, and met with staff many times to ensure
they are within requirements. He added that he was surprised that some of the neighbors were
still concerned; more trees will be planted and the house cannot be seen from the street; there
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 4
are other two story homes nearby. He said he was also willing to reduce the number of
windows. He asked for approval of the application.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
V. K. Skeepathy, Cupertino resident:
• Expressed concern that the proposed structure would block his sunlight and also have a
negative impact on his family’s privacy because the other homeowners would be able to see
into his yard. He was also concerned that the proposed structure would not fit in with the
neighborhood homes.
Rochelle Chu, 7724 Huntridge Lane:
• Said they are opposed to the demolition and construction of a two- story home for three
reasons: Privacy concerns; the proposed design for the two story home with eight windows
facing east onto her property would infringe upon their privacy; the windows will face their
master bedroom, bath, and guest bath windows. Suggested mitigation to cut down the number
of windows from 8 and front the second story windows.
• Expressed concern that the proposed monster home would look out of place in the
neighborhood of smaller starter homes. Several former neighbors who felt they outgrew their
homes moved to larger homes in different neighborhoods. She said the proposed design would
block the natural sunlight on their home.
• Another area of concern is the excessive noise and pollution caused by the construction of
such a major and extensive remodel. She said she suffers from asthma and both children have
allergies and their health would suffer from excessive exposure to the pollutants over an
extended period of time during the demolition and construction of the project.
• Based on her concerns, she is opposed to the proposed design for 7738 Huntridge Lane and
asked that the Planning Commission reconsider approval of the application in its present state.
Ranuka Alladi, resident on street behind applicant:
• Expressed concern about the negative privacy impacts that the proposed second story home
would have on her back yard and children’s rooms. Second concern is there are no two-story
structures on that street and on Huntridge there are a minimum number as previous speakers
have noted.
• She said occasionally she teaches young children about gardening in her back yard, and felt
that a second-story home would negatively impact her back yard privacy. She said she had not
talked with the applicant about the planting for mitigation measures.
Balaraman Mani, Cupertino resident:
• Expressed objection to the specific type of two-story home; he said in his opinion it was not a
two-story home, but a room above the garage with no windows. He reported that in 2001 they
considered remodeling to a two-story home and they felt they and their neighbors were not
treated fairly and they in turn opted for a one-story remodel. He expressed concern that the
five neighbors’ homes application for second-story remodel were denied and now the
Commission is considering approving a second-story remodel. He voiced his objection to the
proposed second-story remodel and recommended that it be reconsidered and made into a one-
story remodel.
Chitra Mani, resident on street behind applicant:
• Said when they considered remodeling, there were several objections to a two-story, so they
did a one-story remodel. He said he strongly opposed the two-story home because of
aesthetics, privacy, and obstruction of sunlight.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 5
Charlie Hanson, resident:
• Said he was opposed to the appeal; he has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. The
neighborhood is evolving, including two major constructions going on Rose Blossom and
Lilac; other homes are getting bigger; the homeowner has met all city requirements; nothing to
indicate he cannot build a two-story home there. He said he was surprised that the approval is
being appealed.
• Said as an advocate of property rights; the homeowner is willing to spend $300K to $500K to
improve his property, provide jobs for many people; and improve the neighborhood; and he
should not be denied his right to build what he wants. Relative to privacy, there are many
ways to mitigate privacy concerns with one and two-story homes.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Asked staff to explain three choices to mitigate privacy issues.
George Schroeder:
• Said applicant can plant either privacy trees or shrubs from the approved list; if they have
existing trees that exhibit the screening characteristics; if an arborist can determine that that
tree is suitable for privacy planting; third option is if the affected neighbor waives any privacy
trees or modifies the usual requirements, they have the opportunity to do so. Other options
include if the windows are 5 feet from the finished floor; if they obscure the windows and have
frosted glass and the windows are not openable, that would meet the privacy requirement.
Gary Chao:
• Relative to access to sunlight, there are no provisions in the R1 ordinance that protects access
to sunlight or views to skies or vistas; that is the reason for the height limitation. There is the
building envelope along the sides to restrict the maximum height of wall, which is the reason
for second floor setbacks. All of those provisions prescribe development standards are met to
provide reasonable consistent setbacks; at least minimum setbacks and offsets from adjacent
property owners to allow the reasonable level of air and light, and that is standardized amongst
all R1 zoned properties.
• Relative to a concern that the construction process would create pollutants and noise, he noted
that all construction in Cupertino is required to adhere to the Santa Clara County Best
Management Practices, including dust control; and a noise ordinance preventing construction
activities to exceed a certain amount of decibels.
• Generally speaking single story or single family two story construction is not going to last a
long time; and it doesn’t create a lot of dust; there are processes that the applicant is going to
have to go through, the Bay Area Air Quality Mgt District, to make sure they get a permit
from them so that if there is any toxic materials or asbestos materials from the old
construction, they would be appropriately dealt with and treated. There is inspection in the
process and the city will monitor the process.
• Relative to the complaint that it is not compatible with the general neighborhood pattern, he
noted that there were existing two-story homes in the neighborhood. Staff looks at the
neighborhood as more of a comprehensive area including mini blocks of areas, not only a
couple of homes to the left and right of the property. There are two-story homes in the
neighborhood; there are comparable sized homes, even some of the existing single story
homes takes on some of the theme and the architecture characteristic proposed by this project.
Staff feels the intended purpose of the R1 ordinance had been met and the proposed home is
reasonably compatible with that pattern and that sort of neighborhood in transition.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 6
Chair Miller:
• Asked staff to comment on Mr. Mani’s concern that he and some of his neighbors were not
fairly treated when they applied for two-story homes.
Gary Chao:
• Said it was difficult to comment on the project specific findings without an address, but he
would research it and speak with Mr. Mari about his particular issue. He said that in 2001 they
did allow some two story homes in R1 districts; but Mr. Mari indicated he did not follow
through with his application. There are many components in play to go thru and assess,
including height, and setback and there could have been many different specific items that
were of concern.
Com. Brophy:
• Referred to the language in 1928.10b.1 Single Family Residential Design Guidelines and
Principles, wherein it states “the mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible
with the predominant neighborhood pattern; new construction should not be disproportionately
larger …..”., He asked if the clause imposed an obligation on a would-be home builder to do
above and beyond what the numerical requirements are.
Gary Chao:
• If the prescribed development standards are met, it defines what is considered reasonably
compatible with the neighborhood given the maximum envelope. There are languages in the
guidelines and the purpose of the R1 ordinance which basically asks for reasonable level of
higher calling or harmonious compatibility that is when we look at the overall design, whether
it is extremely designed where the shape and form is not going to go with the adjacent
neighborhood; and if you can see from some of the pictures there are similarly designed
homes; they are older but there are mass and scale that are of similar kind. For the most part
two straight homes have met the development standards, basically it is allowed to proceed and
we can work with the developer in terms of where we see there is opportunities where they can
enhance or maximize setbacks or sometimes staff works with them in terms of the location of
the second floor, making sure that’s more centrally located in the middle of the lots so it’s not
slanted on one end giving one of the neighbors more mass to look at. Staff will work with
them on that and looking at the site plan, it can be seen that they have done a relatively good
job in terms of addressing that.
Com. Brownley:
• Said speakers presented many cohesive arguments and he was grateful for the discussion of
the arguments and concerns to address. He said there were four findings to be addressed for
making the determination stated.
• The first finding is whether it is consistent with the General Plan and all of the other zoning.
As seen in the proposal, it is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The second
condition is that it not be injurious to the property improvements or health and well being.
There are a number of regulations that must be met during construction to take care of the
health and well being as well as well as the house and height setbacks prescribed by City
Council regulations to afford sunlight, air, etc. in surrounding neighborhoods. The third
finding is that it is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The
current regulations as they are is if they are consistent with R1 and you have the ability to
design a home of your dreams and that meets the condition of the finding. Relative to adverse
visual impacts to adjoining neighborhoods, the applicant came and provided many mitigation
measures that he is willing to make; some are already in the conditions of approval and those
discussed at the present meeting can also be added.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 7
Com. Lee:
• Said she visited the project area which had several two-story homes. Mr. Goel has met the
prescriptions within the guidelines relative to building form, ridge heights, eave heights,
building entry, and second floor setbacks. Council made it clear that if the building standards
are being met, it should be allowed to approved. He recommended City Council deny the
appeal.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Commented that it was rare that they have experienced an appeal for the residential building
permit; they have to find some way to balance the rights of both the builders and the
neighbors.
• Said he felt he could not challenge the builder, as they have the right to build a second story.
If the appellant has more legal ground to present other than privacy issue, he said he would
like to hear more legal ground on the issue. He said so far it is based on the presentation and
the legal meaning relates to harmony and compatibility. He said he was unsure who has the
right to explain to the audience, city staff or neighbors; but he understood that the builder has
the right to build the house within the legal boundary, to build the second story. He said he
was undecided whether or not to keep the original neighborhood, it’s the way of the city
development or private investor coming to the city. Or do they welcome the new neighbor, is
it the better way; it is kind of a balance.
• He suggested that the owner and neighbor sit down and discuss how to mitigate the privacy
issues.He said he felt it was a genuine privacy concern about second floor neighbors’ windows
all facing the other resident’s home. The new neighbors should weigh in on it also. Said he
concurred with Com. Lee to deny the appeal.
Com. Brophy:
• Recalled that 26 years ago he attended a Cupertino Planning Commission meeting to oppose
the construction of large homes on small lots proposed behind Lilac Way and exist there now.
Five years ago as a Planning Commissioner, they unanimously agreed to recommend to City
Council that the maximum FAR be reduced from its current number. Unfortunately the City
Council unanimously agreed that the FAR not be changed, and they must work with that limit
set by the elective body. Said as a Planning Commissioner he felt obligated to follow the laws
and policies set by the Council, and as such chooses to support the general concept of the
home that the applicant is proposing. He suggested ways to help ameliorate some of the
impacts and ones that the applicant Mr. Goel has indicated a willingness to work with.
Frosting the upstairs bathroom windows is a reasonable idea for both Mr. Goel and his family
as well as the adjoining property. He requested that prior to issuance of a building permit, the
planting plans be reviewed to ensure they are doing the best they can to provide privacy
separation between the applicant and adjoining property including taking into account the tree
habits throughout the year. The third item that Mr. Goel said he was agreeable to, is possible
reduction in the number of upstairs windows. He said with the additional suggestions, he
would support the application.
Chair Miller:
• Said they discussed reducing the FAR because at that time neighbors were concerned about
the houses being too big for the lots; however, City Council turned it down and has supported
what is currently in place. He said the houses in the neighborhood are relatively small;
however, in Cupertino, 2200 square feet is a fairly modest home and it has been many years
since a house that small has been built in Cupertino as a new home, because most of the
houses are larger; they try to maximize the lots.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 8
• Mr. Goel has tried to mitigate the privacy concerns issue in several ways, in terms of plantings
and window heights exceeding 5 feet. He said his preference was frosting of the windows. He
said he would also be receptive to reducing the number of windows. There have been years of
precedent; with one ruling, it would be a very subjective call and would be in conflict with all
the other approvals given over the years. He said it was difficult, but they feel they need to
comply with the ordinance as is; since Mr. Goel has been meticulous in adhering to every
requirement of the ordinance and not asking for a single exception.
• The issue of property rights is a fine balance between the rights of the neighbors and the rights
of the property owner; but in general the property owner has the right to build what he wants
to build as long as he complies with the rules and he mitigates the negative effects on his
neighbors, which is evident in this case.
Gary Chao:
• The applicant agreed to staff suggested changes relative to the windows, reducing the number
from 7 to 4. Clarified that the current R1 ordinance requires evergreen screening mitigation
measures; it would require the applicant to demonstrate otherwise if there is some sort of
existing unique circumstance; the arborist would have to get involved; but the new trees
planted by the applicant will be evergreen trees. The trees will be recorded on the property as
a covenant running with the land, not this specific applicant. The stated motion should also
include the frosting of the bathroom windows.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Lee, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of the two-
story permit for the new 2,692 square foot single-family residence; with
the conditions that the number of windows on the second story be reduced to
four; bathroom windows on the second story be frosted; and that it be
recognized that within the conditions of approval, the evergreen trees will line
the property line to produce privacy.
Chair Miller noted that the decision is final, unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar
days.
Chair Miller:
• Commented that it has been his experience in Cupertino that new construction in the
neighborhood does not bring property values down; but tends to make property values rise.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: Meeting scheduled for October 11, 2012.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
Vice Chair Sun reported:
Public Safety Commission: Is very active in the community with public transportation as a way
to reduce the city’s and school’s traffic and encourage high school students and parents to carpool;
the first trial at Kennedy School has significantly reduced the traffic there.
Cupertino Planning Commission October 9, 2012 9
Library Commission: Digital books/magazines are now in digital format
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Gary Chao reported:
The City Council directed staff to initiate the ordinance amendment process to amend the tree
ordinance; return in November with some budget consideration. The concept is to consider
options to reconsider mitigations on replacement trees, including fees and also protected species,
potentially deregulating some of the ordinance. Council also authorized the General Plan
amendment process.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on
October 23, 2012.
Respectfully Submitted: ___/s/Elizabeth Ellis_________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary