PC 10-13-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVI'sD MINUTES
6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 13, 2009. TUESDAY
CUPERTINO CC-MMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, 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 Pllanner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner AICP: Colin Jung
Assistant City Attorney: Valerie Armento
Environmental Planner: Erin Cook
APPROVAL OF NIINiJTE5:
September 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Lee, second by (~om. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0, to
approve the September 22, 2009 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Giefer noted materials related to agenda items.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. TM-2009-02 (EA-2009-09) Tentative Map to subdivide a 13.47 acre parcel into four
TR-2009-16 parcels ranging from 2.86 acres to 3.65 acres each;
Robert Bigler Tree removal and replacement of 6 Coast Live Oaks
22045 Regnart Road Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Colin, Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for tentative map to subdivide a 13.47 acre parcel into four parcels
and tree removal and replacement of six Coast Live Oak trees, as outlined in the staff report.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib ~! October 13, 2009
• He reviewed the background of the property, which is part of Regnart Canyon, which was
subdivided in the 1970s according to General Plan land use designation of very low density
residential-semi-rural slope density formula except for the Bigler's property, which was
originally owned by Cecil Mahon. In 1993 the city changed General Plan land use
designations for Regnart Canyon to very low density residential - 5-20 acre slope density
formula. In 1994 the prior property owner Mahon obtained city approval to change the
General Plan designation and rezone the properly with a maximum subdivision potential of
four pazcels. However, due to lack of fund; the subdivision was not completed. In 1998, the
current owners Mr. and Mrs. Bigler purchased the property.
• He discussed the subdivision design; septic system development (Regnart Canyon is only
subdivision in Cupertino that receives r~o sanitary sewerage service; all systems are
reviewed by the County Environmental Health Department); geotechnical review; tree
removal; protected trees; dilapidated buildings; and Environmental Review Committee
review, as detailed in the staff report.
• He reviewed neighbors' concerns including; potential street lights on the southern driveway
(there aze no lights proposed in the projec:t; no housing proposed yet); concern about the
drainage solution from the southerly drivev~-ay; (the subdivision plans have drainage features
incorporated in them and it is also subject to requirements for storm water retention because
of the size of the project); allowed density for the project, (the four lots aze within the
General Plan density range, the semi-rural slope density formula is compatible with the
General Plan designation). Several neighbors have requested a continuance for more time to
review the project.
• Several neighbors have expressed the desire for continuance of the application to provide
them more time to review the proposed project.
• Staff recommends approval of the tentative map and tree removal application.
• Staff answered Commissioners' questions. The noticing radius was extended to 1,000 feet
and delivered within 10 days of the hearing. Relative to fencing in the hillside, depending on
the size of the lot, one can only fence off' a small footprint of the property itself, usually
encompassing the house and a rear yard; the; fencing has to be open or transpazent fencing.
Robert Bigler, Applicant:
• Said they also owned the adjacent property and planned to build on the property purchased
from Mr. Macon. Said that they did not plate to sell the subdivided lots, but wanted to keep it
in the family for their children.
• Responded to concerns expressed by neighbors: There are no street lights proposed; there
may be some on the driveways, one foot tall, 24 volt lighting that would cast a glow on the
driveway; no light shining on others properties. The drainage systems include elaborate
systems for guiding, trapping and storing vrater and aze subject to the highest standazds for
water management. The reason for two driveways is that there is a steep slope down the
middle of the property that the Fire Department would not allow a driveway on.
• Relative to the request for a delay, he said lie was puzzled that there were people in Regnart
Canyon who weren't awaze that the property had been subdivided, as most of the neighbors
rallied behind Mr. Macon to help him maintain the property subdivision potential. He said
unless there is a compelling reason to postpone it, he would prefer to move forward.
• He said he had no interesting in fencing the property.
• Said that the driveway needs to have an overall slope acceptable to the Fire Department, and
be widened according to their requirements for emergency access.
• He said that he treasured the trees, and disagreed that some of them need to be removed and
would continue to work toward rescuing some of the trees that others feel cannot be saved.
Said they negotiated with the Fire Department narrowing of the 20 foot driveway to 15 feet.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib :~ October 13, 2009
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Anjale Tate, Regnant Road:
• Resides across the street from the proposed subdivision. Said a major concern was the
timing; as she only received the notification in the mail about 7 days ago, the sign for the
subdivision was posted on Thursday and they received access to the lengthy document
several days ago. They have not had adequate time to research this and based upon
comments heazd felt it reinforced the need to get more information regarding the leach lines.
• Said that none of them had leach lines and they needed to understand if they are going to be
pumping sewage uphill; are there accommodations for loss of power. Uphill leach lines are
fraught with significant problems; she would not want to live down from a leach line.
• In the 2008 geologic study, concern was raised that a fair amount of this property was
backfill as well as landslides and it was readdressed in 2009. They just reviewed some of the
earlier findings and based upon the new proposed lot lines and leach lines, made new
recommendations. However, they did qualify the recommendation that further studies were
needed and they haven't gained access to azry of those subsequent studies and as was pointed
out, some of the boring sites were not withv1 the leach lines. To be appropriate, one needs to
have the boring lines in the locations of thy; proposed leach lines to understand the geology
there. She said they experienced some of that when they did their home,; the area is filled
with landslides and some very unstable areas as well as backfill from prior developments.
• Drainage is also a major concern. She noted that today there was a significant amount of
water pouring down the driveway down Regnant Road. She said that prior to any further
development on this property, it needs to b~~ understood how the drainage will be addressed
as well as what the impact of the additional properties will have on the subdivision.
• Lot size was also a concern; when the property was owned by Mr. Mahan, it was changed to
a sub-rural or semi-rural zoning; the intent ~of that was to preserve Mr. Mahan's value of the
property and he probably recognized it when he sold the property to the Biglers.
May Koski, Regnart Road:
• (resides across the street from Bigler property.)
• Expressed concern about drainage; not only was the water running down Regnant Road and
driveways all over, but the drainage from that property significantly comes into Regnart Creek
at .her property. She said she owned the property that the creek is on; she had to buy it when
she replaced her culvert ten years ago, at a cost of $70K. She said that larger homes increase
the runoff. She said there was no mention of her property or the fact that the water drains onto
her property.
• There is a landslide potential, with landslides in many places. Property across from the Biglers
was acquired because of the exorbitant costs to the developers because of stability issues. She
said that in 1998 they had a landslide behind their house in the open space.
• Said she wanted assurance that there aren't going to be any street lights; however, they are
going to have to do something with the driveways just to make sure the Fire Department can
get in.
• Sidewalks don't belong on Regnazt Road, they are nowhere in the rural part of the road and
they should be removed from the plan.
• Heavy equipment: there is a lot of development across the street from her house; she has a
pullout over her old culvert, and owns the property next to the road. She does not want any
heavy equipment on the culvert and the driveway as she has had to replace the culvert before.
• Said she did not agree with all the comments about tree removal; she felt some of the trees
marked for removal could be saved, and suggested that a second opinion be sought on the tree
hanging over the driveway.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib ~4 October 13, 2009
• She said she was now aware of the locati~~n of the second driveway; she resides by the
northerly driveway, and would like to make sure that the driveways remain offset from her
driveway. She noted that the driveway was very steep and was surprised that the fire trucks
could get up there.
• Wildlife and fencing: Fencing is not a part of a subdivision decision; there are strict guidelines
for board fencing around houses; however, none for deer fencing or transparent fencing; you
can put it where you think you need it. Therc; needs to be changes on the way deer fencing is
permitted; they don't have to be 20 feet to keep them out; there are plenty of neighbors who
have the correct deer fencing now over most c-f their yards.
• Said her biggest concern was the drainage because the drainage comes to her house and there
is nothing in the report that mentions her, ;her house, or her property. She said she went
through a major ordeal to put in a culvert for the 100 year flood; but there is nothing that talks
about the 100 year flood for this subdivision.
• Asked for a continuance to review the document for a better understanding.
Kim Gudmundson, Regnart Road:
• Said she was a neutral party and did not want to stop the project.
• Received postal notices at different times; jList received hers 4 days ago and she sent out e-
mails to her neighbors who border the subdivision parcel, some of whom still have not
received a notice of the meeting.
• Read a note left in her mailbox from Anna PJebber, Regnart Canyon Drive: To the Planning
Commission members in re: application ... I am opposed to the tree removal, killing of 6 Coast
Live Oak trees and any trees unless diseased; ,and I also oppose any lot size under 3 acres.
• Said she was concerned about the notificatior-, but also three of the neighbors who border this
property are out of the US presently, and are: interested. Is there a possibility to continue the
application, so when they get back in the country they can review the documents.
• Said she concurred about runoff problems; driving back to the house, she was shocked at the
amount of water coming from the driveway i~rto Regnart Road; it was the largest flow coming
down that section of the road. When a big storm is approaching, the residents need to prepare
by clearing the drains. Said she did not know if there are any drains at this point, so people
would be interested to know what the drainage plan would be along that road to make sure that
rain is going somewhere else.
• Said she would have a leach field directly below her house on that plan; and she was
concerned that when the leach field is installed, what impact that has on the very steep slope
that her house sits on right above that. Secondly, in terms of failures of leach fields and septic,
her house would be right above a failed leach field which is a bad experience. She said she
wanted more information about the leach field.
• She said she had planned on putting in a puml- when developing one of the lots. A generator is
needed, and the Cupertino Sanitary District would not pass hers, and shut down her project.
• Development is good, but on the 4~ of July there were children up in the hills lighting
fireworks in a fire zone. She said she would like to see it developed so it is safer for everyone;
but their concerns are about how it gets developed.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was impressed with how the city is handling the issue of Oak trees on the property
and said staff has taken a great deal of care to ensure that the trees onsite are going to be
retained as much as possible. She asked th~~t every effort be made to save the trees on the
corner as they are a beautiful display.
• She pointed out that the old water tank on the property was made of original redwood and may
be valuable.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib
October 13, 2009
Colin Jung answered speakers' questions:
• (Q) How wide is the proposed north drive? (A) The southern one was 15 feet; the northern one
should be at least that width as well.
• (Q) In the flats, part of the R1 indicates that you cannot drain water off your property onto
your neighbors; does RHS have that same requirement? (A) There is still that same
requirement; he pointed out that due to the lateness of development of his property Mr. Bigler
will be subject to regulations that have not applied to anyone else on Regnart Canyon, and
relate to detention of storm waters on his property; what is commonly referred to as C3
regulations; any time you disturb an azea of more than 10,000 square feet.
• (Q) At what point is a drainage plan requireii? (A) When they come in for the development
permit).
• (Q) Given staffs comment about C3 regulations on this property, each individual property
owner would then have to comply with that; and it would be assessed the downhill drainage
issues from that specific singular property, not as a whole? (A) Each property would have to
do through its own C3, all of the water on that property would have to stay within the lot.
Collectively you will address it.
• (Q) Given the particular terrain here, it seems it would make sense to have a comprehensive
drainage plan for all 4 lots; as opposed to ju;~t doing them one at a time. Is that what would
normally happen; we just look at each lot one at a time. (A) It would be difficult to do a
comprehensive one because of the varying slopes of each property; different parts of the
property drain in different directions, some clown the road, some down to other locations, it
would be difficult to centralize storm water drainage features.
• (Q) Typically, sometimes the first owner beaJ-s most of the burden of setting up a system, and
he may or may not allow for capacity for tl~.e other lots which may in fact need to use that
system. It has happened on other subdivisions, on hillsides, where there aze issues of that
nature that come up. Each individual home owner is going to be looking at his requirements
but it may turn out that multiple home owner; are going to need to use the same lines and that
a system that encompasses the total flow would be superior as well as making sure there was a
way to compensate the first home owner for building more capacity than he really needed.
(A) Public Works can look at that in their improvement plans. As shown in the diagram, they
do already show some features that aze across the road, across one of the driveways, which
indicate that since the driveway serves two lots, the drainage acceptance applies to both
properties.
Staff:
• There were two extensive reports done on this property already and an eazlier third one. T'he
landslides on these properties have been mapped and in addition to that, all the parts they felt
were suitable for development have been tested. Lots 1 and 2 have some historical fill that was
probably done at the time of the original h~~uses and the reports indicate that needs to be
addressed before any building goes up on that site. Perhaps there needs to be another covenant
in a condition of approval that says that before recommending a covenant relative to septic
system constraints, there needs to be further eotechnical review for each of the lots before a
specific location is deemed suitable for building. Com. Miller concurred.
Com. Kaneda:
• Relative to storm water retention discussio~z, there are details on the Nelson engineering
drawing on Sheets 5 and 6 that show a storm water retention system that resembles a drain, and
some type of underground pipe or basin for ~~atching storm water. He asked staff to explain
what it is.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib tS October 13, 2009
Staff:
• Read a memo sent by Public Works Dept. referring to the tentative map. It looks pretty good,
the C3 improvements are not perfectly comp etely designed, but the engineer has shown what
appears to be adequate area and capacity to construct any improvements necessary. At this
point, as long as the Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans, the
recommendation is to move forward.
Com. Kaneda:
• With a retention system, there is a good charn:.e that it will improve the drainage problems that
is being discussed because the water will drain into these retention basins and have a chance to
percolate rather than just wash right down the driveways into the creek.
Staff:
• Said that in addition, they would be putting in energy dissipaters too because the runoff from
the hill is moving fast and going where it wants to go. Moving forward with this should
improve the drainage issues, because it is not only going to address the future runoff, but also
would address the present one.
Com. Brophy:
• Ms. Koski raised her concern about the heavy equipment needed to service this development at
this site adversely affecting her culvert. Is thc;re going to be any problem getting the necessary
construction equipment onto the site without it having adverse effects on her culvert. Is this
culvert going under the street?
May Koski:
• Reiterated that there were two culverts, one is her driveway. She lives on the other side of
Regnart Creek, same side as the Fremont Older open space; one is a concrete culvert but it is
supposed to withstand the 100 year flood, and she does not want any heavy equipment going
across it. She does not have another $70K to replace it.
Staff:
• Said sprinkler systems are required in the ho~ises in the fire zone. Also said he has discussed
with Mr. Bigler the importance of staging the construction onsite; his property is large enough
to store all the needed equipment, constructio~i materials, portable toilets, on his property.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to the issue of construction during the rainy season, she said that the Public Works
Dept. looks at any construction between October and April and they severely limit it to that
which is necessary or they restrict it or completely not allow people working on the site. She
said that a condition of approval could be added, but the Public Works Dept. does a good job
monitoring it. There may be some emergency situations where there are some slides and they
need to shore up an area which has been done in the past.
Com. Miller:
• Recommended that construction be limited to the dry season.
Chair Giefer:
• Relative to comments from neighbors and e:mails received requesting a continuance of the
item, she pointed out that they have had issues in the past about noticing neighbors on Regnart
Road. Because the parcels are so large within 1,000 feet of the project, people would not
receive the notice. Sending notices to everyone in upper Regnant is the most effective way to
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib ~' October 13, 2009
reach people about an upcoming meeting.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt it was appropriate to continue the application given the short notice, the packet size
and the sensitivity of the landscape. He said it was unfortunate for the applicant that the
neighbors were not tuned in at this point ~ibout the project, whereas 10 of 15 years ago
everyone was awaze of what was going on in the area.
• Said he supported a continuance to give the :neighbors the time to look the material over and
feel comfortable that they are not going to t-e negatively impacted on their property by this
subdivision, the subsequent development.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked the applicant if from a schedule standp~~int, he needed a quick answer on anything.
Mr. Bigler:
• Said he was not planning to sell it or build on it immediately. It has been a long hard process
and he has had to justify everything he has ;asked for; he has worked hard to impact as few
trees as possible; and has been subjected to the strictest interpretation of every rule in the
books and he has an elaborate system already in place to address the water on the property as a
whole.
• There is a huge tank required below the upper leach field as well as above that an enormous
amount of extra capacity to deal with, more than just a power outage.
• He said he felt that there should be more respect for all that the city does bring to bear; how
thoroughly the city does represent the public interest in the process. He said that if there was a
compelling reason why something had to be .reexamined, it would warrant a continuance, but
there is also the issue of fairness to him and what he has been subjected to in the process. He
said the last time he was prevented from drilling because the rain started, it was six months
before he had another chance and it delayed his project another six months just to drill more
holes. He said he felt it was unjustified to delay further because of people on vacations, and
waiting for the land to dry out.
Chair Giefer:
• Suggested to the applicant, that out of consideration for the neighbors who have had only four
to seven days to study their packets, he opt fc-r a two week continuance on the application for
them to study the information in more depth. She said that in the past there have been issues of
noticing on Regnart Road, especially up through the canyon, because the parcels are so lazge;
the people just don't find out unless their property touches your property and a number of
neighbors said they do not know what is going on. They aze not saying they don't agree with
it, they aze just saying they need some time to digest the information being sent their way. She
said they appreciated the fact that the applicant has worked with staff and the county, but they
would like more information on the leach field and how that pumping system works. She
noted that there were no eminent plans to t~reak ground on the project, and a continuance
would allow more time to answer neighbors' questions about the process as well.
Mr. Bigler:
• Said a two week continuance was appropriate.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib f. October 13, 2009
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Suggested that Mr. Bigler meet with the neiglhbors one-on-one before the next meeting to help
resolve some of their uncertainty raised.
Colin Jung:
• Regarding the fences, in the RHS ordinance, there are specific fence regulations that apply to
RHS owned properties that don't apply to other properties zoned dissimilarly. Solid board
fencing for lots of the proposed size, have to be limited to a 5,000 square foot area, excluding
the principle building, and open fencing is defined as composed of materials which result in a
minimum of 75% visual transparency, that is unrestricted as long as it is not in the front
setback of the property (includes chain link fencing).
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second b}~ Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0
to continue Application TM-2009-02, TR-2009-16, and EA-2009-09 to the
October 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Giefer summarized the questions for staff to address for the nett meeting on the
application:
• What can we condition on the Tentative Map vs. the individual projects?
• Additional covenants that would carry with the land requiring additional geotechnical reports
before the building pad is cited (before they a~uld get approval to build a house.)
• In general because the report was not here, <<lthough it seems that staff and the applicant are
knowledgeable about it, the Commission is not; uphill leach fields is new to the„ and it may be
something the public is also interested knovving more about; how do they operate, do they
include battery backup generator operation in case of loss of power.
• Can we include a construction management plan which requires staging onsite at this point;
how would we get that to continue through with the individual building permit stage?
• There was a concern regarding seasonality :end rainfall with building construction; is there
anything that we should or could do at this point?
• We are all concerned about hillside fencing; seeing the hillsides in general on Regnart Road,
everybody fences their individual lots, but same people do use chain link fencing throughout
the property. Is that appropriate; and should we look at this as part of the review and how
would that carry through to the individual bui]'.ding permit stage?
• Anything that comes our way from the public that we need to consider and have answers for or
have the applicant address as well.
• Said she would like to save the three trees at tl~e knee of the drive.
OLD BUSINESS
2. Update on Environmental Grants and Green Building Ordinance.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Reported that they were planning to move forward with a combined program of having the
Environmental Sustainability Task Force and the Land Use Sustainability Program and the
Green Building Ordinance on parallel tracks; and had applied for funding for that. It was an
elaborate program with a great deal of community outreach and education. They did not
receive the funding and have not received information from the EPA about the recipients of
the awards. She said they were now looking for alternate strategies, specifically with the
green building ordinance that was already on the work program; and to perhaps break that off
and start the process earlier.
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib 5' October 13, 2009
Chair Giefer:
• Said that staff prepared an appropriate oirtline and there needs to be discussion about
achieving the goal. There is an objective, an approved work plan; we owe the community and
Council a green building plan and a recommendation on how to move forwazd to develop that
plan. Clazified there is no funding currently for a task force.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said Council has not directed staff to put together a Green Building Task Force. Staff is
looking to move forward on a slightly lower level with the Planning Commission being the de
facto task force on this and holding some focus group meetings, because there are some
targeted people interested. She said it was important to keep the residents informed of what
was going on in the city and county and move forward with the building ordinance. It is
expected to be a shorter process than the Land Use Sustainability Plan.
ObiecNve•
• To provide the community and Council wiith green building policy which meets the need
of all stakeholders.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Asked if there was currently a study going o~i regarding the entire building process by which
building is regulated. If so, should it be done in concert with the green building? Is there a
study through the Building Department on the building permitting process.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that staff was reviewing and making a recommendation on the Santa Clara County
Collaborative's recommendations on what a been building policy should include. Statewide
there will be something on it, but it hasn't begun yet. The development review process is how
the projects aze reviewed.
Erin Cook, Environmental Planner:
• Said they were currently doing a detailed energy audit of their own facilities at a municipal
level to better understand their energy and water consumption and then recommend some
facility improvement measures, which is a separate initiative.
Chair Giefer:
• Summarized the need to discuss what the process is; the public outreach and how community
meetings would be conducted to study the issue; and how to involve people and what is needed
from staff; what resources are missing; are their additional funds needed to help define what
may be needed, to see if they aze in the Gener<<1 Fund or have Council budget for it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were working on improving the notices, including sending out one notice with the
message "please sign up on a e-list; we do hay/e an e-list for future notices on this project;" so
that a sepazate notice does not have to be sent out for each meeting, saving $7,000. They aze
trying to determine the best way to move forward with no fmancing.
• Stars approach was to get ideas from the Commission, and based on that determine what the
funding needs aze, and see if they are available from the General Fund. Erin Cook explained
that opportunities for other funding are limited because they are geazed more toward actually
doing audits, less with plans; therefore staff would like to move forward with the limited
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib 10 October 13, 2009
resources available.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said his experience on the Commission is that mailing notices is a waste of money, unless you
are dealing with a property that is very close to somebody's house and they would benefit from
putting an ad in the Cupertino Courier and the usual type of noticing on the city website and
organize in study sessions; as well as contacting interested groups, home builders' groups,
Chambers of Commerce, and environmental groups.
Chair Giefer:
• Recalled that in the past when they studied the R1, when she and Com. Miller were junior
members on the Planning Commission, they Held a number of public hearings, study sessions,
that specifically addressed different areas cor.~tained in the R1. She said a similar format may
work, holding either a study session before a Planning Commission meeting, or making it part
of the agendized items for that Planning C~~mmission to get people's input from different
groups.
• Said there were a number of different items that would be relevant to them; they will need to
know what adjacent communities are doing; throughout the Bay Area; what the State of
California's timeline is for their own green building ordinance, and incorporating that into
Title 24 and the International Building Code. In addition, the recommendation of the Green
Building Collaborative from the League of Cities, would be an area to share with the public
and get their input. She said they could also reach out to the homeowners in Cupertino with
green homes and have them share their experiences about their green home.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they could also find out from the community or other communities examples of how
single family residential buildings reach those 50 points so people understand the magnitude.
Some people have gone beyond that requirement and don't want to intimidate people, but at
least ideas to get to those 50 points might be a good way of educating people.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Suggested limiting the normal applications to the first meeting of the month, and have the
second meeting of the month for a study session until ready to draft a formal recommendation.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it may not be practical to just limit it, taut ensure that it is always listed on the agenda.
The thought was to put some kind of scope to;~ether to begin to visualize what it will look like.
Various forms of this have been done with th.e R1, the sign ordinance, that can be brought to
bear on the project. It could include focus meetings; the Chamber of Commerce has been
identified as a good contact source for commercial builders; there are developer contacts as
well because they understand what it take; to build, and they are doing it in different
communities. Interestingly, their big issue is to make sure communities are consistent;
whatever they do; and the goal will be to start with Phase 2 and see if we need to change from
that for any good reason because this has b<;en the recommendation of the collaboration of
various cities including ours.
• The focus groups could suggest ideas on how to involve residents; the format of the Planning
Commission meetings could be changed; have more smaller round table discussions; have
people ask a number of questions using c~~mment cards and have experts answer those
questions; we can do various ways of focus group meetings. We were thinking three main
constituents -commercial, the residential and then the developers who do all kinds. Other
suggestions for people/organizations to contact for input include: architects and engineers;
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib 1 1. October 13, 2009
professionals as well as developers; neight~orhood block leaders; experts from San Jose
Sustainability, USGBC Leadership; the Collaborative; Build It Green; DeAnza College; Bay
Area Climate Collaborative; CIRC team n-embers (e-mail distribution list); neighboring
intertwined communities; Fingers of San Jose;; use of Wednesday school information packets
that are sent to students' homes; all CUSD schools; K through 12 school newsletters.
Chair Giefer:
In terms of the process, the Commission would like to. have staff recommend a process that
would work and agendize this during regular Planning Commission meetings to start with.
Since the holidays are approaching, it may be an appropriate item to do on a Wednesday
evening; during Thanksgiving and the winter break we tend to cancel those meetings that are
close the holidays, so maybe move it up in an off week; and rather than doing a Planning
Commission meeting if we need that on the al;enda, agendize it as a study session on the item.
Any other discussion on stakeholders from what the staff has brought up.
Erin Cook:
• Said that she would present it at the Thursda~/ meeting at the Curve Center. She said it was
their goal and vision through the grant application to form a partnership with them and
continue that vision.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said staff envisioned it as a four month project; it could be longer; adding an educational
component could take at least a couple of months. It depends on the start date; some prep work
may be needed, and if there are funding requirements, go back to the Council and ask them for
that. She said that she and Erin Cook planned to do a separate one for the Environmental
Sustainability Task Force and the Land Use S ustainability Plan which is the lion's share of the
cost of the project, but may do the green building prior to this because they see this as more of
a implementation piece and less of `what would a plan for the city look like'?
Com. Kaneda:
• One issue bound to come up is beyond the Santa Clara County Cities Association and Erin
Cook and I were talking about what Saratoga ciid for private buildings which is Title 24 instead
of LEED, but it would also be nice to weave; in somewhere what is going on with the State
green building code which is already in place ;is of August 2009 and they are going to have the
mandatory version in January 2011, so at least to get that discussion on to the table, because I
imagine that as cities are looking at adopting some of these recommendations, that is going to
come up within a number of cities. It would be interesting to know what if any implications
might be for existing homeowners/existing buildings and if there is a timeframe. That is very
significant.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Is it possible that the State is moving forward on so many fronts that this is going to be a moot
point from the municipal perspective?
Chair Giefer:
• Said that they are going to operate as a region in the Bay Area and it is going to be very
important to know what the adjacent communities and the other Bay Area communities are
doing.
Com. Kaneda:
• That is why I think Bay Area Climate Coll;~borative is like the Santa Clara County Cities
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib 12 October 13, 2009
Association of the Bay Area and they are getting organized and working on some of the issues.
Erin Cook:
• In the scoping or project planning document to address a lot of comments and suggestions staff
can also provide some background and context with regards to the regulatory environment,
within California but also specifically in the Bay Area because many cities aze already
adopting green building standazds that aze more aggressive than what the state has done.
Com. Lee:
• One of the goals Erin Cook put in there was to establish performance measures for projects and
create incentives for projects that exceed established performance measures.
• Another goal if we implement the Green Building Ordinance, would be to result in reduced
waste, improved occupant health, preserved habitat in natural areas, reduce air and water
pollution and significantly reduce water and energy uses. That would be one of the scope and
objectives for green building.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Review Planning Commission meeting s~~hedule with respect to the upcoming holiday
season -calendars included.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Reviewed the holiday schedule; The Novenber 10th meeting will be cancelled; a special
meeting will be held on November 5; rel;ulaz meetings on November 24 and possibly
December 22. In future, at the beginning of the year, staff will publish a schedule eazlier in the
year.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by (:om. Lee and unanimously carried 5-0,
to cancel the December 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOK
Environmental Review Committee:
• Chair Giefer reported that the Bigler property was reviewed.
Housing Commission: Meeting cancelled.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
Com. Lee reported:
• The Library Commission has made a proposals to the City Manager to use a section of the field
to open up 41-81 pazking spaces to alleviate the current pazking problem; 3.9 million items
circulated last year; Yan Can Cook appearance had over 300 attendees, with pazking shortage.
Oct. 24 -Five year library anniversary; costume pazade for children; Friends in Library book
sale this weekend.
• Fine Arts Commission: A burgeoning artist ~iwazd from local high school; also distinguished
artist award; teaming up with Euphrat Museum to help with fund raising; get more artists to
Cupertino to showcase their work.
• Blackberry Farm pazking is a problem since it reopened in July. There were seven occasions
with an overflow of pazking. Possible solutions: Increase user rate for non residents; Limit
Cupertino Planning Comnussuib 13 October 13, 2009
hours of operation; Close the park on Labor Day and Memorial Day; Offer some program
changes.
Walk to School Event was successful; Use of bike usage discussed.
Public Safety is working on a petition for more lighted crosswalks.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
Report of the Director of Community Development:
Aarti Shrivastava reported:
• Use Permit modification for Adobe Terrace. Council approved the modification to allow
commercial office use 50% and retail 50% only for the current property owner. (reversed the
Planning Commission decision and allowed the current buyer who had already purchased the
property and longtime participant in the community to put her business in there, as long as she
owned the property.
• Street light demonstration on Pacifica Avenue where the community can choose the street light
they think best fits the city.
• Installed online permitting system, limited t:o small projects such as roofing, water heater
replacements; has been successful to date.
• City website won the national award.
• 2009 Projections - ABAG has come up v~~ith their final draft; the city's numbers have
decreased slightly, can see growth for next 25 years.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for October 27, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
fling,,
Approved as presented: November 24, 2009