PC 06-23-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED NQNUTES
6:45 P.M. JUNE 23. 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of Jame 23, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Lisa Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Vice Chairperson:: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Associate Planner: Piu Ghosh
APPROVAL OF MIlVUTES:
Minutes of the June 9, 2009 Planning Commis.~ion meeting:
Page 7: Under Chair Giefer, second to Icrst line: Delete "There was a group of people"
and replace with "The Planning Commission was" ....
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of the June 9, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting as amended.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. M-2009-05; Anjali Arora Modification to the Use Permit (6-U-86) to allow anafter-
(Bethel Lutheran Church) school program for children at the existing Bethel
940 So. Stelling Rd. Lutheran Church. Planning Commission decision frnal
unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2. June 23, 2009
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the ;staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a modification of an existing use permit to allow anafter-
school program for approximately 90 children at the existing Bethel Lutheran Church, as
outlined in the staff report.
• The original use permit was granted in 19F~6 for the church and other ancillary activities; a
conditional use permit is required for specialized schools within the BQ zone. Pazking as
required for the programs operating out of the church on weekdays is 36 spaces and 56
parking spaces aze available, providing a s~.~rplus of 20 spaces. An acoustical analysis was
not warranted with the program because of the distance of the program from residences
which the closest are about 140 feet awa~/ and are buffered by buildings and trees. No
outdoor play will be permitted on the premises as part of the after-school program; the tot lot
at Jollyman Park can be utilized.
• Relative to landscaping, staff recommends requirement for repair and restoration of
irrigation to the existing and new landscaping proposed, and require 4 new 24-inch box trees
in the current dried landscape berm to the north and west of the properties along the two
public rights of way.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to the use permit
per the model resolution.
Aujali Arora, Representing Bethel Lutheran Church, Applicant:
• Requested that there not be a limitation pl;~ced on the children playing outside, relative to
noise. She said that she talked with many neighbors and they were not opposed to children
playing outside, as they have been during the past 9 yeazs that an after-school program has
been held there. If any neighbors do voice concerns, she assured the Planning Commission
that they would do everything to comply to alleviate any possible concerns. She said that
she has circulated a petition in the neighborhood stating that there would be no organized
play on the property.
• Said she appreciated the support of staff.
• She said the after-school program would be€;in in the fall.
• There is an azea in the back, but it will not have any play structures. The park azea at
Jollyman Pazk would be utilized for organized play.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Clarified that play activities refers to orga~iized play activities; there is no prohibition for
children walking around on the property, getting to and from the classrooms; it is the
organized scheduled group activities that th~it may cause concern. It is not a new concept; all
the preschools and daycaze facilities that ~;ome before the Planning Commission have to
address where the organized play will be Held, and where it is going to be delineated for
safety reasons for interface with the neighbors. Relative to the Use Permit, the Planning
Commission could prescribe conditions that in the future if the applicant wishes to modify
their organized play location, delineate somE; facility on the site, they can come back through
a process the Planning Commission can prescribe and as long as the noise implications are
addressed and that the neighbors within 500 feet are notified it can be taken care of.
Anjali Arora:
• Said she would be agreeable to the conditions. She reiterated the support of the neighbors
for the program, and said she had circulated a petition to the neighbors informing them about
the after-school program, noise and parking, and said since they have lived with it for the last
9 years, they were surprised the issue was brought up. She said it was a new subject for the
city and for the Commission to heaz, but it i~; not new in the neighborhood.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 23, 2009
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said when the city acquired part of the Jollyman school property and converted it into the
park, he assumed it didn't provide an acoustical study for the neighborhood. He questioned
why they were discussing whether or not the;re should be an acoustical study, since they were
referring to children merely walking around the yard or to the inside of the school.
• Voiced concern that he felt it was bizarre; children want to play and should be encouraged to
play. He said it seemed that having any lanluage was an extreme case of micro management
that provides no benefit to either the applicant or the surrounding neighbors.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the recommendation was that the noise analysis is not warranted based on the
current plan of the application, the location ~~f the play area and the park. It is not known for
the future if and where there would be an organized play area on the site; it could be located
closer to the adjacent residents at which time an assessment would be made and all the uses
would be required to adhere to the noise ordinance.
• Based on the location of the play structum and the fact that it is currently there and the
children are there; they are not creating an}~ additional impact, it is what it is, an ordinance
specifies decibel maximums at the boundary of the residential to the church, and until we
know exactly where the future new location that the applicant is speaking of; that potentially
may happen; we cannot really answer that question. It may very well be at a place where we
can make the same determination that there is not going to be any potential impact,
Chair Giefer:
• Said that when looking at schools in the past and discussing noise and noise studies, it has
always been tied to a play area, and they ha~re done noise studies when there has been a play
area installed which usually includes some type of play equipment. This is more appropriate
for when we bring it back and discuss it, but one of the things we may want to change under
noise control, Condition 3, is to change it fi•om play time to play structure. It is more finite
and triggerable to tighten the language up.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Farrah Brocl~, Bethel Lutheran Church:
• She referred to Item 6, future review of the permit; wherein it states that in the event of any
documented substantial future parking or noise problems, or in the event the landscape is not
planted, the city reserves the right to review the use permit at any time for additional
mitigation measures. She said it was reasonable to expect that they would mitigate any
concerns over any of the issues; but she fi;lt it was not reasonable to reserve the right to
revoke the use permit; it is a community site and they have several community groups that
use the site. She requested the words "revok.e the use permit" be deleted from the resolution.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Pointed out that there was no construction involved in this request. Under the zoning for this
property, a conditional use permit is required for a child care facility. There are a number of
other facilities that are offered at Bethel Lutheran that would not trigger a conditional use
permit and it appears that for several years a similar program has been run without benefit of
permit and there haven't been any problems.
• Since it is not really a construction project, he said he was in favor of striking Conditions 3,
5 and 6, as he felt they don't have anything to do with using an existing structure for a child
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 23, 2009
care facility. As a former resident who resided across the street from Jollyman Park, he said
he viewed it as a major contribution to the; neighborhood and not something that needs to
have burdens placed upon it. The noise control issue has been covered; he said he did not
think the idea of having an acoustical report: for children to have a play azea made any sense.
Regarding the landscape plan, it would be -nice to have trees planted on Jollyman Lane and
on Stetting, but the burden should not be ~~laced on the operator of the child caze facility.
Relative to No. 6, he said he was uncomfortable with the language. The city has the right in
the case of violations to take actions against a property owner. The language implies that the
city is going to come in and have powers beyond those which it already has. He said he
would prefer to see that pazagraph deleted a~ well.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported the resolution in its pre:;ent state. The noise control is not a big issue;
nothing will happen for the current use, there is no need to do anything. It is only if there is
an organized play area that gets developed on the site. If it was any other child care center
anywhere else in the city, it would require the same thing.
• He said he could go either way on the lands~;ape plan; he concurred with Com. Brophy that it
is not the applicant's fault that the irrigation system is not operating. For future review of
the use permit, he supported it as is, and could entertain something that says additional
mitigation measures and if all else fails, revoke the use permit. Revoking a use permit is a
last resort if somebody is told to fix something and they don't follow through.
Com. Lee:
• The after-school program is important for 1:he community and noise isn't an issue; there is
plenty of pazking; the landscaping has been :neglected for some time.
• In line with beautifying the city, if there ~-re other solutions with rock or woodchips that
conserves water to improve the appeazance, keep the wording as is.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the 19861andscape plan prescribed. standazds for landscaping and presently because
of its condition, it is in violation of the use ~~ermit; through the discretionary approval at this
time, staff is asking it to be upkept. It is the property owner's responsibility, not the
applicant's.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported the application; the noise isn't a problem; it is not going to be a problem
unless the neighbors are disturbed and complain to the city; he supports the condition.
• Supports the landscaping condition also bec~iuse it is replacing what was once there and what
was neglected.
• Revoking the use permit is in the ordinance, he supports the condition.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was in the ordinance; the city has the right to revoke it. She said it is good practice to
let the applicant know what the rules aze, r~-ther than having them wait until the application
is in process.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she supported the application. Relati~~e to the wording of the model resolution with
regards to noise control, she suggested that it be more specific and read "if an outside play
structure is added to the afternoon program..."
Cupertino Planning Commission
June 23, 2009
• Said in fairness to the applicant and being consistent with all the other schools that have been
issued permits, it is a play yazd. She said she would support changing it to something that
would actively trigger a noise study, such a; adding a play yard or play structure. It needs to
be more specific to trigger an activity otherwise the applicant doesn't need to worry about a
noise study.
Com. Kaneda concurred; Com. Lee said she would rather keep it more broad and then the city
has more control.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the recommendation could designate a play azea, stating "outdoor designated play area"
because they are allowed to walk through tree woods or collect leaves; no noise mitigation is
needed for that. The concern is having 20 or 30 kids out there playing at one time. They
don't want to prevent it, but want to make; sure it is in the right location on the site, and
sometimes a noise study helps locate it in the right place.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Asked what the cost of a noise study was (staff did not know). Said he felt the attitude seems
to be that applicants, even the small child care centers, have unlimited funds and time with
which to deal with staff, and Planning Commission. He said he was bothered by the sense
that the various studies and fees are free, which is not so. He said he hoped, if his colleagues
agreed, that they would take that into consideration when they review the conditions.
Com. Miller:
• He said he felt the neighbors have a right. to expect something; and if that something is
changed or taken away, there is always a challenging issue between individual property
rights and community property rights.
• Questioned whether they were making too much of the issue because as the applicant said,
the program has been in place for 9 yeazs and nobody has complained. He suggested it stay
in some form, outside play maybe be too broad, perhaps change it to "outside area" if there
is general agreement.
• Said there still needs to be something in there because the intent here is to protect uses that
are abutting each other from unreasonableness on the part of one vs. the other. There is a
difference between the houses that abut the park, they should expect that there will be noise
from the pazk; but there are other residents there that don't abut the park that shouldn't be
expecting that; they should be expecting th<<t they are buffered, and if suddenly they are not
buffered, there is potentially an issue there;, and that is what the ordinance is designed to
protect against. Said he felt it was a respon;;ibility on the city's part to ensure that whenever
you have different uses abutting one anotlher, they try to make sure they are reasonably
compatible and this is an ordinance that is in place, that tries to achieve that objective.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said that changing the language to "designated outside play area" was improved language
over the current language.
Com. Miller:
• Said it was what he suggested, and he was c~~mfortable with that.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff if there was some way to change the language to trigger this if there is a
complaint rather than as soon as they decide they want an outside play azea.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Aarti Shrivastava:
June 23, 2009
Said it could be written in such a way, that if they do want to put an outside play area there
and the noise analysis comes in as being ~icceptable, they could lower the threshold, they
wouldn't have to come back to the Commi:;sion and it could be done as a Director's Minor
Modification, and they would not have to go through the process. The condition could be
structured that way if that is amenable to the Planning Commission to make it easier for
them to get it done.
Chair Giefer:
• Summarized that there was support from at least 3 Commissioners to modify Condition No.
3 for noise control. A noise study would be done if there was a designated outside play yard
or structure and I would be comfortable making any change to this be a Director's Minor
Modification with regards to that items, that staff would execute that faithfully.
Gary Chao:
• Suggested, No. 5, we did clarify that Para. ]vo. 2, the applicant shall as written maintain the
existing landscaping, and irrigation, so if we can add "the applicant and/or property owner"
to be consistent without discussion; add wording that also includes "and/or the property
owner" so that they are not solely responsible for the maintenance or lack of maintenance of
the landscaping of the property.
Chair Giefer:
• Suggested changing the first and second paragraph, so that it reads the "applicant and/or
property manager" in both the paragraphs. 'T'here is not a nexus between maintenance of the
landscape and the applicant because they are not the property owner. It sounds like they are
working positively toward that end already. An additional change to Cond. 5, would read
"the applicant and/or property owner" for bath Para. 1 and 2.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second 6~y Com. Miller, and unanimously carried, to
approve Application M-2009-OS with the following modifications: Item 3 noise
control, the ordinance be changed to "a designated outdoor play yard or
structure for the after-school program is not approved with this modification; a
designated outdoor play yard or l;tructure may be allowed subsequent to an
acoustical report conducted to determine the noise levels and appropriate
mitigation measures; subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director;" Item No. 5, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit a
landscape plan to be reviewed by tl-e Director of Community Development; and
in the second paragraph the applicant and/or property owner shall also maintain
the existing landscaping.
OLD BUSINESS:
2. 2009-2010 Planning Commission Work Program discussion continued from May 12,
2009.
The Planning Commission discussed the recommended additions and changes to the 2009/10 work
program.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Green Building Policy:
Chair Giefer:
June 23, 2009
Said that the Planning Commission was unanimous with regards to the progress that they
would like to see. Staff has provided information with regards to a number of different
programs and policies that the city is currently working on. Also discussed in depth some of
the things Green Planner Erin was working on. With the comments made the last time, there
are some missed opportunities with green building where we might be able to provide
additional value.
Com. Miller:
• Said he thought it was a broader scope to begin with, and he thought they were going to talk
about sustainability and the items listed. He :;aid he saw little if any direct involvement of the
Planning Commission; however, if they are talking about sustainability, then they are talking
about land use and land use planning is theiir purview is something they could focus on as
opposed to something that other people are doing.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she agreed.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Going along with what Com. Miller said, it seems that one of the core issues is really
evaluating both the building codes and the planning process and it appears to have been
downgraded relative to things that are less directly related to the Planning Commission's area
of expertise.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the green building program was on the Commission's work program this year as well
as the review of the Phase II recommendations. The other sustainability questions about land
use is new, and will be forwarded to Council as well so that they can take that up.
Chair Giefer:
• Recalled that when the Green Building Collaborative made its initial recommendation and it
was adopted and approved as a voluntary ]program, it was supposed to be reviewed and
potentially the recommendation of the Collab~~rative was to take the green building standards,
implement it initially as a voluntary program a.nd then adopt it as a mandatory program after 18
months to 2 years.
• As pointed out by Vice Chair Brophy, it is t:he appropriate time for the Commission to start
looking at that and figure out if it has been successful and really understanding what the impact
of the voluntary program is. She said it w<<s her understanding that they have one green
certified home through the build-a-green checklist within the community. The Council has
made funds available to pay for green point riders within the community. She said she was
not aware of the status of the funds and there may be a carryover of funds still available.
• One of Erin's tasks is to work on developing an Environmental Stewardship Council,. At the
conclusion of the General Plan Task Force, a task force or steering committee was
recommended and Council decided they wanted to move ahead quicker on it and so they
decided to hire a green planner and try to accelerate things. If there is anything we can do to
help drive that activity and accelerate it, and what I am hearing I agree with, sustainable land
use is key and something that we should be looking at, and also we should be looking at how
we can come up with a green building policy that is mandatory and acceptable to the
community and move forward on that as well.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 23, 2009
Com. Lee:
• Said they needed a green building policy anti sustainability in their planning land use.
Gary Chao:
• Said the present focus is to document whit we are doing and get the data to prepaze for
discussion on our performance. The focus for Erin is that we need to concentrate on our
own infrastructure, city facilities, buildings, everything we do so that we can assess and then
provide policies to change our infrastructure: so that we can be good models for us to preach
all these good things to the community. Once we get us straightened out, then we can go to
the community.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it would be enlightening to have Erin look at where they aze, not just the city but also
the community; and what the AB32 goals are and in a general way, what would it take to get
there by 2030 and 2050. He said the numl'~ers were shocking and he was concerned that if
they were going to try to get anywhere remotely close to them, that the steps all the
communities are taking in the Bay Area are- baby steps and they will never come close. At
some point, the sooner the better, either we need to say we are not going to make it, or we
need to say we need to look at wrapping things up, we need to come to the realization of
where we aze and where we are trying to go and whether or not we even have a chance to get
there, because that is something he said he did not have a good feel for.
• If Erin could show some numbers or graph; that would give a sense of what it would take.
He said that he has seen things that say w~e need to be doing zero energy buildings in 10
years or you have no chance, and he was not sure this community or any others in the Bay
Area aze ready to be doing that.
Aarti Shrivastava:
I think a lot of what you are saying and we c.in follow up with her, is going to be part of that
next phase of the environmental for the Environmental Stewardship Task Force, that gets put
together, and as soon as information comes out, we will make sure we will bring it to the
Planning Commission. We have talked to Erin about the Planning Commission's interest in
this issue and she has agreed to come from time to time, time permitting, and at least give us
information so that we can bring it to you.
Com. Kaneda:
• Some of the big picture big scope items just to get us started to give us a framework of what
it will take; have heard comments such as, in order to get there, you have to also in the next
ten or twenty yeazs remodel every existing home in the Bay Area down to one-fifth of their
energy use, just astounding things. There are some major changes that would have to
happen and the sooner we can have that discussion in public and have people thinking about
what will it take, the better it will be.
Chair Giefer:
• There is a big disconnect between your actions today and they don't understand the
deliverables of AB32 and that was one of the discussions with Erin.
• Erin was invited to come at least quarterly to start that process with people who attend and
view the Planning Commission meeting. What I have from all of the Commissioners is the
sustainable land use policy which is within our purview, green building policy which is also
within our purview because it's how you build houses and commercial structures and
everything else within the community.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 23, 2009
• We don't want to wait to get started on that work and would like Council's support and
direction to begin that and make that a high priority for us this year.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the green building policy was in the Planning Commission's work program and staff
would forward the additional sustainable land use policy to the Council as well.
Com. Miller:
• Pointed out that they would be starting in July according to the schedule. As stated previously,
land use is in the Commission's purview, their primary function. He said they should be
providing input to this Committee or Council or whatever they are doing rather than telling
them us what we need to do. I think that is our primary responsibility and I would welcome
those discussions.
Medium Priority
Lone: Term Assessment of the Citv's Job/Housin~ Balance
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Commented that No. 2 implies that they are dealing with the issue of surplus jobs relative to
housing in Cupertino, and No. 4 implies that they are going to try to figure out how to put in
even more jobs.
Com. Miller:
• Said that initially he was looking at things that could be combined and then came to the
conclusion that they are all part of the same i:;sue, because in one of the paragraphs under No.
2 it talks about reducing green house gases, which is part of No. 1 and the only question is how
to parcel it out so that at each meeting, what do we talk about first. They are all inter-related.
• Referred to the last sentence which says "that we should not do anything until we see what the
next housing element requirements are." He said it was an issue for him because it is saying
that they will abdicate their responsibility to the state where some bureaucrat is going to define
something and that is how they will do their housing program. He said he felt it was the
Commission's responsibility to act in the best interest of the community and doing it in their
own timeframe and worry about whatever tltr~e state's requirements are whenever they come
down and figure out how we can make the two work together; as opposed to sitting around
waiting for them to tell them something which they would then follow.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff if they had any sense of how the requirements are changing, or could they come
back next round with something totally different?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the staff packet contains a copy c~f the projections data showing what ABAG is
looking at; and Cupertino has been compared to the region and the county. ABAG projects
that it is generally going to stay in the same :range in terms of percentage of city and county,
but then the number would change based on what number the state gives you. The state
assigns a number. That aside, that's ABAG; the city can certainly decide to move forward on
its own to look at sustainability, land use, how does it all fit together. ABAG doesn't see a
huge shift; they see growth moving more to~~vards areas that do have transit, so Cupertino's
share doesn't look like it is going to increase.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 23, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he understood that the methodology for coming up with a number was in flux, and that
number could end up being calculated a verb different way, and potentially come up with a
very different number that in a couple oi" yeazs from now, the calculations would be
meaningless.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• ABAG updates its projections every two years, and these aze its most recent projections that
they tried to base on AB32 and try to come as close as possible and working with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and SB375. Admittedly, they aze not aggressive
enough even by their own admissions to be able to achieve all of the goals of AB32, but they
aze trying to work within an existing environment.
• It might get more aggressive, but Cupertino's share doesn't appear to be going up much
higher. That said, the shaze is only a percentage, but it depends on the final amount that is
given by the state, so if the state estimates that our region is going to get a much larger number
than we got lost time, our shaze of that will bc; the same, but the number might be higher. If it
is lower, then obviously the number will be lower.
Com. Kaneda:
• Based on what you aze saying, we should have a reasonably educated guess at what those
numbers should be, that from the surface it seems like there shouldn't be any major changes
where they aze just going to recalculate things in a very different way.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• They aze trying to move away from creating .a methodology, but have the projection numbers
basically dictate the numbers, because they da try to sync their total numbers up with the state,
and they aze able to refute those numbers. That is ABAG; of course the community can start
their process whenever they want to; and I thank you aze already talking about trying to blend
sustainability and land use.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he concurred with Com. Miller who has :;fated many times that he would like to get ahead
of the curve and not behind the curve.
Chair Giefer:
• Said when reviewing the housing element, they were cautioned by the consultant working on
the project that if they identified sites for residential development, and then didn't follow
through on that, they would be penalized.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Confirmed that they would be penalized, but that it was related to the rezoning of sites, not
actual buildout. They are not required to put in the units, but aze required to take all actions to
be able to put those in.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said they could rezone to residential and turn them down when they actually come in with a
proposal.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• If it is your housing element, I think unless we have a good reason, it is difficult; which is
why we say we need to put them in a place where the community feels comfortable. If you
Cupertino Planning Commission 11
June 23, 2009
think it is a bad idea, we would not recommend rezoning those for residential.
• Suggested they tie it into the sustainability and land use.
Chair Giefer:
• I think it will naturally fall out of sustainable land use policies, because that is key to
developing sustainable land use.
Have we changed our minds about its ranking?
low priority; has it moved at all.
Is it still a medium priority or a hgh priority or
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Given the number one item that we have in terms of green building policy, I would rather
spend a great deal of time and get it right rather than having a multiplicity of projects and do a
mediocre job on each of them.
Com. Miller:
• There is no way of avoiding it; when we talk about sustainability, it is going to come up as part
of the subject, so I am not sure it matters whether we change the priority or not, we are going
to be discussing it.
Process Improvement Evaluation
Chair Giefer:
• Staff is already working on an internal review with an external consultant and will share that
information towards the end of the summer. IMP we believe there should be further action on our
part, we can initiate it at that time.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she would look at the process that was originally put into place, but this will come to the
Commission and Council and if the Commission has some recommendations, we could
forward that up and the Council could look at i:hose as well.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Given Com. Miller's point which I think was very good, what is currently called No. 2, large
parts of that will be covered under the Green Building Policy issue that perhaps would be
better to make the process improvement issue our No. 2 project and to deal with significant
numbers of the No. 2 points is as part of green building. No. 3 strikes me as a more discreet
project apart from green building.
• Make No. 3 No. 2, put some language in for the housing, either incorporate some of the
language from No. 2 into the green building or reference it. Then make that No. 3; either way
I think that would work.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she was comfortable with that.
Create a Strategic Plan and Incentives for Start-Uns
Com. Miller:
Said his vision was that they spend a lot of time on housing policy; some time on
transportation, very little time on commercial and office development and don't really have a
long range plan for how that fits into everythvig else that is going on in the city. He said they
have discussed that there are only so many ofI ice allocations in the General Plan, there is only
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:? June 23, 2009
so many commercial allocations and he has no knowledge of how the numbers got there or
what they mean. In the General Plan update there wasn't a lot of time devoted to talking about
commercial and office; it did not seem to be a major problem, it just tagged along.
• All the time was spent on other things; housiing primarily; particularly in these times the one
thing that seems to be on Council's mind is h~~w to increase the sales tax revenues and that fits
into what the strategy is with regards to commercial and office space and how does that play.
• He said as Planning Commission discussion that it made sense to talk about what their
strategies are for commercial and office development, and how do they fit in with everyone
else they are trying to do in Cupertino. If yoL~ begin to talk to those points, then you are going
to have to have some discussions with current: owners, current businesses in the city and try to
figure out why did they locate here; what are we doing right or wrong? How can we make
things better moving forward and what does that mean for our planning process the next time a
development project comes in and we understand a little better what the current environment is
and what it needs to be moving forward over the next decade or so; which is very different
than just let's focus on incentives for start-ups.
Chair Giefer:
• Asked Com. Miller if his thinking was from a policy perspective, land use policy level, what
they should do different with regards to commercial businesses, or thinking more of economic
development for the city.
Com. Miller:
• Said the Planning Commission's job is land use, hence his thoughts are from a land use
standpoint. What are they doing well that they should continue doing; should they revise
things they are not doing well so that when ne:w projects come in for commercial development
and office development or some mixed use combination of the two, they have something to
anchor them; and to decide if this project makes sense in terms of what else is going on and
what our overall policy is or isn't. Presently there is no policy, everything is done on an ad
hoc basis. Said he did not know if many cities ever pay attention to this; does Mountain View
do that?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that Mountain View does not do that; they try to do that by keeping in touch with
businesses, try to get feedback from them; lout very often what businesses want is counter
balanced by some of the impacts they create to the neighbors. If asking the business what is
the best process for them, they might outline; something very different than what we would
require; primarily because we are trying to cocmter balance some of that; so they try to balance
that and try to adjust their way.
• Cupertino does a good job in streamlining applications while also trying to make sure that the
neighbors are noticed. I think it would help 'us and the Council flush it out more if we got a
better idea, is the reward program that you are thinking of, is there a process where this may
end up; might this end up with changes to ow° ordinance in the way we process requirements,
just so that the Council understands, or we are able to explain better to the Council what this
project might be.
Com. Miller:
• He said he was presenting an idea for consideration. There are different areas in town that do
better in terms of rental than other places, and said he was not sure they understood why that is
happening. When a business owner or developer comes into town they have to go through this
process and if the Commission goes through it first, it puts them ahead when someone comes
in with a project and they can say that makes a lot of sense because of the following reasons
Cupertino Planning Commission 1:1 June 23, 2009
that we spent some time thinking about. He s~iid he was not sure anyone has done it before and
would be surprised if they couldn't fmd examples, but wanted to solicit feedback from the
other commissioners.
Com. Kaneda:
• I think it is a good idea, I would presume that: Kelly Kline needs to be heavily involved in the
process. My only other thought is that it would be personally interesting for me to dig into that
but Planning Commissioners come and go on a fairly short timeframe; staff hopefully on a
much longer timeframe.
• In some ways it seems like the people who :you want to make sure have that education and
knowledge of how that works aze staff more than us although I think it is a good idea and
would be very interested in following through with something like this.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• At this point I am not sure what the project is; I think we need to work on defining it; it looks
to me that it has already been kicked out of this year's work program. I would be interested in
looking at what we could do to define it, but right now we don't have a project at this stage.
Com. Kaneda:
• If I understand correctly, are you saying that: we need to educate ourselves on what aze the
things that influence the mazket.
Com. Miller:
• Yes, the first part of a project like this is the rf;seazch, and I would encourage a dialog with the
businesses in the city, assuming we could hold such a dialog, to get an idea from them if they
have thought about it, and if they have, know what it is they find, why do people locate here
• Said businesses or a sophisticated developer would be able to answer it better. I think it is a
combination; if we invited an urban planner, they would have some very specific comments
and very definite ideas about what they think is appropriate or not appropriate.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that Cupertino is in the forefront because they took the step and hired Kelly Kline as a
liaison with other businesses.
• I would like to brainstorm with Kelly Kline if you can help us flush this out a little bit and the
Council thinks we can move forwazd, it may be difficult in this timeframe, but we could do
either a combination of getting Kelly's expertise, having a small subcommittee, the Planning
Commission do some research in coming up v~ith something to supplement staff in putting out
a white paper of some sort which we would e;~cpect to change from time to time as the climate
and economy changes. We also have an Economic Development Committee so we do have
ways where the city tries to stay connected in those terms.
• One is the office allocation and the sign ordinance which the Planning Commission will be
looking at are functions of what we aze hearing from businesses about what they need, so we
do continue doing this. In terms of why some centers aze successful or not, I think it is a
combination of management, ownership, the ~-illingness to reinvent oneself, the cost; there is a
lot of items. We could do it in a variety of wa~~s.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she found the discussion regarding what influences the market interesting, but had
difficulty identifying how it could be brought back to land use and policy. There aze some
very finite things such as the sign ordinance, barking, things that businesses need; but she felt
they were not as high a priority this year compared to some of the other things being discussed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 1,I June 23, 2009
Com. Miller:
• The priority aside; we are creating a list of things we think are worth spending time on,
whether they happen this year or next year is a separate issue. I think that we are going to
continue to see development projects come i~rto town, and to the extent that we understand a
little better what would work or not work for the business community, it helps us in evaluating
those development projects when they do come into town. It may in fact turn out that from a
land use standpoint, we decided that there .are certain areas in the city that are zoned for
commercial now that don't make a lot of sense; or the reverse. Those are very specific land
use issues and it may turn out that it is a waste; of time, but I tend not to believe that, because if
we are educating ourselves and the staff, the}~ can only be to our benefit when larger projects
come in that we have to devote some serious effort.
Com. Lee:
• Said she felt it would be useful to look at office and land use.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that if there were funds available in the budget, they could bring in a speaker to talk with
the Planning Commission instead of doing the whole project.
Chair Giefer:
• No. 4 will remain on the list as a medium priority.
Low Priority
Crossroads Plan/Other Specific Plans
Com. Miller:
• Putting properties onto the list that goes to satisfy the housing element does imply some level
of commitment on the city's part. Another possible activity that we may want to consider is
staff recommended some very specific sites and the Council went on to approve them and we
approved them here. I am not sure we looked at them completely in terms of what kind of
development might best work there and the issues that we are going to have to face if a
development application came in and how it would be nice to have thought about that in
advance so that we facilitate the process when people do come in because the objective is if it
is in the housing element, we want to try and snake it work.
• Even if some of the members of the public got up and spoke to the issue of process and
implementation, when they said it would be nice if the commercial was up front with the
housing in the rear, there are a number of issues that go along with that; where does the
parking go, if it is a mixed use project, is it horizontal mixed use or vertical mixed use, and
some of the sites are deep and it's easy to do one vs. the other, and some are shorter in depth.
There are enough variations in all these sites that it might be worth our time to take a look at
these sites more on an individual basis and think about how development would actually occur
that meets this requirement we are signing up for.
• Said he was talking about preplanning some of the sites identified, in general to come up with
some general policies; taking a look at the sil:es as examples, but using that to come down to
some specific policies in terms of how they vrould like to see those developments go forward
when applicants decide they want to take advantage of that and come in with a project.
Chair Giefer:
• Asked staff if that was part of their evaluation in estimating 300 to 400 hours of staff time.
Cupertino Planning Commission l:i June 23, 2009
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said no, they thought they were looking at the Crossroads plan; this again is an example of
something concrete that was being talked about;. Regazding prototypes, we can work with an
urban design consultant to bring 3 or 4 prototypes of different sites that the Planning
Commission might select. I know we had some examples of this in Heart of the City; maybe
we could improve it further, but just show some suggestions of how a corner site may be
developed; how a narrow site may be developed, with housing in the back, so people before
they come in understand what the city's expectations are in terms of just the basic
expectations. We could have arrows pointing to mitigations or landscaping in the back so they
know how we would like the site to be put together. We could do something like that; it is
difficult to come up with a cost and time, but do you see this as part of Heart of the City
appendix, or an appendix to housing element; we could forwazd this up and say a few sites.
We will forward this to Council once we knov~~ the cost and time and let you know as well.
Com. Miller:
He said to some extent he saw it as a process improvement; presently when someone comes in
with a proposed project and site in mind; they go back and forth through a vaziety of steps
before it is presented to the Planning Commission and then onto City Council in some cases.
If some general guidelines are set up front, thy: Planning Commission has in essence had some
input at the front end of the process, which staff can use as guidelines, and staff is in a better
position to say here is our recommendations; here is what the Planning Commission has put
down on paper. If the guidelines aze followed, it is going to be a smoother course through the
entire process, because I would assume whatever we recommend here, the Council is also
going to approve and if there is some general agreement which may be too idealistic to hope
for, it is worth the try because it is a process improvement that we come up with some
guidelines that are quite helpful in terms of developer or owners needs in terms of his going
through with a specific project.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Commented that in his experience he has sec;n no evidence that guidelines will be followed
when actual projects come up. Planning Commissions and City Councils will decide each
project on an ad hoc basis regazdless of long a~mplex design processes.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was prepazed to ask the question that Vice Chair Brophy just commented on. He asked
staff what their experience was based on that; when it comes up in front of the Planning
Commission or City Council and it is something that was decided on six months or a yeaz ago,
will it be new again and will everything have to go through a rethinking process.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that in general it works well when the ~~ommunity is involved and they are part of the
process; there is agreement and you have some prototypes. She said it worked successfully in
downtown Mountain View where there has been a fairly consistent agreement on the part of
the community about the kinds of acceptable development and those prototypes have helped
immensely in being able to raise the threshold of good azchitecture. There is also a time
phasing; the longer the time lag is from the time those prototypes aze put together and there has
been some time lag between 5 to 7 yeazs and more, it starts getting old and they have to do it
fresh. If somebody came in to say I want to redevelop this site having some prototypes that the
community agrees on, the Council, the Planning Commission and community members, it is
great. The Heart of the City had some of that, but in the latest iteration they have all been
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 23, 2009
taken out; so I assume it is a pendulum, and vve are happy to look at it again or at least move it
forwazd to the Council as a suggestion; it is a good one.
Com. Miller:
• In response to Vice Chair Brophy's comment, he said his first thought would what Ms.
Shrivastava said, that Mountain View is the example to look at. It is a finite project because
they aze talking about the timeframe that they have to implement the housing element which is
4 to 5 years. They have all made a commitment to these sites, the Planning Commission as
well as the City Council and it doesn't serve <<nyone's purpose to have these applications come
up and run them around the block six times, ii' we aze really serious about doing this
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he was not sure that downtown Mountai~i View was a fair comparison because it wasn't a
question as to land use, it was more a questiion of intensity and azchitectural design. If you
think that a General Plan that defines densitiE;s and locations, similaz to what the Heart of the
City plan does will make it easier for developers, he said he was suspect that the people at Toll
Brothers would have a different opinion on th;~t subject.
Com. Miller:
• When a developer comes into town to propose a project, he talks to staff, City Council and he
may or may not talk to the Planning Commission, usually he neglects the Planning
Commission until just before the hearing. He looks to the City Council to see if he can get a
majority vote to move forwazd with the particulaz project. That is a very ad hoc way of doing
things, and he said he was proposing to put some more structure in place on an process that
already goes on informally.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she felt it was the wrong yeaz to do that, type of spending and preferred to stay with the
projects already identified as priority.
Com. Miller:
He said he would prefer to put it on the list, acid not exclude it just because they may not get to
it this year. Not having it on a long term list, the budget has already been put in place, and it is
too late for someone to come in and say they ~,vould like the money to do the project; however,
if it is on the list, it won't be forgotten when ~.he next budget is done. If the Council sees that,
we the stewards of land use will make certain it is not forgotten. As in any process, if you drop
it from the list, it is much easier to be forgotten than if it was on the list and it gets brought up
again next yeaz.
Com. Kaneda:
• Keep it on the list, but keep it as a low priority.
Com. Miller:
• He suggested that it be added to the list in place of the Crossroads plan. He said he felt it
would be more palatable for the City Council.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they could put both projects as examples of what could be done and the Council can look
at them. These are just examples of looking at parts of the city, and it can remain the priority
you wanted.
Cupertino Planning Commission 1'1 June 23, 2009
Com. Lee:
• Said she would like to add it on No. 5.
Com. Kaneda:
• He reiterated to add it to the list.
Affordable Housing Metholo~v
Chair Giefer:
• To summarize, trying to create more proactive policy to incentive affordable housing in
addition to our BMR program. Is this something for us or for the Housing Commission to
evaluate?
Com. Miller:
• Said it was the land use issues in developing affordable housing projects and strategies. It is
important to the Housing Commission and it might make sense that this project when it goes
forwazd, be done in some ways in conjunction with the Housing Commission.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she was not opposed to it; they should be addressing it.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was in favor of it, and asked staff to provide information on what kind of tools they
can bring to beaz to address this.
Com. Miller:
• Said some of the issues related to density and zoning; and some have to do with ways to
facilitate affordable housing projects. He sand he was working with a group in Hollister on
affordable housing there; it has to do with hour you find the site, how you score the site or how
you get the site scored to be acceptable so that you can get outside funding and grants to make
it viable.
Parkinn Standards
Chair Giefer:
• Asked if there was any discussion on not evaluating this year, parking at restaurants and some
very successful retailers.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for staff s input. There is a comment that says that the numbers are good in general, but
if the restaurant is popular, then you will have parking problems.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said that the problem is that the current numbers require insufficient parking for grocery stores
and restaurants and probably requires too much pazking for non-restaurant retail uses. He said
he did not look at it as a major project, but felt it should be looked at the staff level to evaluate
whether or not the numbers should be adjusted. He said in making an empirical observation of
Cupertino Planning Commission 1 ~B June 23, 2009
what he saw in Cupertino, the first thing he v~~ould suggest is to have an intern collect the data
from other cities to look at it and see if there are similar experiences. He cited the example of
Cupertino Village not having enough parking because it is essentially a restaurant project with
a grocery store, and as a result, at lunch time there have been times when there is no place to
park. That is a classical example of shortage of parking for grocery stores and restaurants.
There are other centers where the reverse is the case, such as the Lucky Center.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Usually when you do these, you might have- successful examples in town and unsuccessful
examples. One of the difficulties is you tendl to look at an average because you try to get a
good set; you don't always look at the high end of things when you do parking. When you do a
study, you typically come up with an average that is pretty close, and we have tried to do this
with other cities to try to get as close as possible to what we think is the impact. The other
issue, for example if Luckys went out of business and Whole Foods moved in, that would
create an entirely new dynamic without the ability to change the parking. As centers get
repopulated and re-tenanted, that mix keeps changing and it is hard for us to say for Luckys it
is okay, but for you it isn't; and so it puts us in a difficult position and so that is why we try to
go with an average and let behavior balance the rest out.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• I am not suggesting that we should try to evaluate each business and how it does; in the case in
the Luckys Center, the reason why there is a surplus of parking, is because the substantial
amount of the square footage there is either the drugstore or the small shop space, so that even
if you replaced Luckys with one of the more successful centers, you still would have more than
enough parking.
• He pointed out that the standards are clearly deficient in some areas and probably overly
demanding in others, and he was not sure it was a Commission issue, but felt it should be
allotted some time given some of the problem; that exist with BJs, Panera, and Peets.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they could look at other cities and compare parking standards; but if they know that they
will have a use that is defmitely going to create impacts and it's a special kind of use, they do
have the ability to look at it on another project case basis.
Chair Giefer:
• It will remain on the list. This will go forward on July 7'~ to City Council.
• Very specifically we would like the No. I high priority title to be changed from Green
Building Policy to Sustainable Land Uses and Green Building Policy.
• Send to City Council as a Minute Order.
Chair Giefer opened the meeting for public comm~;nts.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was pleased to see that the Santa CIaJ•a County Board of Supervisors has approved the
pursuit of the San Tomas Aquino trails becau:~e that will help in the effort to acquire the piece
of land along Lawrence Expressway as a park for Cupertino and the eastern areas.
• She commented on the number of recent rezonings of commercial property along Stevens
Creek Blvd., much of it in the Heart of the City and adjacent to the Rancho Rinconada
neighborhood and the eastern area of Cupertino. She discussed the number of additional new
units if full buildouts were done at the various intersections in question and its negative impact
on the city of Cupertino. She said ABAG needed to get in step with the housing imbalance.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 June 23, 2009
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, seconded Icy Com. Kaneda and unanimously carried to
send a Minute Order to City Council
NEW BUSINESS• None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Meeting c~mcelled.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
• Com. Kaneda reported at previous Planning C~~mmission meeting.
Economic Develoument Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMiJr~TITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava reported:
The budget was approved as well as a draft housing element to be sent to HCD.
The Director's report includes the final list of sites, none of the sites in Heart of the City were
required to be rezoned since they already had residential designation and the result was only
having to rezone one azea and that was mainl}~ to take out a density requirement to the zoning.
The site allowed residential and the General Plan designation is consistent with the
recommendation, so we tried to keep the number of rezone sites to a minimum and we ended
up with only one site. Will be forwazded Ito the HCD, hopefully they will accept it; the
Planning Commission and City Council will b~~ informed.
The Growing Tree Learning Centers was approved, with one clazification by Council. There
was a one yeaz extension approved on an old '['antau project and that typically is ministerial, it
is done without a public hearing because it is within what our code allows.
Com. Kaneda:
• Announced that on June 11~', the Green Building Task Force would present the Phase 2
recommendations to the Santa Claza county Cities Assoc.
• She reported that the San Jose City Council would discuss their green building ordinance at
their meeting tonight.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to tl-e next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for July 14, 2009 at 6::45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: ~ ~
is~ g ecre
Approved as Presented: July 28, 2009