Draft Minutes 3-9-10 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMIVIISSION
DRAFT MIl�TUTES
6:45 P.M. March 9, 2010 TLTESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul
Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda (arrived during staff
presentation of Item 1)
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Vera Gil
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the February 23, 2010 Planning Com»ussion Meeting:
• Page 10: Change spelling oJ "Akea" to "Aqui"
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0-0,
Com. Kaneda absent; to approve the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission
minutes as amended.
WRITTEN COMMUrTICATIONS None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
2. TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, (a)Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single
Z-2010-(EA-2010-012) family residential lots of approx. 11,737 and 13,982 gross
Pam Yoshida (Westwood sq. ft. with an exception area of 1,211 sq. ft. in the city of
Investors, LLC) Sunnyvale; (b) A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet
10642 No. Portal Ave. in an R-1 zoning district where 60 feet is required;
(c) Pre-Zone and Re-Zone 0.028 acres from City of
Sunnyvale to pre-Rl -7.5 and 0.590 acres from A 1-43 to
R1-7.5. Postponed to the March 23, 2010 meeting;
Tentative City Council date is Apri120, 2010.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 9, 2010
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Kaneda
absent; to postpone Application to the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting.
ORAL COMMU1vICATIONS None
CONSENT CALENDAR None
PUBLIC HEARING
Com. Miller recused himself from discussion of the application.
1. TM-2010-01 Tentative Map o subdivide an approx. 41,800 square foot
Donna Vingo (Russell parcel into five parcels, ranging from 6,400 sq. ft. to 8,800
Marshall Trustee) sq. ft. Tentative City Council date: Apri16, 2010
790 So. Blaney Ave.
Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the Tentative Map request to subdivide the existing single family residential parcel
into five parcels, ranging from 6,500 to 8,890 square foot lots, as outlined in the staff report.
• Reviewed the site description, zoning designation, site improvement, and trees. The project is
consistent with the General Plan, and all the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Conceptual
house plan for Lot 1 is provided by the applicant, as Lot 1 is the most difficult to design and
the applicant will demonstrate that they are able to provide a good design in terms of both look
and functionality, at the same time going up to the potential maximum in terms of square
footage, so there is no anticipated variances or exceptions.
• To address staff's concern relating to future basically requires them to come in and go through
the R1 residential design review process and approval prior to the recordation of the final map
for assurance that the same developer will be in play to design and carry out similar details and
quality to the remainder of the homes.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval per the model
resolution with the following added condition: A condition be added requiring the applicant to
go through housing mitigation procedural manual, paying the in-lieu fees, and that the final in-
lieu fees be assessed at the time when submitted for building permits.
Com. Kaneda amved at the meeting.
Gary Chao answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application.
Mike McClellan, McClelian Development, Applicant:
• Thanked staff for their efForts.
• Said that they accept the staff recommendations, and understand the concern about future
building and the need to understand what the city's future housing is going to be. As staff
mentioned, they volunteered to go through a full design review prior to any lot being recorded,
which will set the criteria for each lot before the recordation, and it stays with the lot until any
action may be taken to change it. They fully intend to provide a project that has variation and
meets the local neighborhood.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 9, 2010
Dr. Ram Swaminathan, Pacifica Drive, Cupertino:
• Expressed concern about the five dense houses in front of his 3,500 square feet, with large lot,
and said he felt the large number of houses in front of his property would devalue his property.
He said that his neighbor across the street also had the same concern.
Loghashankar Srinivasan, nearby resident, Cupertino:
• Concerns related to if there would be a fence; its height and which side it would face; and if
there would be any privacy trees planted.
• Asked if there was a possibility that the building setback could be increased; the number of
floors for three lots, and windows; they do nat want them facing directly into their house. Is
the grading of the slope towards Blaney or Clifford or towards the houses; what is the duration
of the construction; and make sure the grading is not facing towards the houses internally in
case of flooding.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Discussed the possibility that the e�sting home on the property was of historical value;
although it was determined in 1997 by the Historical Society that it wasn't of historical value.
She said that if it was going to be demolished, there is a need for materials for Victorian homes
being remodeled and rather than bulldozing the home, there may be use for the salvage
materials. There are also some large redwood trees on the property.
Keith Murphy, East Estates Drive:
• Questioned whether the house was going to be saved, and referred to what occurred to the
Anderson property behind Fairgrove which was an old farmouse which sat there for a long
time; that property got divided and now it is high density in that area. There were many issues
with the Fairgrove neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested people go
over there and look at that preserved house and new development and see how that works out
before the topic property is consigned to the same fate. Could the house be donated to the city,
put on a park for some other use so the house doesn't have to be lost; perhaps the community
could get some use out of it, perhaps the property owner could sell or donate it to get a write
off. There are also issues if it will match with the surrounding neighborhood. The Anderson
property sticks out like a sore thumb. He recalled that the Fairgrove people said to put up
windows that didn't look into the properties because they are all one story properties and there
were different architectural design; and he questioned whether those concerns would be
debated before any approval.
Sonal Abhyanker, Betty Drive:
• Asked if the applicant had a website that illustrated samples of their homes developed in the
past.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Gary Chao responded to speakers' questions:
� Regarding privacy, the homes are located in Rl-6 zoning districts; in the R1 zoning districts,
there are provisions for privacy considerations and protections; namely it depends on what sort
of homes are going to be proposed. For example, Lot 1, the applicant is showing conceptually
a single story house; with a single story house the R1 ordinance doesn't provide any privacy
protection for obvious reasons; there shouldn't be any concerns with regards to that.
• For a two-story which the applicant will likely be entertaining on some of the lots, there are
privacy protection measures such as for windows with sill heights under 5 feet on second
floor; new second floor that there ought to be considerations for privacy screening, either
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 9, 2010
through the city's preapproved list of shrubberies or trees within the cone of vision dictated by
the ordinance that the applicant would have to plant new vegetation along the property lines;
and as part of the approval process; not only do they have to plant the trees and shrubberies,
that the trees and shrubs will be recorded on the property as a covenant that they are required
to be maintained and preserved running with the land so that the ne�rt owners don't cut them
down. There is that protection locked in place. The applicant has the ability to work things
out with the neighbors, whether it is higher fence or additional measures; that could be agreed
upon and the two property owners or neighbors could come together and sign a waiver to
dictate your own mitigation mechanism and the city would be happy to accept those things in
lieu of their requirements.
• In terms of fencing, the ordinance does allow fencing up to 8 feet. Anything over 6 feet
requires consent from both properties. The applicant could propose a 6-foot fence without
going through any special measures.
• Public works will evaluate grading and storm runoff and the site peripheral improvements;
gutter, curb; by law any residential houses are not permitted to be graded so that the runoff
would go into a neighbor's yard. All the runoff would have to go to the storm drain system
that eventually would lead into the street. In answer to the question relating to the direction of
grading, it is going to be graded toward the street, away from the property lines.
• Relative to the duration of the construction, the applicant will respond. Staff requires the
applicant to control any construction activities from occurring outside of the allowable hours
of construction, usually 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends.
• In terms of the historic consideration for the site, Mrs. Griffm is correct in that the site has
been evaluated in the 90s and based on that report, this project had been ranked very low on
that report. The home was built around 1890; even though there is some history to it, it has
been changed so many times, and the home has undergone upgrades and revisions to the
windows and roof. Consequently the Board at the time said that while possibly in its original
state it probably had some value, but given the changes occurring over time, it is not of any
significance.
• There is a policy that will be coming forward directed by the City Council that the
Commission is going to be reviewing soon; however, the Council is clear that they don't want
to evaluate any residential homes and put them on the list. They want to look at historic sites,
commercial, quasi-public properties. This is not going to be on the radar for that review; nor
should we think that it should be part of a consideration for preservation. The applicant does
have the ability to voluntarily look at ways to recycle and keep parts; but that is their decision.
Com. Giefer:
• Referring to the subdivision, she said she understood they could not prohibit them from selling
off the lots individually, although it is being conditioned not to record the final map until the
design review. Could they sell the rights to that subdivision and allow someone to come in
and create their own architectural assessment, bundle it up or have those reviewed individually
and can they record portions of the map act; or does it have to be recorded at one time? Can
they record a partial map?
City Attorney:
• The map has to be recorded as a whole. The understanding of the condition is they have to
come forward with what they propose to develop before the map gets finalized. The intent is
to have design review for all the lots for the final map recordation to be released.
Com. Giefer:
• The work plan also includes green building and it is hoped to have a residential green building
policy before the end of the year. She asked what the applicant's timeline is to break ground
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 9, 2010
and begin the project. Even though it is not conditioned at this point; would they be required
to meet any green building plans that are fmally approved over the next 12 months?
City Attorney:
• Typically the law in effect at the time if somebody comes in to pull a building permit is what
they have to comply with; if the city concludes its green building adoption of its policy or its
provisions, particularly if it does anything by ordinance and that ordinance is in effect at that
time they come in for their building permit, they will have to abide by that.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was making the differentiation if they don't have the policy by the time they come in
for design approval, and then by the time they finally break ground or pull permits, if they do
have a policy in place, that is when they would have to meet those requirements.
Gary Chao:
• Said they could also specify provisions to address that in the Green Building Ordinance.
City Attorney:
• Normally there is some indication to try to deal with things that are in the pipeline, depends
upon what point they are in the pipeline at the time the provisions are adopted. Not knowing
how specific the design review would be vs. the component parts of the Green Building
Ordinance, it is difficult to give a definitive answer; but to the ea�tent that the design review is
a broader brush sort of depiction of what is going to go there, w hen you get to the details, that
is when usually those green building things are triggered.
Applicant:
• Said relative to timeline, they anticipated to start construction by the fourth quarter. With
regards to green sensitivity, they will make efforts to follow the Build-A-Green
recommendations. We have done what they could and it continues to be defined.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was concerned with the established mature trees on the lot and would like the city to
take it seriously and see if they could work the sidewalk around the existing trees. She said
she understood they would not save all the trees, but if possible, it makes more sense than
mowing them down and planting them with 20 gallon trees.
• She said that if the Commission agrees to that, she would like the staff to add it. She also
struggled with the green building because she felt it was going to be an advance of green
building policy and she wasn't comfortable with the answer and did not know what to do
about that because they don't currently have an ordinance that requires that.
Gary Chao:
• Relative to the green building ordinance timetable they are gearing toward the public outreach
phase, and are starting to solicit contracts for consultants and once that is in place they will be
notifying for focus group meetings. It will be in May/June where it is going to be at the public
hearing stage for adoption.
Com. Giefer:
• Said it is difficult for the community whenever a structure has been there forever, and there is
history with previous families, previous owners and who we think help drive development of
our community; and whenever there is a green field as this may be considered, where there is a
home with some history behind it, it is difficult to say we are going to move forward, bulldoze
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 9, 2010
that home and subdivide and increase density in the neighborhood. There is always that
emotional side of any redevelopment proposal that comes in. This is consistent; it meets the
General Plan, and meets our zoning. If we have agreement from the Planning Commission
with regards to trying to salvage as many of the existing trees through the public right of way
sidewalk, I would move forward on that.
Gary Chao:
• Said a condition could be added to state that to the m�imum extent possible the staff shall
work with the applicant and Public Works staff to preserve as many trees as feasible.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was not looking to add a condition to this but if the applicant could look at the house
and to the extent that Mrs. Griffin's point and Mr. Murphy's point that there may be redwood
or other useful materials that could be recycled, the Commission would appreciate that.
Gary Chao:
• Said there is a condition that addresses that in terms of recycling, which is a standard
condition.
Com. Kaneda:
• Explained the process of deconstruction where a deconstruction company comes in and takes
down a home and salvages the materials; it costs about the same amount as demolition but the
materials are salvaged and there is a write off, which covers the cost of the deconstruction.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-0-1, Com.
Miller abstained, to approve Application TM-2010-01 with the additional
language added specifically to request Public Works to try to preserve as
many trees as possible in the public right-of-way
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
OLD BUSINESS
3. GPA-2008-01 (EA-2009-OS) (a) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing
Z-2010-02, MCA-2010-02 Element update.
City of Cupertiao
Citywide Location
Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics, Consultant, presented the staff report:
• The Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the General Plan and is updated
under State law every 7 to 10 years. The process began over a year ago with community
meetings, collecting background information, reaching out to stakeholders and developing new
policies, guidelines and procedures to address some new changes in State law which required
us to have a more extensive inventory of residential sites as part of the housing element.
• Said the City Council approved staff forwarding a Draft Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in June 2009. Under State law,
HCD had 60 days to review the housing element and provide the city with comments which
were received at the end of August 2009. Since then staff, along with consultants, have been
participating in an ongoing discussion with HCD and have submitted additional information as
requested by the HCD to address some of the issues they brought up in their letter to the city
about bringing the housing element into compliance with State procedures, regulations and
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 March 9, 2010
Housing Element law.
• The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the revised Draft Housing Element and
relevant amendments to the Municipal Code as well as the rezoning of some parcels on North
DeAnza. The City Council will then review all three issues at their April 6, 2010 meeting. He
reviewed the State HCD comments and key Municipal Code amendments; rezoning
approximately 50 acres in the North DeAnza area; the Initial Study, as outlined in the
overhead presentation.
� The Planning Commission is being asked to adopt the 2007-2014 Housing Element and
forward it to the City Council for review and approval before it is forwazded to HCD so they
can certify it as being in compliance with State law; recommend adoption of the Model
Ordinance amending the Municipal Code as it relates to the 2007-2014 Housing Element; and
recommend approval of application Z-2010-02 to create consistency between the zoning map,
the Housing Element and the 2005 General Plan.
Vera Gil, Senior Planner:
• Said there were comments from the community relative to the Villages and Glenbrook
apartment complexes at the City Council meeting that the Planning Department look at
apartment complexes that are under-utilized, and haven't developed to their ma�cimum, and
there is the ability to do things such as at Villa Serra or Lake Biltmore to get rid of some older
architectural features or landscaping features such as lakes, tennis courts and parking areas that
were reconfigured to put new buildings in. There is the capacity on some of the sites, and
there is a history of developers wanting to update, m�imize the density on their properties.
Suggestions came from the community when they went out to some of the properties and said
that is what they found is palatable, they are suggestions. The City Council appreciated it as
well as staff.
Gary Chao:
• Explained the rezoning process for the parcels. The property owners are individually notified
within that area in addition to a radius of 1,000 feet around that boundary. In terms of the
process, it is not necessarily required to go through at the same time as the Housing Element
but it is seen as an opportunity to clean house. There is only one parcel within the 50 acres of
land that is required as part of the Housing Element to be rezoned. If doing it for one parcel,
they need to ensure that all the parcels surrounding it will be consistent with the General Plan
as well. As part of this process, with your recommendation, if the recommendation is
favorable to rezone, it is going to be carried forth to the City Council for consideration and
there is two readings associated with that part.
Com. Giefer:
• Have we ever requested rezoning and had a property owner disagree; and what is their
recourse?
Gary Chao:
• Their recourse is to attend the public hearing, voice their concerns and also go through the
appeal process. He added that they received several phone calls and inquiries and all the
property owners he spoke to who are affected, agree to the change because it is bringing more
benefit to their land value; and in addition doesn't change anything that is already permitted in
the zoning district. It is not necessary for the property owner to record anything differently on
their current title.
Vera Gil:
• Explained the concept of "reasonable accommodation." It establishes a process for allowing
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 9, 2010
an exception if there is a need to encroach into the FAR or into the setback to accommodate a
wheelchair ramp, to accommodate mobility in an existing home. It may go further than that,
but that is the basic reason the State suggests that you have one in place.
• If somebody moves into a home that is maxed out with FAR; they discover in the future that
they need wheelchair access and there is no way to accommodate that because of the front
stairs. It allows without having to go through Planning Commission and City Council and
paying exorbitant fees, for them to meet their requirements and allows the Community
Development Director to approve it. It could mean a kitchen is too tight for wheelchair
maneuvering and they are going to have to encroach 2 feet into the setback to add some
additional space so they can be accommodated.
Chair Brophy:
• Said they already had some generous FAR, and he questioned why someone would need
additional space to expand their house if they couldn't do it within their existing structure.
Vera Gil:
• Much of it could be the wheelchair access; because it has to be at a certain grade, so that the
wheelchair doesn't slip down and cause injury; sometimes the wheelchair ramps are longer
and they do encroach into the front setback area.
Paul Benninger:
� Where this comes from is an opinion from the State Attorney General that has prompted HCD
to advice jurisdictions to adopt a program in their housing elements stating that the city will
prepare some sort of written, reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide persons with
disabilities exceptions in the zoning and land use codes for housing; and the reason for this is
concern from some disability rights advocates and others and from the Attorney General's
office that the actual procedures under which a disabled person might come to a city to ask for
reasonable accommodation were very often not spelled out in writing or with any clarity. It is
Program 38 in your Housing Element; what the program would do is state that a new
ordinance will be prepared that will specify an administrative process with minimal or no
processing fee and subject to approval by the Community Development Director. It is
essentially a means to put all of the specific requirements and regulations for a process for
reasonable accommodation in writing in an ordinance so that everybody is clear.
City Attorney:
• The consultant is correct, this is an attempt on the part of the city to insulate itself from any
type of lawsuit or litigation brought by somebody who needs an accommodation and qualifies
under Federal or State law for an accommodation. The language being recommended begins
on Page 3-251 and it basically as was indicated, sets out the procedures and process so that we
can avoid charges of discrimination or inconsistency or any kind of thing that would indicate
that there is vagaries or is it just up for grabs.
Com. Kaneda:
• Presumably this comes into fact when you have an existing property that there is something
about it that is right up to the edge of the setbacks; and you need to make some modifications;
either tear the whole house down because you need an extra foot or let the homeowner
encroach into their setback.
Gary Chao:
• That is correct; typically where you get into the areas where people are asking for exceptions
on FAR; that would be for existing houses because it is not geared for handicapped access. It
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 March 9, 2010
is not a free pass for people; they still have to go through findings that the city would have to
make and the applicants would have to demonstrate that indeed what they are asking for is
reasonable and it is going to be specifically for catering to their special needs. The fmdings
that take certain control and as part of that process would have to be carried out.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for clarification of transitional and supportive housing and what the difference is.
Paul Benninger:
• On one hand we are talking about emergency shelters which are temporary impermanent
shelters that can provide persons or families with short term shelter and services, and that is
what the emergency shelter provisions are in the housing element about accommodating
emergency shelter in the BQ zone. Separately from that, and this is the state of the art in the
world of housing and social services, what many non-profit developers and local governments
are doing these days is to support permanent supportive housing for individuals or families
that are either at risk of homelessness or transition from homelessness. The idea is that rather
than providing a temporary shelter, you provide high quality housing with social services, with
counseling, child care, job training, in order to equip these individuals and families to move
from homelessness into a home and into a better life. The intent behind the State law which
now requires supportive housing to be allowed in all residential zones, is to acknowledge that
this is the type of housing that should be treated like any other type of housing. It is a service
enriched type of housing. It is distinct from short term emergency shelters which are for short
term emergencies, and you will see going forward a lot more emphasis on this kind of model
of permanent supportive housing. It is heavily service enriched; something that is supported at
the Federal level through HCJD and at the State level and many housing practitioners and
policy experts are in favor of this model of housing provision.
City Attorney:
• The definitions from the California Health and Safety Code can be found on Page 3-220; they
are proposed to be added to the Municipal Code but the language is essentially lifted from the
existing State law.
Paul Benninger:
• Said that emergency shelters and transitional housing are defined separately. Transitional
housing even though it is shorter term than permanent supportive housing is longer term than
an emergency shelter and is a slightly different housing product type and set of services. It has
a separate definition.
Com. Miller:
� When we started this exercise we had a broad list of potential sites throughout the city; what
we are ending up with is a final list, not distributed; it appears it is heavily weighted towards a
couple of areas in town and one in particular it seems like there is a lot of sites that are focused
on what I would call the Cupertino High School District. He said he thought there were some
sites in the Homestead District and some in the Monta Vista District. He said it would have
been ideal to have a list that was more diversely spread throughout the city as opposed to just
targeting a couple of areas in a very heavy way. It should be considered in terms of what that
does to the school system and in some cases, the high schools are impacted but there are also
some areas where the elementary schools will be heavily impacted because of this. He asked if
it was considered when the final list was put together; was the list run by the schools to see if
they were okay with what was being proposed at this point.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 March 9, 2010
Vera Gil:
• During the initial study process, the schools were analyzed. The final list comes from the City
Council; it was their recommendation; the unexpected was that HCD did not look back and say
that they did not like the sites, or they don't think that they can accommodate those units.
• This is the list from the City Council at their last meeting after having the discussion about
school districts, about talcing public comments and listening to the public and their
suggestions, and also considering environmental factors. There aze many properties on
Pruneridge that staff could address; there were some environmental factors that we were not
sure whether housing could even be built there and it would require a certain amount of money
to be spent on testing soil and going through the initial study process and the city would have
to split that bill, so the decision from the City Council was that this is our list, these are our
numbers and the good news is that HCD did not amend that list; they didn't remove anything.
Com. Miller:
• Some of these properties, if they are on the Tier 1 list and they have a zoning that is a mixed
zoning, such as commercial residential combination; does being on the Tier 1 list imply that
they are only going to go to housing at this point or does it still allow if someone should come
in with a commercial zoned project.
Vera Gil:
• Remember back to that first task force meeting that we had, the first focus group meeting; a lot
of what we tried to talk about was just because it is on this list, does not force the property
owner to build the residential; it doesn't hold them to it; they can propose anything that
allowed in the land use and zoning code. It doesn't force or hold the property owner to it;
these are properties we have looked at; we believe they can accommodate those units.
Cupertino is a difficult place; there is very little vacant land left.
Chair Brophy commended Aarti Shrivastava, Gary Chao and Vera Gil for their efforts over the
past year on the project.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was familiaz with buildout of housing in the county and was surprised and mortified
to see what was happening potentially in Cupertino. It is state mandated, but Cupertino is a
city that is almost at maarimum buildout. Many areas that were targeted are in Heart of the
City along Stevens Creek Boulevard in the eastern part of Cupertino. We are already at
m�imum traffic congestion; we have very large development going in, Sand Hill project
across the street with Tantau and Finch and Stevens Creek which will generate a lot of new
traffic for the area and hopefully it will be controlled. That was one of the reasons why so
much time and effort was spent on the Sand Hill project and the neighbors seem pleased about
that.
• She expressed concern about the currently revitalized Loree Shopping Center. She said it
appears that the property value on some of the sites along Stevens Creek Boulevard that have
been targeted for additional higher density housing, has gone u p when rezoned from
commercial property to higher density housing. What is to preclude this property from being
sold for housing and the disappearance of businesses along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the
buildup of additional housing in these areas. What if Loree Shopping Center is sold for
housing? She said it was distressing and confusing that property all over the city was being
rezoned and she was concerned about the loss of businesses along Stevens Creek because the
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 March 9, 2010
property will be sold for housing. How do you stop it, or has it been factored in?
• Said that the city should not give an inch on parking.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that the Loree Shopping Center site was not subject to any rezoning; it already allows
for residential. The exercise is merely identifying it as a potential housing site because it is
under-developed. The property owner could sell it as a residential property if they wish if
there is a market for it. It is a mixed use zoning.
Vera Gil:
• The City Council deliberately looked at making the least zoning changes that they could
possibly make, with the exception of the Villages, those are the only parcels that need to be
rezoned.
Keith Murphy,
• Said he participated in the housing element update focus groups; and referred to the letter in
response to the City's letter to the State. The State followed up and discussed public
participation, which was not shown in BAE's comments from the State.
• The State also wanted those comments or that participation to be a genuine participation on the
part of the public and he said he felt that the BAE focus groups missed their goal, in that they
didn't have the chance to use the tools they were given and to have participation and see where
the sites were going to be in the city. One important application that just came up and was
turned down due to poor public acceptance was the Mary Avenue senior housing project
brought forward by the Rotary Club and the former mayor as their sponsor. He said he was
disappointed they did not have more group participation from the community; it would have
been a good thing to vet that with the stake holders and it was a missed opportunity. He hoped
that in the future they could bring more of the community on board so that there would be
more acceptance for housing and that it would be in the right locations that the community is
ready for to accept.
• Said he hoped that when flexible parking standards are reviewed, the parking will always be
appropriate and it won't be required that street parking will make up for lack of parking on
projects like the senior project proposed on Mary Avenue. There should always be an
allowance for caregivers and people in the community to interact with low income senior
housing people who live in those areas.
• Said he was pleased to see that density on existing sites can be increased similaz to apartment
complexes. It is something that everybody should support; the State seems to say that if you
do that, it is better for the community, and better for the low income people who might be
living there and the result will be a more cohesive type of housing development.
Bob McKibban, Cupertino resident:
• Thanked staff for incorporating many of the ideas that came from the public at the end of the
process. He said he appreciated the work staff did to incorporate their ideas.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Said they spent countless hours doing a Google drive-by on all the properties fishing around in
the city looking for places to accommodate extra density and existing complexes; he said he
was pleased to see they were on the list. He said they did a good job and he thanked staff for
working with them.
Endry Surjanto, Greenleaf Court:
� Said he did not understand the change from CGML residential 410 to CGML residential and
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 March 9, 2010
how it impacts his current house, and how the neighboring site would affect his house.
Gary Chao:
• Said that street currently is zoned CGML residential, and he agreed that it should be in the
yellow zone; however this exercise makes all the properties within the north DeAnza area
consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan has that Greenleaf Court in the mixed
use area that consists of general commercial, light industrial and residential. In terms of what
is being done this time, it won't affect any of the residential uses out there; he is locked in as
he was approved a few years back. It doesn't have any bearing towards his residential use.
• He said it was not the time to do a General Plan amendment for that, staff will look at that
when they return to the Planning Commission on an annual basis; they will look at General
Plan amendments, housecleaning items where they will change the General Plan land use; and
then can make the zoning consistent with whatever they change it to be. In this case, likely a
straight Rl single family zone would be more appropriate.
David Lee, Greenleaf Court:
• He said he was concerned about increasing the density of that neighborhood; when increasing
density it usually means more parking problems, traffic and the impacts on the schools. He
said he was curious if his site was one of the sites that needed to be rezoned as required by the
State of California.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the simplest explanation is that the current land use allowance in the current General
Plan already permits the density that the properties are being rezoned to now; there is a
discrepancy between the actual land use map to the land use permissible intensity. Regardless
of what we do with the zoning map, any property owner within this area when they come in
for an application, they could request up to the 25 units per acre per the land use map. As part
of this exercise, we are cleaning our map so that the cat is already out of the barn, so to speak,
or in terms of the density that you are concerned with. To the eartent of the impact on schools
or traffic, or parking, that was already considered as part of the 2005 General Plan EIR when
that intensity was put in at that time; but for some reason the zoning map was not correlating
to it and this is what we do and from time to time when we have the opportunity, we like to
make them consistent.
Chair Brophy:
• There was a general question Mr. Lee asked about this kind of density; the impact it would
have in terms of traffic, pazking on his neighborhood and the other single family home areas
nearby.
Paul Benninger:
• There has been so much discussion about these great issues brought up over the course of the
last year, and there are a lot of materials on the city's website from the workshops and from
the Planning Commission and City Council meetings that address many of the issues brought
up, including schools, traffic, parking, density and why it might be desirable in some cases to
re-use under-utilized commercial parcels and convert them into residential uses. There is no
short easy answer to those questions and it differs from community to community; but there
are a lot of materials on the city website and Ms. Gil would be happy to talk to you and refer
you to some of those.
Vera Gil:
• Said that all the focus group meetings were filmed and are available on the
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 March 9, 2010
www.Cupertino.or ousin�element. She can be emailed at housing�a,cupertino.org if
assistance is needed.
Paul Benninger:
• Said it was his first experience working in a community on a housing element or other similar
planning process where there had been so much commitment to the public schools and a really
active engagement with the education community.
• One of the policies and programs we did not discuss which is unique to your housing element
that no other housing element I can think of has, is that there is a specific policy to set up an
ongoing working committee between city staff and the schools so that as land use proposals
are made, there is a formal process for working together to make sure that the schools interests
and the city's interests are moving in the same direction.
Gary Chao:
• Added that just because density allows for certain amount of units, it does not mean that it is
guaranteed; the developer will still have to go through the public review process in which case
individual sites of projects as they come in will have technical reports to look at, more specific
area impact or lack of impact, which also consists of school impact, assessment, traffic,
parking assessment, air and noise; the whole gamut of assessment that is typically required of
any discretionary application. The potential is thee, but the applicant will still have to
demonstrate to this Commission and City Council and also to the neighbors which will be part
of the public review process that all factors will be considered and would be accommodated in
terms of having a product that would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding
environment.
• Said that only a handful of people responded; some inquiries were from adjacent property
owners; the residential homeowners who are not in the area who are curious to find out what
they might be dealing with in the future. Staff has explained the situation and the homeowners
and neighbors are comfortable with the proposal.
Meichuan Chou, Cupertino resident:
• Said she was concerned with the language referring to 25 units per acre. Although one or two
of the houses could someday be demolished and rebuilt, what is the chance of building a 25
units per acre on that kind of density near our area?
Gary Chao:
• In response to Ms. Chou's concerns, he illustrated on a map the area to the north which is the
immediate neighborhood that would potentially impact them the most; the residential rezone
proposal is zoning it from where it cunently allows for general commercial light industrial and
residential 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre down to single family residential. The properties
indicated in yellow color are the only ones that are going to be single family residential,
individual homes, no apartments, duplexes or multi-family residential if the rezoning goes
through. He said all the properties in front of her and across the street and in the same block
are going to be changed into a zoning that would offer the most protection in terms of what she
is concerned with. The areas indicated in red color, those areas in mixed use zoning district,
are the properties that would have more of a potential to go higher up; that is if they chose to
do so.
• He said he felt they addressed the process and the future review process and considerations
they would have to go through in order to realize some of those things.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 March 9, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was pleased that they were finally at the end where the communications between
them and the State were at the point they had a well thought out document with a lot of
significant public input based on that.
• Supports the recommendation.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported the recommendation.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported the recommendation. He commended Paul Benninger and Vera Gil on their
excellent work on the project.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she supported staf�s recommendation.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to recommend to City Council the approval of Application GPA-200&O1,
EA-2009-05, Z-2010-02 and MCA-2010-02.
NEW BUSINESS None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION
Environmental Review Committee
• Chair Brophy reported that on March 4�', the ERC approved a negative declaration for the
reconstruction of the shopping center on the corner of Homestead and DeAnza Boulevard.
Housing Commission: Meeting scheduled for March 11, 2010.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Meeting scheduled for Mazch 10, 2010.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIltECTOR OF CO1�IlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Gary Chao reported that Panasonic is leasing the building at 10900 Tantau Avenue.
• Reported that A. Salvador is the new building official has been hired effective March l, 2020.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the ne�ct regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for March 23, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary