PC 04-13-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. April 13, 2010 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Associate Planner: Piu Ghosh
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 23, 2010 Planning Comtn Sion Meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -0 -0, Coms.
Kaneda and Giefer absent, to approve the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission
minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
3. M- 2010 -01 Modification to a Us Permit (14 -U -96) to remove an existing
James Fowler (The reciprocal access and parking easement between an existing
Irvine Company, apartment complex (The Hamptons) and an existing industrial
LLC & Apple Inc. office property (Apple, Inc.) Postponed to the April 27, 2010
19310 -19320 and Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date:
19500 Pruneridge Ave. May 18, 2010
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -0 -0, Coms.
Kaneda and Giefer absent; to postpone Application M- 2010 -01 to the April 27,
2010 Planning Commission meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 13, 2010
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, 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; 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;
Pre -Zone and Re -Zone 0.028 acres from City of
Sunnyvale to pre- R1 -7.5 and 0.590 acres from A1-43 to
R1 -7.5. Postponed from the March 23, 2010 meeting;
Tentative City Council date May 18, 2010.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single - family
residential lots, with an exception area of 1.211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; and
variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district whre 60 feet is required; and
prezoning and rezoning 0.028 from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1.7.5 and 0.590 acre from
A1-43 to R1-7.5, as outlined in the staff report.
• Applicant is requesting a prezoning for the portion of the property that is located in Sunnyvale,
so that at a future date if they decide to realign the boundaries between Sunnyvale and
Cupertino, and annex it to the City of Cupertino, they will have the zoning already established
and will not have to return for it. The small portion is being prezoned from the City of
Sunnyvale to the Pre- R1 -7.5. Cupertino does not have any jurisdiction over the small corner;
however, it is not needed to approve the subdivision. The remainder of the zoning is
consistent with the neighborhood zoning which is also R1 -7.5.
• Relative to the lot width justification, they are applying for a variance to allow a lot width of
55 feet; in surveying the adjacent lots in the neighborhood, it was found that all the interior cul
de sac lots which are similar to the ones proposed, do have lot widths slightly shorter. Staff
feels that the findings as stated in the staff report can be made.
• Relative to noise, the property is located near Highway 280 and is a noisy environment; both
the exterior noise levels and interior noise levels, if they were to build a standard house, would
exceed the city noise standards. The interior noise levels can be mitigated to city standards by
using special STC -rated glass assemblies for all windows facing highway 280 or have some
orientation to that. Exterior noise levels can be mitigated to City standards; the noise
consultant stated that in order to achieve the noise levels, to bring them down 8 decibels to
meet the city's noise standards, would have to construct sound walls along the sides and rear
property lines; would have to be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls surrounding both
lots in order for the sound mitigation to be effective. Staff does not recommend it in this
particular case; in addition, the noise consultant indicated that you would be increasing the
noise levels of the adjacent apartment building by at least 3 decibels from the reflection off the
taller walls if they were built.
• The ERC has expressed concerns with potential air quality impacts at the project site. A
formal air quality analysis cannot be made at this point because the BAAQMD had not
adopted any guidelines. The applicant's consultant suggested looking at individual mitigations
for each residence; although there are no houses being proposed with the development at this
time, the idea would be to condition the Tentative Map to have covenants on it informing any
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 13, 2010
future purchaser of the property that there is a noise environment„ there is an air quality issue
and that there are reports available at the City and there will be requirements placed on the
residential developments to mitigate the air quality as well as interior noise.
• Staff recommends approval of the project, the mitigated negative declaration, approval of
tentative map, variance, and pre- zoning and rezoning.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions:
• Said the air quality consultant felt that landscape mitigation would not be an effective solution
for reducing particular counts, because the landscape would not grow tall or thick enough to
filter out the air pollutants. Cupertino has a lot of experience growing lots of trees close
together and can accomplish that screen; there are many examples of thick growth of
landscaping screens. Even though the noise buffering might not be as effective as the air
quality consultant would like, being that it is so close to the highway and there is a sound wall,
regardless of whether there is air quality issue, it is desirable to have additional landscaping
along that property. Staff felt it could accomp] ish two things at once, even though one is not as
effective; there are other benefits that a row of trees might provide as well.
Chair Brophy:
• Para. 6 talks about the possibility of passive electrostatic filtering systems and raises concerns
that there may be an issue of ozone contamination from those. Does staff have any feelings
about the tradeoffs as to the benefits and costs of an electrostatic system as well?
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said staff does not have the expertise to comment. Some of the mitigation measures are
measures that they are starting to see in some of the developments in the Bay Area; projects
next to freeways. With that experience the consultant is merely pointing out a few that are
reasonable to accommodate if the Planning Commission has concerns.
Chair Brophy:
• It is an obvious point, in addition to the two lots, almost anybody who lives along Hwy. 280
has similar noise and air quality issues whatever they may be.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it is true that subsequent applications get the benefit of additional study whereas past ones
did not.
Com. Miller:
• Asked staff to clarify how they respond to a situation where it is known that it doesn't meet the
noise standards and pollution standards of the , pity in terms of allowing building on that site.
Gary Chao:
• In terms of air quality standards, there presently aren't any in the books; there are discussions
from BAAQMD about adopting standards, but there are none presently being adopted. The
City is being proactive in trying to address that with an informal study.
• Regarding a noise ordinance, there is desirable outdoor noise limitations, but there are
hundreds of thousands of homes along Highway 280 currently adjacent to this project; there
are homes in similar situations, so in that case staff feels that the best the applicant can do is
address the interior noise and since it is zoned Rl lot, it is reasonable to develop R1 homes on
the site and the property owner or future property owners would have to deal with the exterior
noise limitations.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 13, 2010
• There is no feasible way of mitigating aside from a 20 foot wall which is undesirable
aesthetically as well.
Com. Miller:
• There are other alternatives; they could say it is not suitable for building houses or say that
anyone who does build a house there would be required to have a physical notice stating that it
does not meet the standards for either noise or pollution, so that there is a required disclosure
for anyone thinking of purchasing a house there.
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director:
• Said it was a good point; that they were planning to put that in their tentative map
requirements and the disclosure is a very necessary one.
Chair Brophy:
• As far as disclosures go, the only person who as a potential home buyer would look at those
lots and not know that there is a noise issue would be a deaf person. He said he did not see the
point of a formal disclosure.
Com. Miller:
• Because you cannot assure that someone won't go there and assume that even though it sounds
noisy to them, it must meet the city's requirements or they wouldn't have allowed the building
in the first place. Disclosures only ensure that they won't be litigation; they never lead to
litigation.
Colin Jung:
• Said disclosure was important; and cited an example, when working on this project, was
contacted by an investor in Canada who wanted to contact Mr. Greggorson because they were
interested in purchasing the project if they had succeeded in getting the project entitled. He
said he did not think they had visited the property so they wouldn't have the benefit of that
field experience.
Marvin Bamberg, Owner of MBA Architects, Applicant:
• Said he was satisfied with the conditions of approval recommended, and would respond to
concerns raised.
• Required Disclosure: No objection to doing that; however, in all fairness it should be a
requirement for anyone who owns property along the freeway and sells it. All of those other
homeowners who reside in those conditions, have done so for years. Nobody has forced them
to purchase the homes; if they sell their house without a disclosure, there is no reason he
should have to provide a disclosure either; it should be fair for everyone.
• Mr. Greggorson has owned the property since 1983; the present structures were not of his
doing, it is likely none of them have permits. A concern was mentioned about parking on the
existing parcel that has the easement; there is a garage on that property that holds 5 cars; which
would be in addition to any onsite parking outside the structure.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Stuart Chessen, North Portal Ave.:
• In favor of application.
• Portal Block leader as well; got a survey of neighborhood and didn't see anyone totally against
the project.
• Concerns: the owner did not have access to his property; he didn't have any clear access in
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 13, 2010
and out of the property until he bought the property at 10642 which is one of the original
houses, and it is almost a dual residence even though it is an R1 zone.
• The driveway will have five different residences going in and out of there, we want to make
sure there is no parking along there, who is going to maintain it; and the power going across
there; the power will not allow a fire truck to go across; it is a low level phone line going
across and power currently on that back wall; so it would be nice if the utilities were put
underground.
• For second story, we would require that second story has normal privacy to the existing
homes, with trees planted, etc., that way they will get more noise reduction and also have their
privacy observed on that. On the southern border of the property, the bottom line, there is a
PGE easement of 5 feet, and the home is barely another 5 feet from that. If that is a second
story, when I built my in -law quarters, I had to observe that and keep the roofline low; I would
like the city to look at that and make sure they follow code so that means that has to be a low
level roof there or they have to move into the property.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Colin Jung responded to the applicant's concerns:
• Relative to the easement, the Fire Dept. has reviewed it and the width of the driveway is only
wide enough to provide access and will be treated as a fire lane and won't be any parking
allowed there. If they construct curbs on it, at least on one side of it to control some of the
drainage, the curbs will be red painted in the cape of the fire lane.
• Relative to utilities, there is a utility line along the southern property line and a requirement of
subdivision of property is undergrounding the utilities, a standard city practice that would be
accomplished with the development of the project. If it is R1 zoned property, they will be
subject to privacy screening, landscape privacy screening required of all two story homes.
• With respect to other easements on the property, there are some unusual easements on the
property; some of them date back to the agricultural period of this lot; an irrigation easement
and if those are not relinquished in any way, they will need to be respected. Fortunately these
lots are a large enough size at 11,013 gross square feet, where there is enough flexibility to
develop a house on those properties and avoid the easement areas.
Chair Brophy:
• Pointed out that these are not proposed site plans for the houses; but rather proof to the
Planning Dept. that homes could be built on these lots, respecting setbacks and providing
adequate parking on the property without having to park on the easement or in the cul de sac.
Colin Jung:
• Said the possibility of a one story instead of two stories had not been discussed with the
applicant, because it is not part of the project as proposed.
Gary Chao:
• For the benefit of the audience and neighbors, there are second story setbacks, and perhaps the
conceptual footprint as shown only shows ground floor or single story, but typically the
required second floor setbacks are much greater than what is shown on the ground floor. You
can expect that additional offset and setbacks occur on the second level.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Is the easement a one -way or two -way street, and have enough width for two cars to pass each
other?
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 13, 2010
Colin Jung:
• It is 20 feet wide, which is wide enough for a fire truck to access the property and if it was two
vehicles they could both be on the right -of -way at the same time. It is only two houses and the
traffic generated by those as well as the house at 10642 No. Portal Ave.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to the applicant's suggestion that anyone who owns a house near the freeway should
do a disclosure, she said she would check with the City Attorney as to what mechanism they
would have; typically the conditions are required of projects that require discretionary
approval.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it was straightforward; there are a number of issues that the applicant or whoever he sells
the property to, will have to deal with when they get a building permit, but from what has been
discussed, he said he did not expect any insurmountable problems. It comes down to the issue
of whether there should be some type of notice, and he agreed on the two issues of noise and
air quality. On air quality, the BAAQMD has not promulgated any rules so how or why could
they give any notice on that. Relative to noise, projects have been approved along the freeway
that undoubtedly would raise this issue; and given that noise is such a self - evident issue, it
would affect the homes that are on No. Portal; it would affect any of the residents of the
adjoining apartment complex, as well as hundreds of homes in Cupertino and probably
millions of people in California. He said he would prefer not to have a specific notice here; if
this issue is to be addressed, it would seem to be more logically addressed through a general
ordinance by the City Council that would affect the entire city, rather than using the zoning
process to impose this on two particular lots.
Com. Miller:
• It is zoned R1 and it meets the subdivision requirements, so the applicant has a right to a
subdivision; however, he again expressed concern about the general poor living conditions for
someone who is going to purchase the house. It is true that there are houses all over the city
that are next to the freeway, they were built a long time ago and it is not known whether the
people were aware of noise and pollution issues when they were built or not; but we are aware
of them now. He said he felt the City has an , obligation, there might even be some liability on
the part of the city if there wasn't disclosures.
• Said he supported disclosures and if they can do that in other properties in the city, he felt it
was reasonable. It is more than just an issue of fairness, it is an issue of public health. He said
he would support the subdivision, but only with the condition that disclosures are included.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she supported the subdivision, lot size and width and wished that there were guidelines
adopted; trying to impose it would be difficult. She said it was the first instance she had seen
that the decibel was above what the city desired; and it made sense to do something about it, to
protect the sound/noise attenuation.
• Said she would like more guidance from staff.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Explained staffs recommendation for the two main noise mitigation measures; one is the
windows which will be done because the internal noise levels will be mitigated once the
windows are installed; exterior noise levels as the consultant noted are a mixed bag. Based on
weighing the pros and cons of those measures, it creates a canyon -like atmosphere for people
who are living in those homes, and in doing so, the noise bounces off the walls and creates an
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 13, 2010
impact to adjacent developments. Staff does not feel that the sound walls will be an effective
measure; hence the window mitigation, but not the walls.
• Relative to pollution issues, perhaps it can be stated that it has to be noted that the properties
are in proximity to a freeway and the noise and possible pollution impacts that come with that.
They also have to know that if they are building homes, they would be required to put in
certain mitigations for both of those. Staff care craft some language to that effect.
Com. Miller:
• Said a disclosure is to make buyers aware that houses in proximity to freeways are subject to
higher levels of air pollution. Also, this partimlar property does not meet the noise standards
outside the structure that are established by the City of Cupertino; if they choose to buy the
property under those conditions, that is their choice.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he disagreed; and pointed out that people who buy the lots are living two miles from the
San Andreas fault.
Com. Miller:
• Said that was a disclosure also; all those things are disclosed; the real estate industry goes
overboard in disclosing everything when someone buys a house and they are inundated with
paper. A disclosure helps an informed buyer make an informed decision.
Chair Brophy:
• Said if they feel strongly about this issue, they should send a minute order to the City Council
that the City should draft an ordinance that any property sold in Cupertino that is within XX
feet of Hwy 280 or Hwy 85 be subject to notices of possible noise issues and uncertain issues
regarding air quality. It seems the appropriate way to do it rather than dealing with imposing it
on a two -unit subdivision for the first time.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was not opposed to addressing the broader issue; but there is the present issue before
them of the two houses, and he was in favor of addressing it on an individual house basis, or
on a general basis. He personally felt that it is an issue that is appropriate for a city to address
and he was not proposing a mandate, but was proposing a disclosure.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he disagreed.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she felt that since the BAAQNID had proposed some guidelines in light of that fact and
what was learned last year, and she felt it was reasonable to add the disclosure.
Com. Miller:
• Suggested language for the ordinance relative to air quality to include the general statement
that properties close to a freeway are known to have higher levels of air pollutants; and the
language with respect to the noise ordinance would be state that the outside decibel level
outside the structure itself is higher than the city standard.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -0 -0, Coms.
Giefer and Kaneda absent; to approve Application TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01,
Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) with the additional disclosures discussed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 April 13, 2010
2. U- 2009 -08 (EA- 2009 -11), Use Permit and Architectural & Site Approval to allow
ASA- 2009 -08; TR- 2010 -08 demolition of 95,666 sq. ft. of existing commercial space
Ken Rodrigues (FBJ and the construction of 146,458 sq. ft. of new commercial
Homestead Associates, LLC) space consisting of 4 new commercial satellite buildings
20580, 20620 & 20680 and 3 new major tenant spaces in an existing shopping
Homestead Rd (P W Market) center. The approval also allows a 24 -hour drive -
through pharmacy and a second drive - through at one
of the satellite buildings to operate from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 124 trees as part of
a proposed development application. Postponed from the March 23, 2010
meeting; Tentative City Council date is May 4, 2010.
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Use Permit and Architectural and Site approval to demolish the
existing commercial space and construct approximately 147,800 new commercial space, four
commercial satellite buildings, three major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center; a 24
hour drive - through pharmacy and a second drive- through at one of the satellite buildings to
operate extended hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.; also tree removal permit for up to 124 trees and
replace with 134 trees; and negative declaration already approved by the ERC.
• The proposal is to demolish the Carl's Jr., PW Market, Rite Aid and an empty tenant space,
construct new commercial space for a new PW Market, Rite Aid and two pad buildings along
Homestead Road at the northern end of the property and reconstruct approximately 95,000
square feet at the southern part of the property. The pad buildings indicated on the site plan in
brown are being retained. They are proposing extensive landscaping enhancements throughout
the site, reconfiguring the parking lot from angled to 90 degree parking, and numerous other
enhancements including plazas with enhanced paving, seating areas, fountains, art features,
etc. A new detached sidewalk is proposed and park strip along Homestead Road; redoing all
trash enclosures on site; and rebuilding one of the loading docks at the back building. Staff
recommends that the sidewalk on the eastern side of Franco Court also be detached.
• She reviewed the site elevations; minor enhancements to the existing portion of the back
shopping center; parking; drive - through uses, as outlined in the staff report. Staff supports the
pharmacy drive - through but does not support the second drive - through proposal because it is
disruptive to pedestrian circulation, is awkward for vehicular traffic and is hard to
architecturally integrate drive - throughs within a shopping center in a building located almost
in the middle of the center.
• A neighborhood meeting was held on March 13; neighbors were supportive of the project.
The only concerns voiced were related to construction noise and staging of materials and the
applicant has assured the staff and there are conditions of approval in the model resolution to
address those concerns.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application in
accordance with the amended model resolution.
• A new public park is under construction, located in the southwest corner of Franco and
Homestead, part of the Villa Serra apartments, and is not related to the proposed project.
Staff answered questions about the drive - throughs ;
Com. Miller:
• Staff is requiring a reciprocal access easement between one property and another illustrated.
He expressed concern that they had seen two previous applications with reciprocal driveways
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 13, 2010
where the neighbor who wasn't building complained about the neighbor who was building,
which created an uproar. He said if they are going to make it a requirement, they should do it
in such a way that it doesn't lead to threats of litigation and extended evaluations by the staff
and the city.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were required of projects; it is a good policy because it puts less stress on the roads,
especially at the intersections of Homestead and DeAnza which are very busy; it prevents the
in and out movements.
Com. Miller:
• Said he understood the benefit and recalled the past issue of the Wolfe Camera building which
the city had required ingress /egress reciprocal between the Wolfe Camera building and the
nursery next door. The city attorney had to weigh in, there was potential litigation and back
and forth reviewing which created a lot of unnecessary staff time, Planning Commission and
City Council time. He said that however it is done, it should be worded in such a way to avoid
known issues from the past.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said there were no additional driveways being proposed; staff discussed with Public Works the
numbers and the volume of traffic that uses Franco from this development, and also went
through the numbers developed by the traffic consultant.
• They observed with no project, meaning with this development not happening, a total of 68
cars that used Franco during the a.m. peak hours. With the new project, they saw an increase
of 6 cars using Franco; they are not anticipating a huge increase in the number of users on
Franco. Staff also talked to Public Works about the necessity to block the driveway off and
they did not feel that it was necessary, there weren't enough volume of cars using this or
pedestrians using the street. There could be additional signage that the applicant could use to
suggest drivers be more cautious.
Gary Chao:
• Discussed the phasing process; Phase I would consist of more infrastructural enhancements
associated with the project, The list of improvements associated with that phase, such as
separated sidewalks around the perimeter, street landscape enhancements, pedestrian access
improvements and parking lot enhancements would have to exist if there is going to be a
project. Staff recommends that the infrastructural enhancements, the necessary ones, be part of
Phase I.
• He clarified that separated sidewalks would be along Homestead Road consistent with
continuation with what is happening along Villa Serra; it is the only stretch of Homestead
Road that is without a detached sidewalk. Detached sidewalk is a park strip, and a walk behind
the park strip as opposed to a path right up against the curb. The detached sidewalk should
also happen along Franco Court, across the street from Franco along that the park t hat is being
proposed to have detached sidewalk up to eventually connect to Homestead„ so that is to
mirror the other side as well. Staff is also asking that it be done along Franco as well, but not
as part of Phase I.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said that street landscape refers to street trees that would be planted along the separated
sidewalk. Pedestrian improvements and right -of -way refers to improvements that the traffic
consultant recommended with the new pedestrian pad. With the new pad they do anticipate
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 13, 2010
some increase in pedestrian activity and they wanted some improvements in the right of way;
it would probably include some crosswalk striping.
Gary Chao:
• Staff is recommending a condition for odor abatement up front; the applicant may decide not
to use it, but it is more cost efficient to install it at the time of construction, and another owner
may decide to use it in the future. There are some cases where existing restaurants and ones
going into existing spaces, have technical issues and structural issues where they look at what
kind of food and type of operation it is in proximity to residential. In this case staff is
recommending it be incorporated.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said that the bike racks would be located as close to the pad buildings as possible; one bank of
bike racks at least near each building and the remainder along the larger shopping center.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Ken Rodriguez, Project Architect:
• Reviewed a slide presentation of the proposed project, including the layout of the stores and
pad buildings. He said he disagreed with staffs opinion about the second drive -up, since the
circulation is very good as the drive -up lanes are concealed on site and not exposed onto the
street. He requested that the Planning Comm ission agree with the applicant that the drive -up
is a very integral important part of the proposed project.
• Phasing: The Rite Aid building will be moved out first and then pad buildings would be built
along Homestead; finally the large three formats would be the last phase built. Parking would
be done in conjunction with parking surrounding the building so that adequate parking is
provided during all phases.
• Trees: There are some important trees they are trying to save along Franco, liquid amber trees
that were planted in a remodel about 20 years ago; also saving and embellishing the trees at the
back end of the site. They have committed to the neighbors in the back that it is a buffer that
will remain and will be continued through this project; they are adding 262 trees to the site.
• Relative to waiving the BMR fee, he agreed with Com. Miller's suggestion; it is a very
difficult economy, they have owned the property since its inception in 1969; it is incredibly
challenging even for someone who has owned the property that long to try to finance anything
today. He said they were enhancing the center for the next 40 years which is an expensive
undertaking.
• Bike racks are located along the arcade, existing ones in front of the stores, and new ones will
be provided by the pad buildings. He said they will continue to work with staff during permit
stage to refine those, and prior to the permit.
• Relative to Item 8 of the desk items, they feel that the existing sidewalk is a monolithic
sidewalk. To remove that and try to move it inboard and place a parkstrip, would lose some
beautiful sycamore trees that are presently there. He said he did not see the value in doing that.
• On the other hand, there is a new detached sidewalk that is being done along Homestead and
he said he would be agreeable with wrapping part of the corner with that and transitioning
back to a monolithic. He said they felt it was a good solution and hoped that the Planning
Commission agrees with that.
• Said he was agreeable with the improvements for Phase I that staff was requesting; and was
agreeable to the condition on odor abatement.
• Said Fehr and Peers had no objections to the onsite circulation. The site plan is well thought
out with all the stakeholders interests, all the different phases, where the market is and where
this project will be headed for the next 40 years. The drive - through is completely screened at
Cupertino Planning Commission 1 "', April 13, 2010
the rear of the building; the access point shown and the circulation through the project is
significantly better than any of the drive - throughs down at the other end of the street. He said
it was a major part from an economic standpoint of this project, and eliminating it also
eliminates a high quality financial institution as well as a potential drive -up restaurant or some
other type of food service. He said it was a very important part of the project and he
encouraged approval of the additional drive - through.
Com. Miller:
• Asked staff to comment on Ken Rodriguez' request not to do the separated driveway on
Franco because they would have to remove some mature trees.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• She noted that he would be agreeable with coming around the Carl's Jr. building to Franco
Court. They will ascertain if the sidewalk would impact the trees; they haven't done a study of
that, but it was reasonable to say that the second portion of it could possibly be done when the
other buildings are redone; or they could stop at this point, at least for this project.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said they planned to leave all the existing landscaping as it was mature and attractive and is
important to the residents as their entry; some members of the public are concerned about
trees.
• He said he was willing to continue to work with staff on the item, but wanted to bring forth the
wrapping of the corner.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It is reasonable to say that the corner can be wrapped, although she would prefer that it go
further up. She said they typically put in a double row of trees and there may be some other
work done at the southern end and it could be exempt for now until they know exactly will go
in at a future time. Linking the improvements with the amount of work being done is
reasonable.
• Said they try to screen parking lots from streets, with the sidewalk inboard so there is a row of
trees on either side of the sidewalk. It was 'Done along side streets of major arterials in the
past, along Blaney for Travenia. She said she was uncertain if it could be done for this
particular project.
Ken Rodriquez:
• Referring to the aerial photo, and illustrated Franco Court, and where the cul de sac ends.
Across the street, there are carports from the new residential project; that area is only 8 feet
wide, carports back right up to it and the grade difference is three feet, so there is no way a
park strip and sidewalk would work in that area; it would have to be a monolithic walkway to
get it to work.
• Given that the sidewalk is one used by the residents, it is such a short court, and it doesn't
make a lot of sense to tear out all the landscaping and have a park strip there especially when
you are going to have a monolithic sidewalk across the street.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that Ken Rodriguez made a very good case for the project. If a new project came in she
said she would like to re- evaluate that. For example when the Villa Serra project was done,
they required certain improvements on the other side; the idea is to have the pedestrian
protected as much as possible with the trees and to provide additional screening to the trees.
They are uncertain what will happen in the area, and they feel that there are opportunities to
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 13, 2010
make that parking more efficient and at that time they can consider it again. For the purposes
of this project, they could end it where she illustrated, because that is the extent of the
improvements.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Responded to staffs concern about the improvements to the front elevation of the main
shopping center; they don't seem to integrate well.
• There are some existing tenants, they are corporate tenants; staff has been working diligently
with the applicant to try to marry what a national tenant, Michaels and TJMaxx would accept,
along with some design. He said he was agreeable to continuing to work with staff on that
basis and coming up with an architectural solution for those three tenants.
Chair Brophy summarized two emails received relative to the project.
Owners of Goodyear Property:
• They have some technical issues, more of art engineering nature; questioned location of the
media filtration, any regrading, continuous access to the DeAnza property's parcel; the
Goodyear parcel during construction; construction staging.
• Chair Brophy said he assumed the concerns would be worked out.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they talked with the applicant and did not perceive any problems. There are already
conditions in the model resolution.
Email from Peter Wilson, Condominium Project to the south:
• Issues raised: asked that car traffic stemming from the commercial area be directed only to
Homestead/DeAnza or the driveway existing behind FedEx and that no driveways be allowed
to empty onto Franco Court; he asked that a 3 ,4 acre park similar to what is being built on the
southwest corner of Franco and Homestead be reproduced with another 3 /4 acre park on the
southeast corner; requesting to minimize traffic on Franco Ct.. The concern is that the short
road not become an oasis for heavy traffic. Stated that it would be good to have new or
improved sidewalks leading from Homestead and DeAnza to all the stores; currently
pedestrians are required to walk through parking lot traffic areas to reach the existing
sidewalks from these roads.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• The shopping center is a destination center, where you can purchase food and clothing, and a
copy center, Rite Aid, etc. It is important that whenever there are improvements to the center,
it will not disrupt the shopping experience at the center. Concerned about hiding PW Market
behind other buildings; it is a wonderful gro,ery store. It is important to keep in mind the
visibility of the back buildings and there are some smaller new buildings going in the front.
Appears to be great attention to detail.
• She questioned whether Rite Aid would be a 24 hour store, or whether it was just a 24 hour
drive - through pharmacy. If the store is open 24 hours, she said she would be concerned about
alcohol consumption or purchase after midnight. Said she was also concerned about where the
Carl's Jr. is going. She asked that they not completely denude the entire parking lot of trees at
once; keep the traffic lanes wide so that the circulation inside the shopping center stays there.
There are many seniors in the community who shop there, so it's important to make sure there
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 13, 2010
are adequate large parking spaces with a clearly defined route of circulation. Make sure there
are adequate trees along Homestead and Sunnyvale /Saratoga Road. She said she was also
concerned about any narrowing of Franco Court.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said there was no mention in the study of circulation for the drive- through; staff spoke with
Public Works about the circulation for the second driveway and they had concerns about the
stacking and circulation for it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to the additional drive - through, she said it was a testament to the applicant that there
is only one point of disagreement; they have done good site planning. Staff feels that it does
have vehicular as well as pedestrian impacts; it completely cuts into that area and introduces a
whole new system of circulation and makes it difficult for somebody to park somewhere in the
middle and walk to either side. It is not something the General Plan encourages; there may be
some cases and staff understands that with the Rite Aid pharmacy, it is a benefit for the elderly
and sick people who don't have to get out of their cars for their prescription medicines. The
applicant has done a good job of hiding it. Ire this case, staff feels that it would be enough of
an impact that they do not feel comfortable with the additional drive -up.
Chair Brophy:
• Regarding Jennifer Griffin's comments, he said that relative to disrupting stores, the landlords
and tenants are concerned about that issue and are working to make sure it doesn't happen. As
far as Rite Aid blocking the view from P W Market, my understanding is that the grocery store
lease typically requires the permission of the grocery store in order to put something in front of
it, so that whatever is being proposed has been run by P W Markets and they are comfortable
with that concept.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Clarified that the use applied for is for both the building and drive- through on a 24 hour basis.
He said it was a convenience for seniors and families with sick children, and had low traffic
generation at that time.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that staff was not opposed to the 24 hour operation for Rite Aid. She said that there were
no specific limitations on the sale of alcohol
Ken Rodriguez:
• Commented on the second drive - through and said he hoped there was another way to do the
driveway as it was a major part of the project. He disagreed that there would be a conflict
between pedestrians and autos because they will come into the project, being able to queue up
and see any cars or anybody coming and swing into the project. It could be moved around the
corner; it could be suggested to the tenant.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Recommended that they not do that primarily because it will be visible, and it will introduce a
quick left turn movement just as people are turning in from Homestead. She said Ken
Rodriguez has done as good a job as anyone could; but it is going to introduce a lot of conflict
relative to vehicular and pedestrian.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 April 13, 2010
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said he agreed if it was moved around the corner, it would not be as visually pleasing; he
showed the most logical setup for customer parking, and said he did not see a problem with the
crossing.
• Said he would not object to a condition to continue to work with staff on the drive - through
lane if conceptually the Planning Commission feels they agree with the applicant that it be part
of the project.
Com. Miller:
• Said it was a definite improvement to the center and to the project; it is good in this
economically difficult time that there are some property owners wanting to enhance their
center, which is a benefit to the residents as well as an increase in sales tax dollars to the city,
which are both desirable objectives.
• Said they could ask for more and hope for higher level designs; however given the
environment, he was not inclined to do that. What they are proposing is a definite
improvement over what exists; it will be a benefit to the local residents.
• Said he was also inclined to work with them as much as possible to make it successful, and he
hoped that staff could work with the applicant to make that second drive - through possible.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that she felt staff has worked as much as they could; and Ken Rodriguez has done almost
everything he could to improve that. Staff is not implying the applicant hasn't worked with
them; they have been trying their best, but it just does not work.
Com. Miller:
• Said they had a report from the consultants that says they are agreeable with that.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• They are not looking at the impact on pedestrian circulation; they are just looking at whether it
is acceptable; it is okay, but staff feels it could be more than just okay.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was not convinced that it is an issue and he was sensitive to Ken Rodriguez' comment
about the pedestrians. He said he knew from personal experience that the back of the building
with no entrance is the least desirable place to park if you are doing business in that building.
• He said he was less uncomfortable with proposing the drive -up; perhaps there is another way
or some other alternative to work with the applicant so that they could do a drive -up, but it be
restricted in some way to certain types of drive -ups that don't create long stacking queues. He
said he would like to see if there is some way to allow him to have some flexibility.
• Said he suggested in the past that the BMR program is not effective and is expensive to new
development trying to come in; he does not feel that it is that effective in producing significant
number of Below Market Rate units in the c•ty. Particularly in this difficult time, he said he
would recommend to the City Council that they suspend the fee; although he was sensitive to
staff's comment that it might create an issue for others. He proposed for the next year or so,
for new commercial development they put a moratorium on BMR fees in general, so that
anyone coming in with a commercial development could take advantage of it.
• Said he felt the main issues were covered, and that everything else was resolved between the
applicant and the staff„ and he was interested in seeing this project move forward.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 April 13, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to the parking ratio, he said it was not just a matter of who the existing tenants are,
but as Ken Rodriguez pointed out, but the shapes of the spaces. They are talking about 20,000
to 30,000 foot spaces which are not, except for the grocery store, going to generate the type of
traffic per square foot of retail space that would be found in a center that is more of a true
neighborhood center that involves a successful grocery store. He said he was comfortable
leaving it as the applicant proposed.
• On Franco Drive, given that it is really more of a half -block cul de sac ending with a single
condo project, he said he would opt to leave out the separated sidewalk from Franco Drive.
• He said that staff and applicant are at an impasse regarding the drive - through, and there is no
easy way to pass the buck back in a way that it would solve itself; a decision must be made.
He said he supported the drive - through; and did not perceive the problem as bad as staff fears
and he felt it was an important element to get the project off the ground.
• On the Phase 2 building design, he said he understood the concern about the existing space on
the west side of the facade; it looks very old, but given that there are existing tenants there,
they need to be realistic as to what they can expect the applicant to do when it is time to
rebuild, to build the new PW store and fill in the remaining space. He said he would prefer to
soften the existing language in terms of saying that the applicant has to change it to the
satisfaction of the consulting architect. He said the property is a tired looking center because
of its age and the improvements proposed, without improving the remaining spaces, will be a
vast improvement to the community.
• Relative to the issue of fee collection, he said he was sympathetic to Com. Miller's comment;
the BMR fee alone is about $215,000. It is either an equity question that can be changed for a
single project, (in the next agenda item, one of the things to be discussed is potentially the
question of fees for development); he said at this point he did not feel in good conscience he
could make a one -time change for this project. He said they are asking the applicant to
provide a gateway sign showing the entrance to Cupertino, which is a public, not private
benefit. He suggested that the $25,000 fee be a credit against any public art expenditure; the
combined gateway sign and artwork would be '/4 of 1 % rather than the gateway sign being an
add -on in addition to public art.
Vice Chair Lee:
•. Staff is reluctant to support the drive - through; referring to Ken Rodriguez' design for exiting
by making a U -turn, she said she would not make a U -turn after getting out from the drive -
through, but it appears that two Commissioners think that there is a way to work with them.
• Said she would not go with the drive - through, and thought it would be unsafe to make the
quick left turn with people coming in.
• She said she still felt there is a chance to work with them, but not by considering after the
drive - through people making a U -turn to exit.
• She said on Franco Drive it was okay to leave the monolithic on the southern half of the
driveway and wait until they approve the restaurant.
• Relative to the BMR, she said in her opinion it was better to collect the fees because the city
needed the funds.
Chair Brophy:
• Summarized that on Franco Drive, they would want to keep the sidewalk as is to prevent
removal of the mature trees.
• If redoing Carls Jr., the corner was not such a big issue, but he saw no benefit in extending it
beyond that. After further discussion, he said because he wanted to resolve the issue, he would
not object to the extension if it was set to cover where the new Carls Jr. was located.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 13, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said what she heard was to turn the corner on Franco but not go beyond the end, where the
improvements go.
• Said that staff agreed; they could address it at a later time.
There was consensus from the Commissioners to support that.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the drive- through on Pad 2, he said it was important for the center to make it work;
there are some applications with needs for drive -ups that don't create a huge amount of
stacking that could be accommodated.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that staff would rather not restrict the uses of the shopping center; and give them
flexibility to lease it.
Com. Miller:
• Said they were restricting them to not having a drive- through.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it could accommodate a bank or a restaurant without a drive - through, if a fast food place
was prohibited.
John Machada, Leasing and Redevelopment Coordinator of the Project for about 15 -20
years.
• Regarding the drive - through, he pointed out that there are currently two full drive - throughs on
the property, a Carls Jr and a drive - through for a Cappuccino, which was the drive -up coffee
store; which lease was not renewed long -term because of the redevelopment. The new
proposal has a pick up pharmacy window for the Rite Aid which is unlike a drive - through.
The pickup pharmacy window is strictly for prescription items and is a convenience for the
community. There is limited traffic there, and that is the building that butts up to the existing
retail which is well screened. The other drive- through proposed is for a bank, a financial
institution, possibly a coffee shop; from a retail perspective more tenants are demanding the
drive - through services because the community wants them. What is proposed is actually a
decrease from what exists today.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it was clear that the applicant and staff had reached an impasse and a decision should be
made. He said he supported allowing the drive -up. He understood that this is a less that
optimal solution and if this was a center that had a very high level of occupancy equivalent to
a Cupertino Village or to the project on Grant Road, he could not support it; but given that he
would expect that even after their renovation, the center will still have a lot of surplus parking,
especially adjacent to Homestead, he said he would support allowing the drive - through at
Building 2 as proposed by the applicant or as he or the staff mutually agree otherwise.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported it also.
• Said that relative to the Phase 2 building design, the applicant said they would work with staff
to improve on that, and he was comfortable with that approach.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 April 13, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Concerned that the record reflect that the applicant has limited influence over the existing
tenants short of telling them to vacate, which is not his desire.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Staff felt that what the applicant was presenting was too heavy and they were looking for a
lighter, less expensive version. Staff is looking out for that as well as making sure it didn't
look like a tacked on feature; Ken Rodriguez is aware of it and is comfortable with it.
Chair Brophy moved the discussion to Collection of Fees, BMR, Gateway Signs /Artwork.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported reducing the fees; keeping in mind on this application they are only making
a recommendation, they are not the final vote. Since the Council is going to take up increasing
fees, he said he was sensitive that it is the wrong time to be increasing fees on businesses that
they want to come to Cupertino and/or expand businesses. Businesses should be encouraged,
and increasing the fees does the opposite. He said he was comfortable in making a
recommendation to the Council for them to make the end decision.
• With respect to the BMR fee, there is sufficient evidence, and when going through the housing
element update, the consultant said the same thing, that BMR in general does not address the
issue of affordable housing, particularly on a commercial center; it is a burden to put the fees
on them. He said he was inclined to suggest having some type of moratorium on the fees for
applicants who are coming in now; start by suggesting on this one and also recommend that
the Council look at it for other applications that are coming in at this time. This applicant is
not the only one asking for reduction of BMR fees; there are other applications that have been
approved or coming into the City and they are all saying the same thing; that this is a
challenging time for them and it is a very expensive fee that could help if it was eliminated. He
said he would be comfortable with language stating that "we recommend that the Council
consider reducing or suspending BMR fees without a specific dollar amount."
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if others agreed that the gateway sign be included in terms of the budget for public art.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported that.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that the requirement for public art was 1/4 of 1% of the total project performa, not to
exceed $100,000. The applicant is choosing to split it into two pieces of art. Since they are
asking that the applicant put in a gateway sign, he recommended requesting accredit for it;
they are providing something of benefit to the public that is asked of a small number of
applicants who are located in key locations; and he would prefer to give them a credit against
the art budget. He said philosophically he had a problem asking for $75,000 worth of art; and
as long as they have no option but to do it that way, he would rather give them a credit for the
gateway sign.
Com. Miller:
• Said that when the center is redone, there wil:i be increase in property taxes and sales taxes; it
is to the City's benefit from a financial standpoint to encourage the applicant to move forward
with the project and improve the center so that the residents benefit as well as the City in terms
of financial benefits.
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 April 13, 2010
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -0 -0, Coms.
Giefer and Kaneda absent; to approve Application U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR-
2010-08 and EA- 2009 -11, with the added conditions that the separated sidewalk
end with the new construction on Franco; and if not, replace the existing
landscape that goes past that; that the second drive - through be allowed and that
the applicant will work with staff to make it work as best as possible; and that
Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the BMR fees be reduced
or eliminated to encourage the development of the property; and that the
applicant be given a credit for the gateway sign to be applied toward the public
artwork.
Chair Brophy declared a short recess.
4. CP- 2010 -01 Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and
City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services
Citywide Location and organizational efficiency.
Gary Chao, presented the staff report:
• In 2009 the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive organization and
management analysis of the City's development review process including operations of the
Planning Department, Building Department and Public Works. The process entailed
interviewing customer focus groups, survey of city staffs, review of the development review
process, and the permit data and city's website. They also did a comparative study of other
comparable cities and also looked at common Best Management Practices in the industry.
• The recommendations to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency fell
in five categories as outlined in the staff repon., Page 4 -1 and 4 -2.
• The discussion will focus on recommendations from Matrix that require Planning Commission
review /City Council action involving either ordinance /policy amendments and/or funding.
The four categories are: (1) Ordinance/Policy Amendments; (2) Infrastructure/Technology
Improvements; (3) Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery; and (4) Other Misc Recommendations.
1. Ordinance /Policy Amendments:
(a) Streamlining the Permit Process
(i) Adjusting the Review Authority for Projects:
• Matrix spent a great deal of time analyzing how the city's process could be streamlined.
Their recommendation includes adjusting review authorities for projects; the study
identified that the city's process is not on par with neighboring cities and is sometimes
over - complicated and has identified area; in which they could make adjustments. Staff
has done a comparative analysis with neighboring cities and has included the
recommendations in the staff report. Staff is also recommending use of the CEQA
categorical exemption thresholds to determine if a project requires staff level approval or
going on to a higher body for review. Recommendations are detailed in Attachment 3 of
the staff report.
(ii) Reducing Noticing Requirements.
• Matrix acknowledged that many of the notification requirements exceed the minimum
State requirements; specifically staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider
minimizing plans being sent to adjacent neighbors or those within 300 feet for their
reviews, and looking at notifying the general public more efficiently when there is a larger
item. It is also recommended not to mail R1 plan sets to neighbors within 300 feet radius,
but provide a link to the City's website where the plans could be posted.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 13, 2010
(b) Improving Readability and Consistency
• Staff recommends that a comprehensive review be done all the zoning ordinance,
repetitions can be reduced and definitions added for clarification. More tables are being
used as evidenced in the Heart of the City format and the sign ordinance, which provides
an easier format to understand. Additional staff recommendations are detailed on Page 4-
4 of the staff report.
(c) Specific /Conceptual Plans
• Many of the City's Specific and Conceptual Plans were adopted in the 70s and 80s and
need to updated to be consistent with the General Plan and enhanced with formats similar
to the recently adopted Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff recommends updating of the
North DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan, South DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan,
Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines, and South Sunnyvale- Saratoga
Conceptual Zoning Plan be updated; each plan costing between $15K and $25K depending
on the scope of the project and outreach.
2. Infrastructure/Technology Improvements
(a) Online Permit System
• One of Matrix's high priority recommendations is the implementation of a new online
permit system because the current system is deficient in that it requires a lot of support and
maintenance on staff as different departments cannot jointly use and communicate through
the system. A new system should be online based, fully integrated so that various
departments and divisions can be using the same system to plan projects, communicate
with developers, and applicants can look up their status real time and submit applications,
review comments, and resubmit plans on line. It also should have the ability to link with
GIS to facilitate the comprehensive research by applicants and developers; all of which
will lead to reduced costs and increase review efficiency. A new system will cost
approximately $500,000 with a $15,000 annual maintenance fee.
(b) Infrastructure Improvements
• The Matrix Study also recommends redesign of the Planning Dept. permit counter area to
improve customer service, including a kiosk or using technology to set up the lobby area
so that people can use the self -help area, and adding a more comfortable and better
interface for the public. Cost would depend on the final scope of the project.
3. Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery
(a) Long -Range Planning Fees
• Matrix recommends the City incorporate a long -range planning fee into the development
fee schedule. Staff is recommending incorporating approximately 25% of the cost into the
current fee schedule in order to recoup some of the costs for such long -range studies and
projects as General Plan updates, Housing Elements, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans
and Master Plans.
(b) Permit System Improvement Fees
• Matrix recommends that a technology fee of 4% be implemented to charge permit users
relative to fee recovery of fees necessary to support the new permit system. The
permitting system will cost about $500,000 and staff proposes to charge approximately
75% of the cost to permit users to be spread over a number of years. The technology fee is
consistent with surrounding jurisdictions
4. Other Misc. Recommendations
• Miscellaneous recommendations by Matrix include Planning Commission and City
Council bylaws, operational procedures, and communication with one another;
summarized in their report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 April 13, 2010
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide input and ideas for implementing the
recommendations by Matrix and staff.
Com. Miller:
• Asked staff if they were suggesting for developments of subdivisions of 6 units or less, that it
be staff level review and not go the Planning Commission or City Council.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said when they reviewed other cities and looked at how they divided staff, it runs the entire
gamut. They compared cities that they compete economically with, such as Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale, and Mountain View, where they look at review procedures that are not so much
more onerous than the ones they have. Any CEQA exemptions tend to be approved at the staff
level, done in a variety of ways. Mountain View is different in that all current projects are
approved at staff level, and only ones that: require tentative map, EIRs for rezoning or
subdivision maps go the City Council. The project being discussed would be at staff level in
Mountain View and would only go to Planning Commission if there was an appeal. In other
cities it would depend on the CEQA exemption. In other cities, and what staff is
recommending is maybe projects that are not going to have any CEQA impacts, could be the
threshold for where the Planning Commission reviews it; perhaps a higher threshold for the
City Council.
Com. Miller:
• Said that the function of the Planning Commission was, that they work out all the details so
that the Council can make the higher level decisions, which is what staff recommends.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Clarified that the smaller projects of 5,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet don't need to go
through three levels of review; there is the ability to design the system where neighborhood
impacts are addressed.
• Discussed Mountain View's process; they have a staff level hearing similar to Cupertino's for
DRC, neighbors are noticed, who come and speak if they have any issues. The Mountain
View process is different from all the other cities studied, because their Planning Commission
only reviews General Plan amendments, rezoning, precise plans, conceptual plans; everything
else is reviewed by staff. It only goes to the City Council, if it is bumped up because of an
issue or it requires a tentative map, or any of those rezonings or other issues. She provided an
example of Bed Bath and Beyond, Costco, and the Center at Charleston Road being approved
at staff level.
• She said that staff was not suggesting the Mountain View process at this time; something in-
between would be a good choice.
Com. Miller:
• Said some applicants and residents have voiced their concerns in a number of different areas of
development; and he wanted to make sure their issues as well as staffs issues were addressed.
One of the concerns is that the review process takes a very long time; some residents who were
trying to either build new homes or do remodels gave up on the efforts after a year. He said he
did not know if they were issues of the past or present, but he is sensitive to their concerns. He
noted that the Toll Brothers project took 3 to 4 years to get approved.
• He said other concerns heard from residents, is that sometimes responsiveness is not as good
as they hoped for, either at the counter, or through emails or phone calls. It is challenging to
get a response back from the city. From the staff's standpoint, he said he knew staff is
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 April 13, 2010
overworked and he was sensitive to the fact that the Commission is onsite twice a month, but
staff is working on this four times a month, every week either for the Planning Commission or
City Council. It is a never - ending cycle and staff has a difficult job and he was sensitive to
that. If the improvements staff is suggesting in terms of more staff level review will help them
be more efficient, he said he supported it.
Aarti Shrivasttava:
• Said it made sense; they would put in time at one hearing or the other, but it would not
increase their workload. Their focus is on how best they can streamline the review process
while still making sure that neighborhood concerns and other concerns are addressed because
that is important.
• Staff is recommending a medium range of changes; she said that it is correct that there are
many instances where responsiveness could be better; staff considers it a process of continuous
improvement; they don't see the Matrix report as the end of a process, and they are constantly
looking at ways to internally review their processes and they have heard some compliments.
They will also look at how the ordinance could be simplified; how the information can be
arranged in a more readable way. Staffs focus has been if you need a table to explain the
ordinance, then the ordinance should be the table; you shouldn't have to have documentation
to explain the ordinance. Those are examples of how they simplify; and some of their
notification recommendations have also been made based on that.
Com. Miller:
• Said the suggestions for notification were good ones as well. Also the sensitivity to the
neighborhood is very important; they have gone overboard in making sure everybody is
noticed and that there are public hearings. Said that when he joined the Planning Commission
in 2003 it was very antagonistic between the residents, City Council and staff; it was a very
contentious time. Part of the reason it has changed is that they went overboard with
disclosures, approvals and public hearings as opposed to meetings that aren't quite so public
and their outreach efforts. He said they don't want to return to the past antagonism, but want
to be more efficient and it is very challenging.
• Said the suggestions about technology improvements are also very good; having more info on
line, being able to reduce costs by not having to produce numerous different sets of plans for
each application are all good things. The concern is if you reduce costs but you are going to
charge someone a percentage of a half million dollars plus a percentage of $50,000 a year, the
overall costs will increase; said he had difficulty understanding how it could be considered an
efficiency improvement, efficiency means louver cost, but in fact it is a higher cost.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it would be ideal if there was unlimited funding and the services were free. In talking
with developers, they feel that two things are more important than money; time and the faster
you can process something, and the more certainty you can put into the process in terms of
how do you notify somebody, what kind of parking ratios; trying to take those up in the air
things and tying them down so they know up front what the issues are, are important. Staff if
focusing on those two things.
• Staff feels there will be a cost savings in terns of the repeat submittal of applications when
they do submit; that cost will be offset by the overhead of the technology cost. The result of
the system will be a system that exponentially is better; they can submit things from their
office, they don't have to come to City Hall to submit them; and they can pay for it online.
Staff has seen presentations from three software companies to get an idea of the price range.
Once a decision is made, it takes about 18 months to start implementing the system; once it is
done they can look at the review comments online, look at the pictures. There will be a cost
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 April 13, 2010
tradeoff; there will not be a net savings because where you save in the submission of plans you
will probably pay in terms of the overhead costs. The improvement will be in service.
Com. Miller:
• Said he would like to see and understand the exact dollar estimates; saying 25% or 75% of the
cost over a period of years does not fully explain the numbers.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said presently they charge an overhead for the system that they use for Building, because only
Building has that system.
• When they put in the new system and spread the cost out for Public Works, Planning and
Building, that cost will be a fixed cost spread out over a period of time. For this year for
example it will likely result in an increase o about 3% in the fees; over time it would be a
smaller percentage because it would be a fixed cost that doesn't go up; it won't be a 3%
increase. When comparing other cities, they range from 4% to 10 %.
Com. Miller:
• There is also an offset and that is if you are also recommending that there is reduced DRC,
Planning Commission and Council hearings, there is a reduction in fees because you are not
having to go to those bodies.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they could do a fee study once they start implementing it to see how much time is taken.
In her experience in Mountain View there wa; a lot of work up front, they did have a hearing,
there may not be three levels of hearings; for a project of this type it would have been two
hearings; there may be some savings.
• She noted that it is an area of increased government regulations; staff recently made a
recommendation to approve the landscaping ordinance, and are not asking for a fee for that
because they think that the city should absorb the cost. In all the review, she said she did not
know what the savings will be but they will try to keep the cost down.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was shocked at contents the Matrix report; and felt it was a recommendation from an
outside body who does not comprehend what goes on in Cupertino. She said she looked at the
report as not having the public involved whatsoever which negated all the public input they
worked so hard for in Cupertino to become a part of the building process, to understand the
planning process and this has tremendous dangerous ramifications for her neighborhood who
wound up in Cupertino because they needed protection that the County was not providing.
• She said the city should not stop doing notifications for 300 feet; there are people on her street
that do not have computer access; they cannot all get on the web; the deck issue shows a
complete lack of understanding on Matrix' part about notification of second story decks in
Cupertino. Notification is necessary as is filing of covenants. She said there are advantages to
high technology, but human interaction is also needed; quality means human interaction.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if they still need to mail plan sets to a 300 foot radius; in his experience the neighbors
get anxious when they get a full set of plans and most who don't have a design background
don't have an ability to read and understand them.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 April 13, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were not planning to do away with the 300 foot notification; it is required. They
would like to have the plans online so that people can zoom in and read them better; no other
application requires plan sets to be mailed and staff felt it was too onerous for only R1.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said they should look at the ordinance, clean up the language; they have seen some daycare
facilities and they have not provided a lot of guidance so they might be frustrated at that point;
improve the readability as was done for the sign ordinance; with the technology, people could
check the status of their permits online and that way the departments are interconnected. It is
important to get a web based system.
• Said she felt it was a good thing to continue with the noticing requirements, but not send the
entire plan sets. In terms of streamlining reviewing authority, it is a good idea; perhaps a few
more things can be done at the staff level; it would be better and staff will be able to resolve a
lot of issues. The residents are comfortable now, they are emailing staff if they have
questions, and staff can do a good job about helping to mitigate their concerns.
Chair Brophy:
• Thanked Com. Miller for urging the Commission to take advantage of the slowdown in the
development process to use the opportunity l o clean up some of the processes, some of the
ordinances which have grown over the years; it is a good opportunity to deal with some of the
issues.
• Staff provided a informational report of the applications from the last two years that the
Planning Commission and DRC had processed and he recalled there were meetings that had
very mundane and minute items that did rot have a policy reason why they should be
considering the application.
• Said he was concerned that Matrix primary held focus groups with large developers and
professional architects who are regular visitors to the Planning Dept. downstairs. He said the
type of concerns he has heard are the problems that one -time users of the Planning and
Building process have, the person building a house, the small businessman putting up a small
expansion on a space, or building a small office, and that the process seemed overwhelming
and endless. To the extent they can use this period to try to reduce the burden on those people
and to the extent they can identify either changes in the review process for the smaller user,
reduce in some cases to not having a review; one of the questions that comes up are things like
conditional uses. In the past with the State holding a gun to their heads and that of the
Council, they agreed that churches could have as a matter of right, permanent homeless
shelters, yet the city require daycares and churches to be conditional uses. He said it struck
him as a strange juxtaposition.
• He suggested that since it is a difficult economic period, they could review the entire fee
structure that applicants face in planning and building to get a sense of where they stand
relative to adjoining communities; rather than arguing about BMR prices or technology fees
that they deal with.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was a good point. She said she was involved with a fee study in 2003 and they looked
at how many hours it took to review a typical application, what the overhead costs were; and
compared it with other cities to see if Cupertino was in line with them. She said they have to
remain competitive with other cities and cannot have costs over and above many other cities.
Cupertino's fees are very reasonable.
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 April 13, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said he would like to handle the fee issue as a complete package rather than partially, saying
their BMRs are too high, too low, then moving onto other fees. If there is some way of
making this the first element of their work with Matrix, she urged them to get it done as
quickly as possible.
Com. Miller:
• Said it was an outstanding idea to review the fees and also staff's recommendation and see
how they are.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Matrix was recommending a technology fee of 4 %, and based on their study and what they are
looking at, staff would put it in the overhead costs, and Building puts in an overhead cost for
their permitting system. It would be updated and since more than one department would be
using it, they would spread that cost over the departments that use it. Staff recommends
passing on not 100% of the costs, but only 75% because they understand there may be some
efficiency in the elimination of paperwork. That will result in about a 3% increase; money
would be saved in not having to copy plan sets several times. If you are paying park impact
fees, BMR fees, school impact fees, those will not be charged the 3% fee; it is only a Building
permit review, Planning review and Public Works review; all other fees will not be considered
because that is not part of the review process; that is a separate issue entirely. It is an example
of where they think it would be a good tradeoff.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it was important that everybody understand what all the fees are, what changes are made.
At the risk of not being able to get it ready for the budget cycle, there won't be many people
demanding permits in the next couple of months. He said he hoped they would have the
opportunity to have a comprehensive look at the entire fee structure and would settle for a list
of the fees.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• She said staff would provide an idea of how much PW Market paid in fees; keeping in mind
that they would be talking about Planning fees, school impact, park and BMR, which are part
of the fee structure. Not all of them come through this department; the park fees come through
Public Works; the schools determine the school impact fees.
• Staff discussed the fees paid by PW Market relative to the proposed new store.
• Said that staff is not recommending changing the BMR fees; recommendations regarding fees
relate to the online permitting and advance planning fees. Only the Planning and Building
permit review fees will be subject to the online permitting overhead.
Com. Miller:
• Said they agree that what staff is proposing from a technology standpoint seems like it is worth
the cost and the value; the value being more than the cost. Looking at it from the applicant's
standpoint, he is not just looking at the Planning fees, but is looking at all the fees he has to
pay. It would be helpful to understand all of it, to understand how to get an idea from the
applicant's standpoint what is he looking at and they are doing to help him make things easier.
• Some of the things staff is proposing by pulling more of the review at staff level instead of the
City Council is going to help in terms of the overall fees. There is also one large implicit fee,
which is the time cost of money and the longer it takes for someone to get through, he is
paying carrying costs on his property and that is probably one of the biggest fees he has to
contend with.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 April 13, 2010
• He recommended that one more meeting be held on the application, to enable the Commission
to absorb what staff has discussed, do more work on it, and get input from the two absent
Commissioners Giefer and Kaneda.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she understood they wanted to see the entire gamut, and would send them a schedule; it is
not something they are recommending changing at this point and they are not recommending
big changes to the fee schedule. She asked for their comments and opinion of the online
permitting cost and the advance planning cost., and if they feel it is a value, it is something that
is worth looking at, since the Council is considering the fee schedule for the budget.
Chair Brophy:
• Given that the suggestion is to put the increase also on the building permit fees which are the
big dollar ones; as far as the advance planning fees that is not a new fee, we are saying that
some of that cost should be recouped through Planning and Building fees rather than through
the General Fund revenues.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Correct; and it is a similar argument on the online permitting system; the General Fund has to
absorb the cost of all these systems.
Chair Brophy:
• The online permitting is a new thing and you are saying that we need to capture some or all of
that cost now.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the requirement for the system is generated by permit users, it is a database for
permits. Twenty -five percent of it provides some advantages to the people who pull permit
because they get the direct benefit from any of those updates; 75% could be absorbed by the
general public. It helps staff set up a fund to keep their systems updated and to assure people
that there is a way to do that. The biggest value to the process is time and certainty.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was uncomfortable with the lack of information; and he would like to see the whole
fee structure, not just the Planning side.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they could provide the fee schedules.
• Suggested that they forward it to the Planning Commission for them to study it and see if they
have any general recommendations; then staff can focus their Matrix discussion on how they
can streamline the review process. If there are any additional recommendations on fees, staff
can take that forward separately.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he would continue to support the mailing of the notification, mailing a sufficient set of
plans, whether it is front or rear elevations, to adjoining neighbors as well, and relative to
citywide noticing, one citywide noticing per project is adequate with notice as to where to find
it. The practice of sending multiple citywide notices is excessive. In terms of giving them
something to act on, if residents of the community feel differently, it will go to the Council and
they can express their opinions at the Council meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 April 13, 2010
Vice Chair Lee:
• The report states that people can appeal twice and then the consulting group recommends
limiting it to one appeal; how can people appeal twice?
Piu Ghosh:
• A staff level decision can be appealed once to Planning Commission where that decision is
final; the Planning Commission's decision can then be appealed to City Council.
Gary Chao:
• The consultant is recommending looking at ways to come up with a threshold as to certain
type of project; for example, the Planning Commission would be the final appeal body as
opposed to somebody having to appeal everybody like the subcommittee, DRC, staff, Planning
Commission, and have the experience of those- type of hearings where the same conversation is
repeated; and at the City Council there are another two attempts for reconsideration.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Staff hasn't made any specific recommendations to that point; she said they would focus on
some things that have more value such as the appeal process; staff can look at what is required
and what isn't.
• If someone feels strongly enough about a Planning Commission decision that they want to
appeal to City Council, those are rare, so it's not something to focus their energy on revising.
Staff would prefer to expend their energy on t:he day -to -day that they see a lot of and how they
can streamline that; things such as one year extensions for projects that are very typical.
Gary Chao:
• If someone is unhappy with a staff level decision they go to the Planning Commission;
because it is an advisory to the City Council. They can appeal a Planning Commission
decision to the City Council and must pay a $100 fee for that appeal.
• Relative to the suggestion to do a cost recovery on the City Council appeal, she said they did a
cost recovery review, it had come in high and. the Council at the time said that if the decision
goes in their favor, the $100 fee would be refunded. Many other cities require 50% of cost
recovery review for all appeals. She said they do not have many cases that appeal to the
Planning Commission and then City Council.
• If the applicant doesn't like the Council's decision they can go in for a reconsideration so the
Council can go through another hearing. There are several appeal levels.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt they should not shorten the appeal process; if people want to appeal, they should
have that right. However, there is something to be said for having some relationship for the
fee and the actual cost of doing that appeal.
Chair Brophy:
• He said on that issue he would defer to the Council for them to decide what to do because it is
an emotional issue as well as an accounting i ssue. After the fee issue, at some point you are
talking about the permit process and also talking about going through the zoning ordinance in
looking for ways to clean it up to identify areas that may be unduly complex or unduly
burdensome.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said staff does not see it as a revolutionary ordinance change; there are many communities
looking at form based zoning; the costs discussed are a very modest way of going through the
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 April 13, 2010
existing ordinance and just re- tabulating it. If they were to do anything different, she said she
would recommend hiring somebody to help staff go through the economics of things and
working everything out. Staff is recommending something really modest on a as- time - permits
basis; ensuring that they are tabulating things, and defining things that are undefined.
Chair Brophy:
• One of the issues being discussed is about codifying the ordinance in a more readable and
understandable form, and he said he thought they have unduly complex rules in terms of
conditional uses, and complexities.
Com. Miller:
• Said he had been through some revisions of the RI ordinance as a Planning Commissioner and
it is still just as challenging to read as ever. He questioned how effective the use of staff time is
toward that; if staff has spare time. He said he would categorize it as a lower priority.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he wasn't thinking about going back to R1 or any of the residential zones.
Com. Miller:
• Said that they have been working on rewording in the past, which is either a very challenging
task, or shortly after it gets done, it is changed again and becomes more convoluted. It is a
good activity, but has minimal benefit if there are other things that need to be done that should
be made a higher priority.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was reacting especially in the case of small business people where he saw them
struggling through the process in matters that don't affect the adjoining neighbors or don't
affect the appearance of the community; and to the extent that they can simplify and perhaps
eliminate some of the unduly complex rules o r this is allowed; but something that is a little bit
further away and slightly different, isn't. To the extent they can do that, he said he would
prefer that it be viewed as a higher priority.
Com. Miller:
• Said that he understood it was just going through and cleaning up the existing language; if the
proposal is to go through and streamlining things and clarifying the process, it is a different
activity.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that cleaning up the language would be good, but they would survive with or without
clean language. He said he would prefer to see, especially in the case of small users that don't
have an affect on adjoining properties or minimal affect, some streamlining in some of the
language. He said he felt that some of the hearings held in the last two years had a number of
cases that struck him as being unduly nit picking in terms of taking up the Commission's time,
staff's time and the whole rigmarole of a public hearing.
Com. Miller:
• Suggested having a document that explains step -by -step how to apply for whatever they are
considering. An example is "If you want to apply for , Step 1 is this; If you want to
apply for , Step 2 is this, etc.
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 April 13, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said he felt that having a document that explains the 27 steps you need to take doesn't solve
the problem; the problem is to reduce the number of steps, where they are not providing any
larger public benefit to the community.
Com. Miller:
• Said that perhaps both are the solution. You provide a clear explanation; "this is your path
through the process to help you understand the what has to happen next," and also reducing
the path so it is a shorter path.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were looking at doing both; they planned to work on the handouts internally, but
would do it after the process is known, so that it doesn't have to be done twice, when
amending it. If they were looking at an ordinance and reviewing it and revising some
streamlining processes, at that time they would look at tabulating things; they would not go out
and review ordinances for the sake of that. If they have an opportunity to look at it, they will
try to simplify it; but are not going to change- anything because consistency is important and
every time you make little changes to things, we confuse people more. There is some value to
keeping the rules the way they are; for simplifying it, that is fine; she said they are not going to
recommend making any big shifts to any of those standards.
Com. Miller:
• Said his recommendation is to capture all the comments made and continue the item.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said their goal for the end of the next meeting was to have the Planning Commission do two
things; specifically make comments on staff recommendations to say it is okay or not, or
something should be different; and additional comments because what they want to bring to
the Council is a broad brush list of things 1:hat they will be looking at over time as time
permits. They will not be able to tackle every section of the zoning ordinance or all of the
conceptual plans at the same time.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No Meeting.
Housing Commission: No report.
Manor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
Vice Chair Lee reported on the March meeting:
• Parks and Rec: Pool at Cupertino Sports Center will be a tennis court; property at Mary Ave.
may become a dog park; Library field will be a cricket field, known as Cricket Pitch; City
Council approved it for funds, spending money for it and helping recover some of the
maintenance costs.
• Library Commission: has been focusing to -emedy the parking and traffic situation at the
library. Options considered are to take away square footage from the library field and give it to
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 April 13, 2010
parking spaces; take away the left turn lane from Rodriguez and make it a strip of parking;
establish parking limits at the library.
• Also proposing a trail between the creek and library, aka Regnart Creek Trail, so less people
will need to park at the library.
• New street lights installed on Pacifica, Torre and DeAnza; they are white and brighter and
induction lighting on one side, LED on the other side.
• Technology Information Communications Comm.: has been promoting the high tech merits
of Cupertino in a push to stand out among other cities for the Google Ultra High Speed
Internet service. Council passed a resolution to support the application
• Public Safety Commission: focusing on efforts to set up a machine in schools that will record
the number of students who walk to school from a device in the students' backpacks, which
will generate information for reports on the walking to school involvement.
• The Bike and Pedestrian Commission: May 13 is Bike to Work Day. They are working on a
Bike Plan and will be scheduling public hearings; also working on signal timing and
maintenance.
Com. Miller reported on the April Meeting:
• Parks and Rec: Discussed the issue of geese and duck generated fecal matter as being a major
problem in Memorial Park. Proposed solutions include encouraging the public to stop feeding
the geese and ducks, and also using a chemical on the ground with keeps the geese and ducks
away. Reduced money is causing people to cut back on park land usage; the farm at Rancho
San Antonio is funded by the City of Mountain View and they have decided to stop funding
the farm.
• Technology Information Communications Comm.: An application was submitted to Google
for high speed internet; other tech companies are coming in with wi -fi, wi -max and clearwire
antennas in the summer which will result in a substantial upgrade to the city's high speed
capabilities for internet access.
• Public Safety Commission: Discussed the Walking to School program; looking at increasing
the number of radar speed signs as traffic calming mechanism; they are effective where they
are currently used in Cupertino. The liability issue regarding use of parent volunteers at
crosswalk guards during the school drop off and pick up times was discussed.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Written report submitted.
Adjournment:
• The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
April 27, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. 0 •
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth 'F, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: May 11, 2010