draft minutes 10-12-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINC PLANNING COMIVIISSION
DRAF T MIl�TUTES
6:45 P.M. Octob�,r 12, 2010 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO C OMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre ��venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul
Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairper�.on: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staffpresent: Community Development I►irector: Aarti Shrivastava
City Pl,inner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Associate Planner: Piu Ghosh
City At� orney: Carol Korade
APPROVAL OF MIlVUTES
September 28, 20I0 Planning Commission me eting:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, secon�3 by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-0-1, Com.
Giefer abstained; to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2010 meeting
as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM C.�LENDAR
2. ASA-2010-03 Architectural � nd Site approval to allow minor earterior and
EXC-2010-07, site improvem�;nts in association with a 1,850 sq. ft. addition
V-2010-02, TR-2010-38 to an existing 1 ight industrial building. Parking exception to
John Noori (Apple Inc.) allow compact stalls to be used at an existing industrial
10231 Bubb Road building; Vari.ince to exceed the lot coverage allowance by
3% on the Liglrt Industrial (ML) zoning district. Tree
removal reque �t for 12 trees and associated tree mitigation
measures at an existing light industrial building. Application
has been withc'rawn by applicant.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 October 12, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. M-2010-02 Modification to a Use Permit to allow entertainment
Alan Parsano (Modena establi shments and live entertainment activities to extend
Investment, L P& the hours of operation for these uses to 2:00 a.m. at the
Sunnyvale Holding, LLC) Oaks ;�hopping Center. Postponed from the July13,2010
21255-21275 Stevens Creek Plann.`ng Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
Boulevard date: November 16, 2010
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for modification to Use Permits to allow commercial entertainment
establishments and live entertainment acti ✓ities, and to extend the hours of operation to 2:00
a.m. in the Oaks Shopping center, as outlined in the staffreport.
• He noted that the request does not apF ly to the following uses: liquor stores, drinking
establishments as defined as an activity pri narily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages for
the consumption on the premises as well a� full service restaurants with separate bar facilities,
which remain as conditional uses at the cer ter and elsewhere in the city.
• He reviewed the General Plan policies rel,ited to entertainment uses; because of its proximity
to DeAnza College, there was General Plasi policy that relates to treating DeAnza as a valuable
community resource, and seek opportuniti �s to integrate future activities into the community.
The other General Plan policy pertains to �:vening entertainment, 2-92, which states that while
it would discourage such activities from Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard,
there is allowance for allowing late evening activities in Downtown Village which is the
Crossroads Area, Vallco Park and also oth�;r large properties isolated from residential districts.
The property is considered one of the largec commercial properties in Cupertino.
• Public outreach meetings were held, no re� idents attended; outreach was also conducted by the
applicant with the existing shopping center tenants. Code Enforcement said that the activities
should be limited to indoors only; and the} were concerned about the noise impact on adjacent
commercial tenants and would like to see the noise standards applied to at tenant wall. Fire
Departrnent's only concerns were that each occupant met Building and Fire Codes; Sherif�s
office said that the center should adopt a security plan for the center and if there is an excessive
amount of Sheriff activity there, they fund 3dditional SherifP s services if needed.
• If inerit is found with this proposal, staff is recommending a series of conditions relative to
noise requirements; hours of operation; co�icentration of uses limiting number of entertainment
establishments to four; address security c oncerns; lease disclosures for new and renewing
tenants; monitoring by way of an entertainment permit from the Director of Community
Development; compliance condition that after one yeaz a use permit review be conducted
relative to the tenant use, and if any coxr�plaints received were not addressed, the applicant
would have to appear before the Planning Commission in a public hearing and the permit
would be reviewed and may be modified or revoked. To address enforcement concerns, the
property owner may have to pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement because of
documented incidents in the shopping cent�:r.
• Staff recommends consideration of the pro �osal.
Staff answered questions relative to concerns about noise, security plan and parking.
Shawn Tahere. Applicant:
• Said he agreed with stafPs recommendations. He said his goal was to make the Oaks Center a
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 12, 2010
livelier center. They have been open for eight months and have had many bookings and not
� experienced any problems. The city has given a one year period to see if any problems or
complaints occur which they will need to address.
• The Oaks is a unique center, with 8 acres of land, and they want to make sure they make the
best possible use of the property and not be a good neighbor to the community and nearby
residents. �
• He said he was requesting a conditional us�� permit to allow live music and dancing in the Oaks
Event Center. There are 684 parking spa�es in the center which is above 5 per 1000 squaze
feet and there is plenty of parking on the street. They have agreed with everything the planners
have recommended and are willing to wor}: with the city to ensure a smooth operation.
Com. Miller:
� Said he supported the events center, but qiiestioned what the other establishments would be in
the future as the application was for four e:,tablishments with entertainment.
Mr. Tahere:
• Said that the theater is one, Oaks Event ��enter is the second, at this time he did not know
which the third would be. He assured tha� there would not be a night club or any activity that
is just liquor related; no karaoke; but f�unily gatherings, high end parties, weddings, and
private parties not open to the general public; no adult entertainment and no 21�` birthday
parties. Events have been booked through March of 2011.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Joseph Derante, House Counsel for Modena:
• Refened to Section 5 of the model resolution wherein it states that the applicant is required to
have sound insulation to meet city ordin�.nce standards which is 55 decibels to be enforced
against neighboring tenants. If it is not going to be offensive to the tenant, it cannot be
offensive to somebody who is 200 feet aw�iy.
• He said the security plan is e�ctensive ancl as an attorney and house counsel he approved it.
Section 6 includes parking lot security, methods to ensure noise compliance, duration of
security after business closes for evening, prevention of onsite loitering and unruly behavior.
He said he was not aware of any establishment in the community that provides that type of
security; it will also require the approval of the Sherif�s office. It is a demanding condition
which the client accepts, which indicates his interest in maintaining a good relationship with
the neighborhood and community.
• There is a monitoring mechanism, under ;iections 8 and 9 neighbors have the right to submit
complaints with a grievance procedure av�.ilable to redress mechanism with the possible result
of having the client's permit revoked if th e complaints have not been addressed and rectified.
It is a situation where it is self enforcement of the resolution because it is in the best interest of
the applicant to ensure that it works accord ing to the permit.
Michael Pavlos, resident of Glenbrook Apts., Cupertino:
• Opposed to the application.
• Reviewed a recent news article about the ��romotion of a San Leandro events center party that
was promoted through social networking �vebsites; the renter provided a false name and paid
cash for the room. Although there were s�;curity officers present at the event checking guests,
a firearm was allowed into the party, th�; result leading to four gunshot victims, with two
deaths. The article also mentioned a SeF tember 2009 event held at Cornerstone Fellowship
Church where hundreds of teens showed iip and gunfire erupted. He expressed concern about
the promotion of parties rented out at the event center other locations in the Oaks, especially
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 12, 2010
when allowed to remain open until 2:00 a m. He said he did not see the need for such events
as weddings to have e�rtended hours until 2:00 a.m. as most of those events have,children
attending; and most wedding venues go until only 11 p.m.
• Said he was also concerned about the proposed modification use permit, and that the late night
activity and late night noise level will increase and negatively affect the community and its
surrounding residents.
• Urged a No vote against allowing the modi fication to the Use Permit.
Paula Rind, Manager and resident of Glenb rook Apartments:
• Note a correction in staff report showing tt�at Coldwell Banker has been vacant for a long time.
The uses in question do face the bedroom apartments which is not acceptable. The Coldwell
Banker site is about 50% glass.
• The parking stalls all face the apartment �edrooms, and tenants will be disturbed during the
night from people coming out of the gatherings. Questioned who the other two tenants will be
in the center and how a plan could be appr��ved before knowing who the other two tenants are.
• She said it is not acceptable to have live �nusic in the back area of the center, because of the
noise it will create in the residential area; it would be better placed in the front area on Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
Com. Miller:
• Said he understood her concern, but had c.ifficulty reconciling the fact that there had been 20
banquets there with no complaints receivf-d about the noise. He said he assumed there were
people parking on the street, and the applic.ant was allowed to remain open unti12:00 a.m., and
those events had dancing and alcohol serve d.
Paula Rind:
• Said that an additional concern was the lack of security at the center and the impact it would
have on the apartment dwellers. The aparlment complex presently has its own security staff
who walk the grounds unti12:00 a.m. People who have been drinking at the center events will
be wandering around potentially disturbin�; the tenants of the complex. There is also the risk of
vandalism and break-ins on the apartment �;omplex property.
Ted Hattan, Regional Property Manager, Avery Construction, owners of Glenbrook of
Apartments, also resident of 10244 Parkwoc d Drive:
• Opposed to the application.
• Said the noise from the event center anc karaoke bars would be heard across the street at
Glenbrook. He said they can hear the higl� school marching band music from across Highway
280, and if they can hear that from 3/4 mil�; away, they would be able to hear the noise from an
event with 100 guests, dancing to live mi�sic or a bar with a live band across the street. The
acoustical numbers everyone talks about �✓ould apply if no doors are opened, but with people
leaving the building, talking outside, playing their car radios and rewing their car engines at
2:00 a.m. common sense dictates that there would be disturbing noise.
• He said when he met with city staff and the applicant at the event center, the applicant said
they used the patio for events. Mr. Hattan said he did not know how they could contain the
noise from the patio, and if a band was piit in the event center they would certainly hear it in
Sunnyvale or at the Glenbrook Apartments.
• He urged the Commission not to approve t le application.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Noted that no complaints have been rece ived about the Oaks Center since the event center
opened eight months ago.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 12, 2010
Sherry Hattan, Glenbrook Apartment resid ent:
• Opposed to the application.
• A concern other than those mentioned abc ut the event center and the Oaks Center itself, is the
approach that has been taken to give rea�ons why it should be allowed. She said that after
reading the staff report, it appeared to her that staff has taken the view, that because they don't
live in a low density residential neighborh��od, that their comfort and safety is not as important
as a person who owned the home they liv � in. The report implies that the proposed changes
are okay because the Oaks is isolated from low density residential neighbors; and it also quotes
the General Plan that allows for late evening entertainment activities in the downtown village,
Vallco Park and other large properties thal are isolated from residential districts. She said that
517 homes constitute a residential district; and their comfort and safety should not be less
important because they do not own the horles they reside in.
• Asked that the application be denied.
Brian Avery, Managing Partner, Glenbrool+ Apartments:
• Said the back half of the center is 62 ys�rds from the apartment complex, which is only a
softball throw away. He said there was a disconnect about the current use. During a tour of
the center with Ted Hattan and Planning Commission staff, the applicant said the events end at
11 p.m., followed by cleanup and everyon�; out of the premises by midnight. Colin Jung, Gary
Chao, and Ted Hattan heard it, so compar ng that to live music until 2:00 a.m., he did not feel
they could rely on what the 20 events thus far have been.
• The applicant has said the main reason for the application relates to the events center; however,
this is not a singular application; it has been looked at as four uses, whereas originally it was
the entire center. He said he couldn't believe the application got this far. �
• He said he spent $7,000 for a Salter Ass��ciates acoustical consultant; who will describe the
sound from the apartment bedrooms, how the dbas are far above what the code enforcement
officer said was the threshold, 55 dba, wliich the State of California says should be 50 dbas
because of the nature of music. A summar� of the dba standards is submitted.
• He said the application should not be approved because there is opposition from the
neighborhood and the applicant may not b�, the owner of the property in the future. The center
could become a place that sucks in outsid �rs, increases the need for law enforcement and not
be a good thing for Cupertino. If the Pl�.nning Commission are looking for a compromise,
stipulate that the uses be facing Stevens Creek Boulevard vs. the apartment side.
• He said he represented the people who live on the bedroom side, the apartment residents.
Art Cohen, CEO/Owner, Blue Light Cinem:�s:
• Supports proposal.
• Said that when events are held at the Oak s Center, they do not hear anything in the theaters,
and the doors are open and shut continuo isly, and they are only 25-30 away from the event.
They do not hear any noise coming into the theater, nor do they hear any disturbing noise
inside the lobby.
• He said anything that brings in more peo��le to the center will help the theater and the entire
community. He said he understood the concerns of the residents across the street; however,
the theater has been in business since November 10� and if parking and car noise had been an
issue, they have received no complaints. He noted that on occasions, some of the movies do
not get out until 1:30 a.m., people get in their cars and leave the parking lot, and he has not
received any complaints about any noise. He said he was surprised that people would think
that 100 guests or 20 or 30 cars would be an issue.
• Said it would be good for the Oaks Ce��ter to have more entertainment, and more people
coming to the center.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 12, 2010
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said it was encouraging to see that some <<ctivities were coming back to the Oaks Center as it
was an active center in the past. Relative to the proposed hotel on the property, she said she
assumed it would eventually have its ov� n reception areas, and a restaurant, and how they
control the patrons and tenants of that hote . in the future is being set at the meeting tonight.
• Said she was surprised to see the desire to have music and drinking activities until 2:00 a.m. at
the Oaks, because typically it is a quiet ar�;a. She expressed concern about people leaving the
premises at 2:00 a.m. a.m. after consuming alcohol. It is important if this is approved that they
have onsite security, that they make sure ihe restaurants stop serving alcohol at 1:00 a.m. and
people promptly leave the premises.
Alan Takahashi, Cupertino resident:
• Said he supports the proposal, primarily �ecause the City Council needs to strike a balance
between residence and business, or an env .ronment where there is something that will help the
Oaks sustain itself to grow. The shoppin;; center has been in a decline, and staff has done a
significant amount of work to come up v��ith a compromise. There may be more options to
possibly attenuate the noise more, and 311eviate some of the concerns of the Glenbrook
residents. If it brings some jobs to tne are� and economic revival of the Oaks, it is worthwhile.
Dancing and music are important elements of a wedding banquet, and it would reduce the
number of events that could be held if they were not permitted. It is important that the city
supports businesses as well as residents an�i find a middle ground that both can live with.
David Hollister, Cupertino resident:
• Does not support proposal.
• Said he was confused about the proposal; tnere has been mention about other activities, and the
applicant claims it is only about the event� center, yet there has been discussion about permits
for four other places, music, bars, and drinking. He asked if there was going to be a bar in the
proposed hotel.
• Expressed concern about having events ��vhere alcohol would be served, and bars near the
residential area and the potential for patrc ns to cause problems in the parking lots and in the
area near the residential areas.
Com. Giefer:
• Clarified that there was not a proposed application for a bar.
Ranjan Desai, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to proposal.
• Expressed concern about patrons drinking alcohol close to the residential area, and questioned
why a family event would go on until 2 00 a.m. since a family event would have children
present. He said he felt there were other ways to increase the clientele there other than the
events center.
Chair Brophy:
• Com. Giefer's point is to clarify what is and is not being considered tonight; there are concerns
by some of those who are not as worried about the events center, of what powers does the city
have or not have in terms of controlling wt�at kind of facilities go into the Oaks.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the applicant is asking for the live ent�rtainment, including the live band and dancing, and
the Planning Commission can circumscrihe and decide what they want to allow. In terms of
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 12, 2010
what control the city has to decide what facilities can go in there or not, they have two
measures of control; one to circumscribe �nd tt�e Council circumscribes what goes in and the
conditions that need to be met. Every use that goes in there would need to adhere to that, and
staff will make sure that happens. The otl er measure of control is if any of the issues of noise
or security come up and there aze comp laints, at the annual point, the application will be
brought back to the Commission to be add •essed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner:
• Clarified that the information about the 1:30 a.m. hours is from the Oaks Center website; the
events may have ended at 11:00 p.m. but they are marketed as 1:30 a.m. The applicant stated
that they have had up to 60 events contracted for 1:30 a.m. end time.
Elaine Chung, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to the proposal.
• Resides in the neighborhood behind Gler brook, and said she was recently woken up in the
middle of the night by loud noise and mu sic, and saw about 500 teenagers riding bikes from
the Sunnyvale side crossing the bridge tov�ard Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said she wanted
to support local businesses, and suggested that more community input is needed, and suggested
setting up a website where local residents could provide ideas. She said she was opposed to
the event center being open unti12:00 a.m.
• Geographically, the Oaks Center is a bottleneck. The Commission needs to think about other
options and let local residents provide inpL t.
U Aung Myint, Fremont resident:
• Resides in Fremont, but two daughters rent an aparhnent in Cupertino and attend DeAnza
College. He expressed concern for his daughters' safety since they attend classes early in the
morning and late at night because of budg�;t cuts. He said he was concerned about the amount
of patrons from the events center; and ask �d the applicant to withdraw the application and put
the events center at another location.
Gangadhar Andru, Cupertino resident:
• Said although there is revenue associated �vith the events center, it has its own associated risks.
No one can control the unruly behavior ��f patrons; the report stated that the police doesn't
have enough resources and they recomm �nded that the establishment have its own security
guards as the police can only take care of the security near the building, but not at the nearby
residences. The live entertainment sour ds laudable and innocuous, and when adding the
consumption of alcohol, it is more difficuh to control.
• Opposed to the entire proposal; it is not in the best interest of the residents.
Satyamat Jashi, Cupertino resident:
• Said he did not see any assurances that ��hat has not happened in the past six months won't
happen in the future; also there are a lot of loose ends to the proposal, such as four
entertainment venues approved, and knov��ing what was planned for only two, with the other
two still in question.
• Said he recently moved to Glenbrook b:cause of the culture and good schools. He said
because of the close proximity of DeAnza College, the minds of many young people are being
influenced by the events center. Said he did not approve of the proposal, but left it to the
Commission's judgment to make a decisiol.
Eric Yee, Charles Salter Assoc. representin�; person who created the report:
• Said he was available to answer questions �bout the report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 12, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Said that the report suggests that the noise level at the apartrnents is fairly low and consistent
with what is over there presently.
Eric Yee:
• Said he deals with the issue in many cities where there is a fmite number limit saying that you
cannot exceed a certain decibel level; ofte:i the decibel level is written in what is called the A
structure which is supposed to emulate ht man hearing; what it fails to do is it does not take
into account any low frequency componer,ts. What was found in many projects, is that while
the A scale may be well below 50, the 3�� decibels is represented entirely by low frequency
which tends to penalize the frequency, so what is actually 38 dba might actually be 70 linear,
which means that the low frequency energy begins to come through. That is similar to sitting
at a stoplight and someone pulls up that has a very significant stereo system with large
subwoofers, the energy coming through i�rto your car is probably less than 38 but it is very
detectable and very present and it carries c►ver long distances because of the size of the actual
sound wave that has been generating.
• In the report the 74 that is outside of glazi ag, that is dba, that is the noise assumed at 100 dba
inside the facility coming through the gla �s and then, what you would do is you would talce
that and it begins to attenuate over distance .
Com. Miller:
• The 38 dba is outside the window; what ;issumption can be made about the noise inside the
window.
Eric Yee:
• Said the single pane is likely 1/8" or'/o" glass if the noise component that is coming from the
entertainment venue is low frequency; gl�.ss is a poor insulator against low frequency noise;
many times it is virtually transparent to the larger sound wave, so 38 outside could possibly be
38 inside. It is difficult to speculate what the noise level is going to be. He said that in some
cities they go out and simulate what is su��posed to happen prior to any approval. They go in
and put in the sound source, actually generate and emulate the party, turn on the music, get the
subwoofers going, and go to the location� of interest and measure to see if it is audible and
detectable, what the levels are, and detennine if it would considered an offensive level. A
tjord pme is difficult because it is a subjec:ive standard which is not usually written into a city
standard and it creates a lot of difficulty because of that, but we do like to say that it is audible,
so just because you meet the ordinance limit, doesn't preclude you from receiving complaints.
Com. Miller:
• Asked if there was a way to limit the level inside the building so that the attenuation would be
more significant at the apartment.
Eric Yee:
• Said if it is pre-recorded music, such as a I)J who comes in with his equipment, there are ways
to impose limits on the DJ, whether he listens to those standards is difFicult to enforce.
Electronic limiters can be placed on their system so they can't go over a certain point, but if
they bring in their own system, it is difficu:t to put that limit on them.
• Relative to double pane glass vs. single pa��e, the type of noise attenuation one would expect if
there was double pane glazing on either the apartrnent or the center, he said the attenuation
would go up slightly, with dual paned asse�nbly. Single pane glass is about 20 dba attenuation;
dual glazed assembly can range anywherc� from 26 to about 33 depending on manufacturer;
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 12, 2010
and to get more attenuation out of it, especially in the low frequency end, one would have to
take one of those panes and make it a larr inate system whereby you take two pieces of glass
and put a gel coat in between, and that becc►mes part of the window, as dual pane assembly.
Com. Kaneda:
• If you were on the other side of the table, �vorking for the company that is putting in a use like
this, what kinds of things could they do to attenuate the noise at the inside the facility and how
much could they reasonably get that noise level down before it goes through the walls. There
are two problems; one of the sound prop �gating across into the apartrnents and there is the
potentially greater problem of adjacent tenants within the property which according to
calculations are above code.
Eric Yee:
• In order to make the event center compl:,� with the city noise ordinance, he said he would
conduct a real world test, to have actual d ocumented information, measurements; it would be
done both with music and with the loud speaker that puts out broadband noise to do it by third
octave. Measurements would be taken in the space to get a source and at the adjacent spaces
to get the receive; and given that informat on there are two choices. The amount of noise can
be limited by putting out by the speaker�, which is practical for DJing and for prerecorded
music. For live music and bands, it is hs�rder to control because you don't have control on
volume dial on the guitar player; the other option is to look at the weak links in the building, is
it coming through the glass, the doors, ar� the walls not adequate. They would then look at
proposing ways to either improve the glazing, improve the wall construction, if necessary look
at the ways the doors open into the space, �:here aze design measures such as vestibules or poor
man's sound track where you have a real a�;oustically absorbed buffer space between where the
actual event is taking place and the doors so that the sound is attenuated before it gets to that
point, so when you do open the doors you get less noise than the actual noise that is going on
in the space. There are many options to wc►rk the solution so that it can meet the code.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Confirmed that the dba does not exceed thE: levels; the noise ordinance states 65, the night time
level is 55 dba and there are conditions :or putting in sound insulation similar to what the
engineer was discussing.
Colin Jung:
• Pointed out the noise ordinance addresses .he noise at the property line; it doe not at this point
address noise between commercial spaces l�ecause that is not a property line.
Alan Parsano, Consultant for the owners, ac�d Modena LLC:
• Supports the change to the Use Permit.
• The owners of the center are very concern ed about choosing their tenants; they are concerned
about the image of the center and would .ike to keep the customers and tenants and also the
neighbors happy. That has always been their goal; they are local people. If there is any live
music activity, it is under the condition by city staff, according to Condition No. 9; staff shall
conduct a Use Permit review after one yea��.
• If complaints are received related to tenants that apply under this Use Permit and the
complaints are not addressed immedial ely by the property management, the Planning
Commission will hold a public hearir. g at which time the approval for live indoor
entertainment may be modified or revoked
• Said that the applicant did not want inebriated patrons wandering around their parking lot at
1:00 or 2:00 a.m., did not want to cause disturbances for the neighbors; and did not want a
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 October 12, 2010
flashy Las Vegas type environment to bring into the old center; or to create an unsafe
environment for the existing customers ancl tenants. The applicant is concerned witl� the image
of the center and wants to keep their good relationship with the city and neighbors and not lose
their existing tenants.
• Said he supported the proposal.
Nat Nataraj, Cupertino resident:
• Said he heard the applicant's remarks, and in all due respect to his best intentions, there are
some aspects of the crowd that cannot be �ontrolled; so rather than take a reactive measure of
evaluating the situation after a year, why iot be proactive and give it serious consideration to
whether they want to approve the applicati �n at this meeting.
• He said he did not support the application.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Mitler:
• Asked staff what other Cupertino establi: hments are open until 2:00 a.m., and if there have
been any major complaints that the police �ave reported to the city regarding those late hours.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said there may be some uses at Vallco or �n DeAnza Blvd., and also Sabatini's and the movie
theater; not certain of Blue Pheasant closi�ig time; BJs was offered to stay open as late as they
want, and they declined; they likely close ;it 12 midnight; Paul and Eddy's is open until 2 a.m.
Chucky Cheese has put in noise insulatioii, which is also done with music studios. There are
examples in town where individual noise: in the tenant spaces may exceed the city's noise
limits, but they have put in insulation.
Gary Chao:
• Said staff would check with Code Enforc�;ment staff, but have not had any recent issues with
those establishments.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if the applicant had an additional entertainment venue approved, how would it be
handled in terms of processing and review
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It would have to meet the conditions of the Use Permit; there is a resolution with a list of
conditions; in addition the Planning Co�nmission may choose to tightly limit the type of
entertainment uses and when they come i�i to put those new uses in, staff will not only check
the parking availability, and other city slandards, but will also make sure that all the other
conditions are met.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said that residents did not want a night c1L b associated with the modification, nor a pool parlor
or arcade. The applicant said he would accept some restrictions. She said another option
would be to limit the ancillary live music: and dancing with banquets, so that it wouldn't be
live music and dancing at a restaurant, jL st at the event center. She said the event center is
small, 23,400 squaze feet and she did not know how much space a band takes, and noted that
some weddings have strings, and violin �•ather than a live band. Recorded music would be
louder than strings and a small amount of �iancing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 October 12, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Said they had a concern with neighbors w ho are concerned about the potential of what might
happen here, vs. what they have heard the intent is, and what is happening by code. She said
they could limit the type of commercial en=ertainment establishments that can be approved, but
common sense says to put them on the 5 tevens Creek side. If and when new entertainment
venues come onto the site, add the condition that they face Stevens Creek as opposed to the
residents, under Section 5 of the model res��lution.
• In terms of the existing use for the events center, the neighbors' concerns were heard, but the
reality is there haven't been any complainis except for the bicycle riding late one evening, that
was not related to the events center. It is :i good compromise, the controls are there; it sounds
like the city's Planning staff has thought that through in terms of how they are going to
monitor what type of additional uses might go into the Oaks.
• Said she supported the application with the two entertainment venues presently there; and
would like a condition added that if there ire two additional uses, they face Stevens Creek; so
that the neighbors know the way it is today is the way it will be.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he heard many concerns about late ni ght uses, but the shopping center has late night uses
already, and no complaints have been reported, including two different tenants that are open
until 1:30 a.m. regularly. If there problem � with the uses ending at 1:30 a.m., they would have
heard something. One concern expressecl by a Glenbrook resident turned out to be a large
group of people riding bikes in the late ni�;ht hours. Concerns about alcohol consumption are
valid concerns; however, the property alre:�dy has a permit for sale of alcohol, which is not the
topic on the agenda; the topic of discussio � is a request to allow live music and dancing at the
events center.
• Said they heard a presentation by an acoL stics consultant on the noise issues; and looking at
the calculations, they say it is fine; the aparhnents' consultant's calculations also say it is fine.
He said he believed what the consultant sai d that long wave low frequency noise carries.
• The actual calculations that he produced are significantly lower than the allowable decibel
levels according to city codes, in the neighborhood of 60% lower than what the venue is
allowed to produce. He said he was still c��ncerned about noise if there is live music and there
is proposed verbiage to have the owner d�� acoustical analysis and try to attenuate the sound.
He said he felt it was important.
• He said he was comfortable that if there is a problem after the fact, and the Commission did
make a mistake, they could revoke the pennit, rather than have to live with the mistake.
• Said that the last issue is the vacancies existing at the center, which is not good for Cupertino.
He said he would like to do things that will the support the shopping center thriving.
• He said he supports the application.
Com. Miller:
• He said as an engineer he was analytica. and open to evaluating evidence, but there is no
evidence of problems with the center toda} .
• There have been applications presented tc, the Commission, from centers that had numerous
code violations and they wanted to expanc'� their operations. It is easy to look at them and tell
them to clean up their act, and show they �an be a good neighbor and then return. This is the
case of someone who is a good neighbor and yet the residents are concerned about what might
happen as opposed to what is real and what isn't real. As Com. Kaneda suggested, if in fact
this does become a problem, the remedy i� clear, they come back to the Commission, present
the evidence and the Commission will fix the problem.
• He said many limits could be put on the establishments, such as limiting late night hours to
Friday and Saturday night; alcohol servic�; stopping some time prior to closing, perhaps 1:00
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October 12, 2010
a.m. or 1:30 a.m. to give people who have been drinking, an opportunity to sober up. Someone
made a point that preference is given tc� residents of low density areas and not as much
preference to residents of high density �reas; which is not the case. The issue is one of
. property rights; the residents of Glenbrook have certain property rights that go with the zoning,
and the owners of the shopping center alsc� have property rights that go with that zoning. One
of their rights is that from the start, this was zoned for entertainment; so they have a right to try
that out and exercise their ability to be a sl ccessful center. As a number of people have pointed
out, this center has struggled from the beginning; it would be good for the city if this was more
successful. At the same time we want to c bserve the residents' property rights and it is always
a balancing act.
• It is a very difficult decision at the Comm ission level, when they try not to give everything to
one side and nothing to the other side, it is always a compromise and for that reason they are
often unpopular in their decisions because nobody gets what they want and they all walk away
unhappy. The Planning Commissioners ge t the blame.
• Said he supported the application; and lik�:d the idea that they could revoke it at any time and
±here will be an automatic review after ��ne year. The fact that the applicant did not have
anyone moving into any other space in the immediate future would allow a period of time
when they could evaluate it without havir g to deal with chasing a number of new businesses
out. He said it was incumbent on the neighbors to give Mr. Tahere an opportunity to
demonstrate that he is going to continue to be a good neighbor.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed with Mrs. Hattan that the language in the General Plan about differentiating
between single family and multi-family r�,sidential areas in terms of the impact is offensive,
and he hoped that when the annual update is done, they look at that language.
• Said it is obvious that the center has bee�i in need of upgrading for several years and to the
extent Mr. Tahere is trying to bring in mc re tenants, it is a positive sign and the Commission
wants to support him to the eartent that it can be done without adversely affecting the
surrounding residents.
� The event center has been operating for s� �veral months with a number of events without any
objections, and that speaks in favor of th�; applicant. While there may be no doubt that Mr.
Tahere is concerned for the complex, it is the duty of Planning Commission to look at this
regardless of who the operator is, becausE; as pointed out, there could possibly be a different
owner in six months. As such, the lan�;uage and anything approved has to be viewed as
covering the current owner as well as any i uture unknown owners.
• Relative to parking, while it is true there is a parking problem in this neighborhood on flea
market days and other events at DeAnza a id Memorial Park, the Oaks Center has an excess of
parking more than any other center in the c:ity. He said he did not foresee that any events being
held at the Oaks would cause reason for people to want to park beyond the grounds of the Oaks
or Mary Avenue.
• Relative to .the Use Permit review process, it is important to include a way on an annual basis
to handle complaints if they are not remed ed by Mr. Tahere or any future owner, which would
be to revoke the use permits.
• Additional conditions to add to the ordii�ance include the points raised by Vice Chair Lee
where she suggested a list of non-eligible uses such as arcades, night clubs, billiard/pool halls,
all of which the applicant is comfortable liaving as non-acceptable uses. He also agreed with
Com. Giefer that the condition that any u�es beyond the event center be located on sites that
are on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 12, 2010
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, to approve Application M-2010-02 per the model
resolution with the following additions/corrections: (1) Add the uses that Chair
Brophy suggested to be eliminated; (2) The suggestion by Com. Giefer to limit
any other uses to the Stevens �'reek side other than the two present today; (3)
That no alcohol be served after l:30 a.m.
Mr. Tahere:
� Said he did not object to excluding the si�ie with Coldwell Banker because of the neighbors'
concern; but he did not favor the conditic►n that they follow along Stevens Creek Boulevard
because what they are concerned about is c�nly that part of Coldwell Banker.
Com. Kaneda:
• Suggested they add a condition that req�iires acoustical analysis; if they put in something
facing the apartments and it is designed co�rectly, there shouldn't be an issue.
• The bigger issue is not which direction it : s facing, it is making sure that you are not going to
spill the noise out, and the way to do that ic; to face everything so the noise is going in the other
direction. They could also be told to desigi a building or design an interior that doesn't let the
noise spill out everywhere.
Com. Miller:
• Following discussion with the applicant, ]ie agreed that 1:30 a.m. would be the time to stop
serving alcohol to patrons, with the patron� leaving by closing at 2:00 a.m.
• No entertainment will be permitted in the t uilding that faces Mary Avenue.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Summarized discussion, to approve M-2C 10-02 according to the model resolution, with the
following conections: no night clubs, pool halls, billiard halls, arcades; other than the two uses
Sabatini and the theater, no new entertainrient uses in the 600 and 700 number building along
Mary Avenue, and no alcohol served after 1:30 a.m.
Motion was seconded by Com. Kaneda and �inanimously carried 5-0-0.
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
3. MCA-2010-04 Municipal Cocle Amendment to adopt a Green Building
City of Cupertino Ordinance. Postponed from the September 28, 2010
Citywide Location Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
Date: Decem��er 7, 2010
� Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presen� ed the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building
Ordinance, which will create a new chapte�� of the zoning ordinance, as outlined in staff report.
• The goals of the ordinance will be to �romote green building practices through design,
construction and maintenance of new t�uildings and also existing buildings undergoing
renovation, and would apply to new privatE; development including homes and commercial and
industrial property.
• In January 2010, City Council authorized staff to initiate the public input process to draft the
Green Building Ordinance and also to use: the Phase II recommendations by the Santa Claza
County Cities Association. In May of 201(► a community outreach process was initiated by the
city and the city began seeking interested �►arties to participate in the focus groups. There was
an overwhelming response, with two focu s group meetings in June and July, and there were
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 12, 2010
helpful suggestions to incorporate into the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission also
held a Green Building educational work: hop to provide additional information to the focus
group members to get more information cm LEED, green point rated (GPR) and also the Cal
Green Building Code.
• The draft Green Building Ordinance cont3ins several components, one of which is the scope
and applicability of the ordinance which clarifies that this ordinance will generally apply to
private development projects, including r�ew construction of single family and multi-family
residential new construction projects ar d also non-residential including commercial and
industrial projects over 10,000 sq. ft.
• The ordinance would also apply to rE;modeling and additions including single family
remodeling and additions equal to or grealer than 50% of the total existing floor a.rea of single
family residences and also would apply tc► minor and major renovations for multi-family and
non-residential commercial and industrial ;idditions and remodeling as well.
• The ordinance would also apply to mixed use projects where the individual development types
would require such compliance. Public bu ildings would be excluded from this ordinance since
most cities address these in sepazate ordin�nces and also Cupertino has also adopted a Phase I
Santa Clara County Cities Association •ecommendation which already required that new
public buildings over 5,000 square feet be built to meet LEED silver standards.
• The draft Green Building regulations woL ld apply to projects that submit for building permit
on or after the effective date of the ordinar ce, and staff is recommending that the effective date
of the ordinance begin 6 months from the date of the ordinance adoption, which allows for a
six months grace period. Any building ��ermit applications coming in within the six month
grace period time would not be subjec� to the requirements unless they were otherwise
conditioned by that specific development permit. The grace period would also provide time
for the city to disseminate information about the ordinance to residents and businesses.
• Staff would like to make it clear that d�,molition permits would not yualify as a building
permit. Staff has also included some optio�is for the Planning Commission which is to consider
whether to exclude previously approved P anning projects granted prior to the effective date of
the ordinance and also to consider allowi ig exemption from the ordinance for those projects
that receive Planning entitlement before the effective date of the ordinance and only for that
duration that the planning permit is valid.
• She reviewed the Reference Standards ancl Comparison Table of Phase II and Cupertino Draft
Green Building Ordinance New Construction and Addition/Renovation as outlined in the staff
report. She also reviewed the two options :hat staff is asking the Planning Commission to look
at, as detailed in the staff report.
• She reviewed the pros and cons of the ve� ification options; fees and deposits; and exceptions,
- as outlined in the staff report.
• She reviewed LEED EBOM (LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance)
which is a certification project type based upon the actual total building operating
performance, as outlined in the staff report.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Com�nission recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed draft ordinance, in accordanc e with the model ordinance with any changes
recommended.
Walker Wells, Consultant, Global Green:
• The Climate Action Plan: Ideally what you would have is operational data from the buildings,
that is the gold standard; you know exac:ly how much energy, electricity, gas, water, waste
was generated from the building as operat�;d. When you do formal certification, you get a little
bit closer to that gold standard because yoa are looking more at the building as it is completed
with construction, and then the city verific �tion is going upstream one level further because we
are looking at the building at the buildin�; permit stage, so we are looking at is as designed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 October 12, 2010
You could still make proj ections off the di awings on the energy analysis at the building permit
level, but they would be a lesser degree of confidence in those than what you would have
based on the final building. That would still be a projection and the only way to actually know
for sure would be to require every buildir. g that is permitted in Cupertino to do some kind of
reporting through Energy Star Portfolio Manager for example. It doesn't mean you can't make
projections on the Climate Action Plan, tt ey are just going to be a bigger band of uncertainty
in reporting those.
• Reviewed a slide presentation on what the State requirements are for green building.
• Relative to climate change, the State re�uires nothing to be done; cities are encouraged to
adopt climate action plans and do the acco anting but are not regulated to do it. Cal Green goes
into effect on January 1, 2011, it addres�es planning, energy, water, material conservation,
environmental quality.
• The State is saying that all the green building things that you have been talking about for years,
we have decided those are good ideas that should become part of the code; let's codify as
many for them that are cost effective and � roadly acceptable.
• The information in the slide presentation � ummarizes that at the mandatory level Cal Green is
not equivalent to either LEED or GPR; there are complicated optional tiers in Cal Green that
not many cities are interested in; but the ar alysis shows that a commercial building would need
to be all the way in the Tier 2 optional level to be considered analogist to LEED; and a
residential building would need to be at the; Tier 1 level to be analogous to GPR.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• A requirement will be that the drawings be prepared by somebody who understands LEED,
doing a peer review, not designing the building for them; and also be certain they understand
the points that they are shooting for in �he planning stage, because many times when you
design the location and the way it is facin,;, makes a difference as to what points you can get.
The process should start early to prevent h�zge problems at the building permit stage.
Com. Kaneda:
• Relative to the six month grace period, ir� the past two years many of the projects that have
come before the Planning Commission wE:re conditioned to be LEED silver or similar, and in
some cases over the concerns of fellc w commissioners who are saying they are not
comfortable with this because it is done o:i a case-by-case basis, there was no policy in place.
Now that they are looking to have a poli �y in place, they are reverting back and telling the
people who came before, that they have tc, do it; but the people who are just coming up now,
have six months before they have to do it. He said it seems futile that before they were telling
people that they wanted them to do it, and now they are being told it is going to take six month
and they have to figure it out.
Aarti Shrivastava: '
• Said it was only an option, it is up to the �'lanning Commission and City Council to determine
why they used the six months; because people are being told there is a Green Building
Ordinance coming down the line, but they don't yet know what the rules are. Staff felt as
people are planning for their projects, it would be difficult to hit them with it right after
adoption because that's when they know v� hat the rules are.
• Staff felt that a six month lead time would be ample time for a person to do their homework on
building a house or building. Most people who aze building non-residential buildings are
aware of it because they have gone throug}� some type of planning process.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 October 12, 2010
Walker Wells:
• Relative to the additional cost to build gre �n buildings, the general understanding is that while
there doesn't have to be additional cost in making a green building, there often is, because the
result is a better product, things work better and are put together better, cost more money, often
because they are delivering a stream of l�enefits over the time of their use. Green building
would be delivering these benefits of reduced utility costs, better living and working
environment, more durable building. In terms of the cost, there are three different studies that
have each looked at over 100 buildings and found that the cost on average, is about 2%
increase in construction costs, the capital �;ost of construction; and the range would be from 0
to 5; this is looking at buildings from the certified to the gold level. Once you get to platinum,
all bets are off because you don't know ��vhich strategies somebody is going to take or how
exotic it will be. That gives a sense of the burden that could be placed on applicants. In terms
of keeping that toward the lower end of th ; spectrum of 0 to 5, the idea is always to start early
and make green part of the building; it is clieaper than adding it at the end such as solar panels.
• The soft costs include consultants, either someone with an architectural design firm or a
consultant to keep track of all of this infornation and have it ready to present to the city or US
Green Building Council, in the range of $15K to $25K in additional staff time. There is also
additional energy modeling, it is done sc�oner and iteratively and more thoroughly, adding
another $15K to $20K; for LEED there is commissioning cost; some of those now become
code with Cal Green, that could be another $25K to $SOK.
• The cost for gaining formal LEED certific-ation for most buildings is about $100K minimum.
For a multi-family apartrnent building aroiind $SOK, and a house around $SK. This provides a
sense of the soft cost, the extra people whc need to be retained to make things happen.
• Relative to the number of points, the GPR is structured as a rating system developed by Build
It Green, an Oakland based, non-profit, an3 you either are or are not green point rated, so they
set a minimum threshold of 50 points out c�f the nearly 300 point options they have. What they
do that some feel is overly accommodati�ig is they give points for meeting the prerequisite;
they have a prerequisite of 15% better energy performance, improvement above California
Energy Code; and two points in their syste m for every percent that you are better than Title 24
energy codes. By being 15% better than code, you get 30 of the 50 points needed. They have
50% construction and demolition waste -ecycling as a prerequisite, but you get points for
doing more. It is easy to get those 50 poir�ts, that is why most of the cities have decided to set
a point tlu�eshold that is higher than the SC point minimum. Cupertino has followed suit. The
reason there is a distinction between the � maller single family and multi-family is that in the
GPR system, you do get points for densir� and there is some built in benefit to a more dense
project with smaller unit sizes; it would hf-1p them get towards that 100 point level. There are
also some benefits in being close to trans t which is not for sure, but more likely with multi-
family.
Com. Kaneda:
• Under commercial construction in the SC��A Phase II recommendations, the recommendation
was LEED silver for buildings over 25,00 � sq. ft. and in Cupertino relaxing that to 50,000 sq.
ft. He said San Jose is staying at 25,000 a�d discussing lowering it below 25,000. He said he
had concerns about 50,000 sq. ft. in Cu��ertino, the only projects they would require to be
LEED silver are major developments and his feeling is that LEED certified is not much of a
requirement.
Walker Wells:
• One of the ingredients was looking at tr ese costs relative to the costs of the building; the
construction cost is 2%, the average inc� ement would go up or down based on how many
square feet of construction; roughly $100, 000 that you need to go through the LEED process,
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 October 12, 2010
is a fixed number. It is paid whether it is a 5,000 sq. ft. building or a 50,000 sq. ft. building, so
there is some sense of the cost of the certification relative to the cost of construction and to
have it not be too onerous. He said they er�ded up with a 1% cost and thought that increasing it
beyond that may be too much of a burden. That was part of the rationale.
Com. Kaneda:
• Relative to the commercial renovation catE;gory, the idea of selecting three of the four systems
if doing a major renovation, HVAC building envelope, hot water or lighting; in the SCCCA
Phase II recommendations, the requirement was 2 of the 4 systems plus HVAC.
• He said he was involved in the discussio�►s at the Cities Association and the thought behind
that was that a big part of when going for t�e LEED certification relating to energy, it is almost
impossible to get those energy points without the HVAC; if you do a major renovation but
don't touch the HVAC, it is really hard to ;et the points you are going to need because there is
very little you can do on the energy side.
Walker Wells:
• Said they spent a great deal of time working on how to structure it so it would be fair. If the
requirement was imposed on someone, they would be able to achieve it given the extent of the
scope of their project and remodel. AnotLer way to organize it is to say for projects that are
modifying or replacing HVAC, it is that pl us one of the other two things instead of three of the
four. He said it could be a suggestion for an amendment, and the Planning Commission may
want to formally propose.
Walker Wells discussed LEED EBOM:
• Said they have had many discussions abc�ut how to make sure the ordinance would address
remodels and tenant improvements given .in understanding and looking back at permit history
and seeing what comes in over the counter, and understanding that's a lot of what gets done in
the city.
• There aren't many new buildings being bu 1t either residential or commercial, and certainly not
now in the present real estate development climate. In considering this, they came up with the
issue discussed, of how to define a project of sufficient scope, and is it HVAC and domestic
hot water, etc., but the new idea emerged �f saying, why not give people the option of taking
the entire building through the LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance
program proactively; and that would be a strategy through which they would then not be
required to bring every individual small ter�ant improvement to the city for certification.
• It would seem like it would be cost effective and time efficient on the part of the applicants;
and it may get a bigger impact quicker by giving people that option because they may decide
to take the whole building through the pr�>cess ahead of time, instead of the nickel and dime
strategy over time. He said he felt it was exciting, and innovative, and a breakthrough in the
ordinances that has come out of the proces:� in Cupertino.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said the EBOM program was worth furthe:• discussion.
Walker Wells:
• Relative to the degree of difficulty of goir�g from GPR 50 points to GPR 75 points, he said it
was not difficult; the easiest strategy wo�zld be to improve energy performance beyond the
15% better in Title 24; it would not requi you to put up something expensive such as solar
panels. To get to 20% energy efficiency, install a very low flow shower head, instead of low
flow, put in a dual flush toilet, landscapvig is a good place to garner points; putting in low
water landscaping, drought tolerant plant�, irrigation system designed to give them the right
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 October 12, 2010
amount of water. In GPR there are a nuniber of credits for materials choices, type of carpet,
type of paint, the type of flooring, cabinetr�, and counter top materials.
Aki Honda Snelling:
• Said the LEED EBOM is not reflected in tlie draft ordinance.
Walker Wells:
• It would be an alternative that they could consider; the way the ordinance is structured, it
doesn't spell out the individual LEED pro�iucts; an applicant could go through the spectrum of
LEED options and say that existing buildi lgs for operations and maintenance could be a good
fit and they would rather do it than have tc do the future TIs. It is included by default in a way
that the ordinance is structured because it i s part of LEED and LEED is referenced. He agreed
that they haven't provided as much clarily on how it would actually work as they have for
other parts of the ordinance; but potentisilly staff could have that as any option to offer a
building owner. He could or could not chc ose to use it.
• Said it would be as simple as adding a foc�tnote, saying that applicants choosing to use LEED
for existing buildings must achieve that �t least at whatever level; if considering silver; and
include credit, materials and resources 3 in their certification; and that would be the one
clarification of how the different LEED pr��ducts would be applied.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was concerned about sacrificing items such as floor area ratio, increased density in
housing, and compromising parking as i ncentives for builders to achieve certain levels of
certification. She said she felt they were c:ompletely separate, and are hot button controversial
items for the city, and could require as much as years of studies to come up with acceptable
standards for the city. Said she was not willing to compromise and have those hard fought-over
items in the city dangled in front of builde rs as incentives to have them reach certain building
standards. In a perfect world it would be wonderful to be able to do that, but unfortunately
Cupertino has certain hot button items that come up repeatedly. She said they did not have any
place in being used as incentives for builclers. This was brought up in Page 3-35 early in the
focus groups; it said zoning exemptions c:ould be problematic, community and Council may
have problems compromising parking and EAR.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed with the point on the sectio�i of the draft ordinance.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he felt the FAR ratios used in the city were too high, and he had no interest in the name of
green building to increase them further. I:elative to parking requirements, reducing that may
allow you to get greater density but that says you are implying that the parking levels are
excess to begin with, which is not the case.
• He said he agreed with Jennifer Griffin's s'atement.
Com. Giefer:
• An example of flexible parking requirements and how it warked with green building; is in
some of the more urbanized projects they t►uilt in Berkeley, they do shared parking with mixed
use where they have a reduced parking co��nt because the assumption is that the homeowner is
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 October 12, 2010
not home during the day; and this is highe - density, not single family; but the person who lives
there is gone during the day at work; so :heir parking space becomes available to somebody
that works in the mixed use project; so the;✓ double count that parking space.
• She said in that context, it was acceptable.
Aki Honda Snelling:
• Said they do have allowances for mixed use, shared parking.
Chair Brophy:
• Cupertino is very different from BerkelE:y which is an urban setting where those type of
calculations make sense.
Com. Giefer:
• Said they were doing it in Mountain View as well; if it is already in Cupertino's code, she was
fine with that and said the point was well tilcen with regard to FAR.
Chair Brophy:
• Said Cupertino is a suburban town and those kinds of theoretical concepts of a green project
will not demand parking, and don't work out in real life. The same for the FAR, to say in
exchange for doing green building, we wi:l let you build more square footage, seems to me to
offset it.
• Said he was not opposed to having a tie��ed system depending on the square footage of the
home.
Com. Miller:
• Said it did not make sense to say if you h�.ve 4 units or less that you only have to achieve this
level, but if 5 units or less, you have to ac:iieve a greater level. In fact, the higher the density,
the smaller the units tend to be and you cannot equate the energy use of a 1,000 square foot
unit to the energy use of a 4,000 square foc►t unit. He said they were doing just that, penalizing
the higher density developments.
Com. Kaneda:
• He said he wanted to ensure they were not saying to go to a higher density project which is a
good thing if talking about sustainability; ��nd that they are not making it harder for them to do
that; but keeping the bar about the same.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were also trying to go for the siz� of the project assuming that a larger project would
have a bigger impact on the environment; if you are building a small project that has only 4
homes on it, it would have a smaller impa�;t. If you have a larger project of 5 or more homes,
you would need more site area or larger percentage of the city's land area; it is impacting more
just because of the size of the footprint. �'ou could also put in squaze footage in terms of per
unit square footage. She said it has n�t been done, but staff would be happy to try to
administer whatever the Commission and Council desired.
Walker Wells:
• Said he did not feel there was an inherent reason to count dwelling units for residential and
square footage for non-residential. A;:imple proposal would be single or multi-family
residential projects or residential construclion of less than 5,000 square feet and projects over
5,000 square feet; and they would have consistency in their metric of square footage. It is the
driver of the impact, not the number of dw�;lling units, but how large they are.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 October 12, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they would look at the project; if it is a subdivision with 6 homes, the total square footage
will be counted in the project and not per home. Staff would like to know how the
Commission wants it counted; the 5,000 square feet would be the total amount of square
footage in the project, vs. if you were corrparing with the multi-family building. They would
use the same metric unless staff was direct�;d otherwise.
Com. Giefer:
• If the item is continued, she said she wc uld like more information on the updated Built it
Green, and confrmation that Walker Wells could attend the next meeting. If there are not
funds for him to return to the neart meetin�;, she said she would rather discuss the item further
at the present meeting, while he was there 10 share his expertise.
Com. Miller.
• Said they have talked about wanting to niove forward in that direction, whether for energy
efficiency, more green building or reducing the carbon footprint. He expressed concern about
the current economic environment and thE; difficulty in getting anyone to build in Cupertino
right now, even without adding new regu: ations and costs to doing that. He said one of the
solutions is an incentive-based system that gives the developers the opportunity to see that it is
not going to take more time, cost more, be more challenging; because otherwise they will just
go somewhere else where it is less challen€;ing.
• It is a struggle to get people who have b �en given approvals, to start building and in some
cases it has been years. There are are�s that could be improved upon for processing
applications and reducing the cost to the developer.
• He said they may agree that changing the aoning laws and some of the other things that were
proposed as incentives are not very desirat�le, but if they can search harder and look for ways,
they can reduce the other costs associated with application approval. The green building will
add to the time of going through the a�proval process and also the construction. Going
through a certification process will also ac d time onto the end as well. He said he supported
anything they could do to offset the costs s�� that it is essentially a zero sum game; but basically
they are saying this is a higher priority thar some of the other things they have.
• He said they should take a hard look at all the things they require developers to do today and
ask which are the highest priority ones; an�i if they want to add the new expense on, fmd some
other place where they can reduce the ct.rrent expenses. He said he would rather have the
Green Building Ordinance in place.
• He said he has heard from developers that n all Bay Area cities, there are places and ways that
the processes could be improved, made mure e�cient and more cost effective. It would be a
win-win for everyone; they would have more green building and more energy efficiency and
also would be approving the process at the; same time. He said it was something they should
be striving for.
Com. Giefer:
� Said she felt it was a good goal if they co�ild find economies, cut back and be more efficient.
Building is presently non-existent in Cupe and only projects that were built quickly were
the ones that the Commission provisioned 3s being LEED certified. She said it was interesting
that the ones they made as a condition for t�e project are the ones that were built.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was interested in providing an incc;ntive for the residential area, which is the one area
he is concerned about.
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 October 12, 2010
• The burden imposed may not be equ,�l to the benefit if they went to the Phase II
recommendations going less than 9 units, but they set the 75 point GPR standard for homes
under 2,000 feet and for above 2,000 feet it would be 100 points; above 9 units, everything
would be at 100 like it is here; but using S� instead of 5 going back to the Phase II breakdown.
Does something like that make sense in teims of giving it an incentive to build smaller units?
Com. Giefer:
• Said she felt there needs to be an incentiv�;, as staff does not appear to be supportive of this at
all, they could take their green projects ancl put them at the head of the line.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said if there is a Green Building Ordinanc�; all of their projects will be ahead of the line.
Walker Wells:
• Said the incentive has to be commensurate with the cost; if asking people to build better, there
may be some costs that they may not be � ble t� : ecoup; to at least level the playing field, the
incentive has to match that cost. T'here ar�, many things that happen in the entitlement process
that cities don't have control over, such as the CEQA process, which is a State law where you
have to follow certain steps. That is what takes a long time in entitlements, so when you map
out the whole thing, the piece that the city nas control over is often relatively small.
• The city has control over those things, 3•ou have local discretion about how you set those
development standards and how you would prioritize relu�ing them or modifying them to
create different outcomes in the market place. It doesn't cost anything to reduce parking or
increase the FAR beyond potentially po itical capital. Often these are hot things with the
community, they just don't like them and a lot of communities don't like to go there. That is
often where the real potential value is for a local government but they are difficult to deploy
for all the other reasons.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• People ask where the value is; the value is in the building and trying to put less parking. It is a
case- by-case basis because every project :ias to prove that it is not going to create that impact
that Chair Brophy was talking about. They would have to prove that the design is done in such
way that it doesn't impact the neighborho��d. Additional FAR need not mean a degradation of
the neighborhood around it and we woul�i make sure that any project that went through the
planning stage would meet all requirements of the use permit process. We set the bar high at
the exemplary level because we didn't want this to apply to every project coming in for FAR;
we want to encourage really high level oi' building. In order to meet an ordinance work, we
don't give incentives; we give incentives tc� people who go beyond the ordinance.
Com. Miller:
• The problem is that each individual ordinance makes perfect sense by itself, but when you add
them all up, they become very onerous as .i group. As far as saving just a month, I have talked
to a number of residents who have applie�i to build a house in Cupertino and it took them an
entire year to go through the process. I d�� believe there is opportunities to make the process
more efficient. I don't know the individual reasons things take so long.
Walker Wells:
• Said that reviewing the requirements table would be a way to move forward, and also look at
the ordinance overall. He said if he v��as facilitating the meeting he would recommend
identifying what the sticky points are and see if they could remove them one at a time. They
have heard some things about incentives, heard a little bit about the thresholds, is it units or
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 October 12, 2010
size of building; some discussion about cl�rification on the use of LEED for eausting buildings
as an option, and they need to clarify that.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she would add a chart to the wish list which is to let them find out where they are on this
for the ne�ct time they are starting from a different place, and secondly the verification process.
There are two options; one is more oner��us but gives more certainty; the other one is less
onerous.
Com. Kaneda:
• For residential, realistically if somebody i; going with some kind of LEED certification, they
are doing it because of an interest in su� tainability. They are looking at what is the most
expedient way of designing a building, th�;y would clearly go with green point rated. He said
he was not convinced that there should be two different point levels, especially in view of the
fact that it could be one thing; single fami ly homes was one category and multi-family homes
was another and you automatically would �et additional points by virtue of doing multi-family
homes. He said they should choose a nurr ber, either 75 or 100; he did not have a feeling with
GPR on how onerous 100 points is. He s;�id he liked the idea of having a threshold and once
you start surpassing a threshold in square i ootage for an individual unit, yau start adding more
points on to it, because it seems reasonabl � that if you are building a huge house, you want to
have a way of saying, you are doing a lot nore damages and a lot more resources, using more
energy by virtue of being a larger hous��. Therefore, you need to design something that
compensates for that.
Walker Wells:
• Said that if the other commissioners agree�i with the idea, he did not feel comfortable trying to
resolve the issue tonight, as he would neect to go back and do some analysis and try to decide
what would be an appropriate way to ask for some higher level of performance for different
sizes of homes.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said for commercial new construction, he would like to see the number brought back down to
25K because SOK is such a large number. If the reason for bumping that number up was the
cost of certification in the smaller size, he would accept not requiring formal certification until
the SOK sq. ft. threshold was met. He sai 3 he was intrigued with the idea of EBOM, but did
not understand in detail what the implic,�tions are. If it turns out that there is something
onerous about it that is not understood, you could still go with the traditional way of
approaching it which is a LEED certi -ied, LEED certified equivalent or LEED silver
equivalent. He said they need to be careful with the HVAC; it is a bonified point that energy is
a big piece of getting that certification.
• He said he supported Option 1 for resident al because GPR is not expensive to do, GPR will go
out and inspect equipment in the home ar�d do blower tests which are valuable. He said for
non-residential standards, his inclination v�as to only require formal certification at the largest
size for new construction. For eenovation �, with EBOM, you have to certify also. If it didn't
go that way, he said he would question 1ow cost effective it is going to be to have every
piecemeal TI job, 5 projects in a single bL ilding have to separately go through the paperwork
and certify, which is onerous. He said he would be more inclined to the city determination if
going that way.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 October 12, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Wouldn't most renovations of multi-te��ant buildings come under the minor renovation
category.? The major renovation is at 25,(�00 sc}. ft.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would look at bumping that back c own to 10,000 and use Option 2 certification.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she agreed with most of Com. Kan�;da's summary; but was not comfortable with self-
certification for the commercial. You are guaranteed to have certified plans but the building
may or may not perform and those are the projects that when they come into play can actually
make the biggest difference, because they are the largest ones. That is a concern with regards
to the self or secondary certification optior., and it doesn't meet the over-arching objective with
what AB32 and other things are trying to accomplish.
• The EBOM is intriguing because it is doiie all at one time and you don't have to come back
and it is less onerous in the long run for � he building. For new construction for commercial,
she agreed that the 50,000 is too high and would choose 25,000. It is the certification process;
if you are leaving it up to an independent c;ertification process who reviews your plan, then the
concern is your plans are certified, but as Walker Wells mentioned earlier, 60% of what is in
the plan gets executed and that is a huge s�ving.
• Said she was concerned that they might m iss and one thing that would be helpful would be to
understand from staff what percent of permits are under $25K. She said those present are
familiar with the ones that are well over that because they come to the Commission; but it is
the day-to-day running of business that is c�uite a bit under that size.
Com. Giefer:
• All those less than $25K add up to a big square footage number that is missing.
• Said she wanted to know about the mix of commercial permits, both renovations and new.
Said she felt they had a good handle on th w new because they met those people; but relative to
the renovations, the day-to-day business, �:hey don't have a clue what those are until they see
construction going on in the city.
Com. Kaneda:
• A huge issue is the existing single family t�omes which the State is currently grappling with. It
is the type of thing nobody wants to dis�;uss and is where most of the energy is going. If
nothing is done, the problem is not being attacked, because even if you get all of new homes
from now on down to zero, there is such a huge number. Looking at Cupertino, how much
space is there for new home construction, how many existing homes are there that 95% of the
land is already taken up with existing hom�;s.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they are addressing part of it by sa��ing single family projects that renovate more than
50% of the area have to meet Cal Green m3ndatory; they don't want to go after people who are
not doing anything. Cal Green doesn't add - ess energy.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he did not think it would be solved at this level, but it is an issue.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she felt it was a good idea to have a tiered residential system; the bigger home you build,
you should have to achieve more points because you are consuming more resources, and
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 October 12, 2010
creating more greenhouse gases in the lon�; run.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked Com. Giefer if she would use the ti �r in lieu of the number of homes, and base it on the
square footage?
Com. Giefer:
• Said she would use the tier in lieu of the r�umber of homes. She said it sounded reasonable if
assumptions are made based on the Build It Green number discussed earlier, that you can come
up with a multi-unit single family residential tiered system, that speaks to both the square
footage and the units. If you assume that the multi-dwelling units were 1,000 square feet, if
you said 5 units, 5,000 square feet bigger or smaller, then perhaps that is demarcation for the
multi-unit. She said she liked the big sys':em of the 1,850 3-bedroom and the 2,600 for the 4
bedroom; you achieve different tiers of points based on the square footage.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the simpler they make it, the easier it is if they have a square footage amount for a single
family, and if they are bigger, they need tc� meet more points, ala Morgan Hill, and have more
of a density in size for the multi-family.
Com. Giefer:
• Asked staff to return with their opinion on what is reasonable and manageable based on
Commission's comments.
Walker Wells:
• Relative to how much time the certificati��n process adds to the project schedule, he said the
requirement for certification should not ;idd any time to the project schedule because you
would know about it ahead of time, you prepare the documentation that city needs to see when
you get your building permit, project would be done and you would be able to get a temporary
certificate of occupancy. The final certifi �ate of occupancy is given when the certification is
brought forward. The consultant who dof:s the review on behalf of the city is a good one and
is tied into the city process, they should get it done within the same plan check timeframe as
the building official and public works is dc ing.
Com. Miller:
• Said it was an interesting concept, but he saw potential problems with the temporary certificate
of occupancy; what happens if the buildin�, does not meet?
Walker Wells:
• That is the reason for the fee. If you ion't bring your certification within whatever the
accepted amount of time is, you forfeit y�ur fee and you are then considered to be free and
clear; your building is not paralyzed or hei d hostage by this requirement and are not precluded
from transacting it which is the concern.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• If the Planning Commission wants to g� to the verification, the mechanics of it can be
discussed; one is the way it is set up; the c�ther way is to say you get your final occupancy and
the city holds the deposit. You either fc�rfeit the deposit or you have to spend at least the
amount of the deposit to try to rectify it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 October 12, 2010
Com. Miller:
• From a practical standpoint, if you get�thE; certificate of occupancy and someone moves in, it
might be difficult to go into that structure �.nd start rectifying it.
• If not given a temporary certificate of oc�;upancy, how long is it from the completion of the
building to the approval of the certificatior ?
Walker Wells:
• Said he was not certain anyone would do �o, but if they wanted, they could say they would not
occupy that building until they get their certification from the US Green Building Council.
They could build in 2 to 3 months of a cus]iion to go through the submittal process.
Com. Miller:
• Said with respect to Option 1 or 2, his cor cern is more with the cost of time and expense, and
he did not feel strongly about one or the other; but felt strongly that there be some offset to
whichever one they require. He said he �vas not in favor of mandatory and was in favor of
incentive based and would rather that th�; developer want to do it because either the market
place or the city provided the incentives to motivate him to do it, which makes compliance
easier. He said he felt they should begin at the lower levels and work up to the higher levels as
they get more familiar with the process a�d as they can demonstrate that they can offset the
costs of the lower level at first instanc�; and to the higher level as staff becomes more
experienced in doing this.
• In Option 1, staffwould be looking for wa;�s to reduce other costs in the approval process. The
other ideas discussed making the point sy.�tem based on size of the home is a better approach
than number of units; it gets more to the h�;art of what they are trying to do. It made sense and
Com. Kaneda's suggestion that there be a ilat rate also made sense.
• He said there was general consensus towar3s that, and he supported it.
Com. Kaneda:
• Regarding fees and deposits, that idea; di -ferent numbers have come from Washington D.C.,
which has some huge punitive number to��, and San Jose who has an extremely low number
which is not even a slap on the wrist.
• San Jose's approach is they said they ar�; going to throw out a really low number because
hopefully people are going to do the right thing for the right reason and not scoff at it and say
here is my check, I am not coming back; but they put in a review of how well it is working, so
if it turns out that is the result, they can tu�n around and say okay you are forcing our hand we
are going to start ratcheting up the rates until they get to the point where people will pay
attention. Financially it is the least onerou �, and there is the ability to do something about it if
it is not working, yet you have the ability i�� it is not working to do something about it.
• It sounds like staff could come up with an alternative way of doing it with the credit line that
may not be onerous. He said he was referring to the fee deposit for Option 1, and if they say
LEED silver and they don't get LEED certified or something like that. San Jose seems
workable; what you talked about with credit lines, I am not sure I understand it but it seems
like a reasonable way of doing it also.
Watker Wells:
• The credit line is a mechanism so that pe��ple don't have to tie up real dollars in an account;
more to the point is that the way this has b�;en structured is to say that the fee needs to be a dis-
incentive for not complying or stated thf other way, an incentive to comply. It would be
cheaper to go through GPR or LEED thai to forfeit the money to the city. That is how it is
structure; it means it is big, so it is the opp �site of what San Jose has done because the concern
that has always come up everywhere I ha��e worked is that people would perceive it as an in-
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 October 12, 2010
lieu fee just like they do for affordable housing.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Relative to the residential units, it make � sense to make the thresholds on square footage
instead of number of homes, such as 5,000; one of the comments from the focus groups was to
make it easier. Still need to discuss the niimber of points, whether it should be 50, 75 or 100.
It would make sense instead of trying to remember two different point systems, two different
thresholds.
• She said she felt more discussion was nee�ied about the incentives; she was not totally against
them with requirements for parking and square footage; there was merit in having some
incentives for developers. EBOM is impc�rtant; she said she was surprised to hear that when
the building specs are written out when it is planned and actually performs, it tapers off to
60%, which is low.
• Need more discussion on LEED EBOM and see if that should be an option, and not a sidebar.
• At the focus group meetings there was not much discussion on EBOM, but talked about
LEED. Relative to verifications, should €,o more toward Option 1; the six month grace period
is appropriate.
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to residential, he suggested raising the number of unit count for the lower level back
up to 9, like Phase II recommendations; ar d for homes less than 2,000 sq. ft. he said he would
support 75 point GPR; for over 2,000 sq. fi., 100 point GPR. For the various other commercial
ones, wherever it says 3 of the 4 followin ; systems, replace that with HVAC plus two of the
three systems.
• Said for formal certification vs. Option 2, lie would choose 25K and make it below 25K, 10 to
25 be Option 2 and above 25 formal certifi�:ation; Option 2 for multi-family renovation.
• Relative to the grace period, given the ratE; of construction, there has to be some grace period
because there are people who are indi vidual builders who are not part of the larger
development community or working on th�;ir house plans; perhaps 3 is enough, in this market
6 is appropriate.
Com. Giefer:
• Why wouldn't we want to notify everyone who we have had a discussion with and say that we
are working on a green building policy anc once it is resolved, notify them in advance that it is
going to go in effect on X date, so tha�: the time now through our deliberations through
implementation is actually part of that grac� period.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said there was a cost to notifying everyone individually; the decision was made to send out the
one notice to get people involved so that tl-ey keep track of the project, and the cost runs in the
range of $6,000 for every notification. An y additional notification to that same list will need
more funding.
Chair Brophy:
• There is a logical argument to the suggestion; looking at the ease of administration issue that
Walker Wells was covering earlier, it is prc�bably easier to say X months from date of passage.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that when people are designing a proi ect, they come to the city to ask what the rules are;
and staff wants to be able to tell them the rules, but it is difficult to tell them the rules when
they haven't yet been identified.
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 October 12, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Said that if a permit expired in two years, she could pull her permit and then not have to have
funding for the project; and then in 24 m��nths after that notifcation period, she could start a
project that is so far in the future by the time that it is executed on the ground and completed,
they are pushing that out; it is not just a thiee month notification.
• Said she was trying to understand what co.�ld be the worst case project on the ground after this
is submitted which if it is three months, tt�at is actually 3 months plus 24 months or 6 months
plus 24 months.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Once a building permit is applied for, ;t needs to be kept active; if the inactive time is
exceeded, the permit becomes expired and re-application for the permit is necessary. The
inactivity period is 6 months and one ea-ter sion is allowed.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the indushy side, people make decisions to do a development well in advance. It is
appropriate to give lead time, if they deci ie that is the straw that broke the camel's back and
they don't want to go ahead with the devel �pment, they are not caught. For that reason alone, it
is reasonable to give a lead time. He said he supported 6 months, for larger projects a year or
two. As Com. Giefer said earlier, people know this discussion is happening, so for the larger
projects, they are more aware and are goir g to be coming in and staff will inform them. There
is concern about the smaller projects, whf:re they are probably not aware and you don't want
them to get caught.
Chair Brophy:
• T'here aren't people rushing to do buildin€; plans on larger projects now. There are individual
homes and those would be the issue, but they have a shorter lead time in terms of preparing
design documents.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she would follow up with the City nianager on the availability of funds to have Walker
Wells attend the next meeting the application was continued to.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second 1►y Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to continue Application MCA-2010.04 to the October 26, 2010 meeting.
4. MCA-2010-OS Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking Ordinance)
City of Cupertino with associated aniendments to Chapter 19.08 (Defmitions) related to
Citywide Location clarifying langu<<ge regarding storage and parking of heavy
equipment, aircra�� and planned non-operational vehicles in residential
zones. Postponea from the September 28, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting; Tentativc� City Council date: November 16, 2010.
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented thE staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking
Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal C ode with associated amendments regarding storage
and parking of heavy equipment and plan ied non-operational vehicles in residential zones, as
outlined in the staff report.
• The purpose of the Parking Ordinance is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are
unsightly, oversized or detrimental to p�•operty values, or to the peace and enjoyment of
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 October 12, 2010
neighboring property owners or resident �. She reviewed the proposed amendments to the
ordinance, including parking on imperv ious and semi-pervious surface, storage of heavy
equipment, storage of airplanes, planned non-operational vehicles, and farm equipment, as
outlined in the staff report.
Com. Giefer:
• Questioned if the small h-actor on Regna.r� Road would have to be removed, noting that it was
likely originally agricultural or RHS but n�w being rezoned to residential. She said she would
not want to see it removed as it has been on the property longer than many people have been in
Cupertino.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said that it would have to be covered up b�;hind a fence.
Code Enforcement staff:
• Said that the tractor had been there for rr any years and was probably originally a decorative
statuary at some point in time; although the property is in disrepair and the owners are no
longer there. He said it could be an un��ttractive nuisance and should be removed at some
point; as there was no reason to preserve it although it may have some historical significance to
the residents who have been around many years.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she understood the ordinance, but sai�i there is a certain charm to some of the artifacts that
have been in Cupertino a lot longer than many people; and she did not want the Ballards to
have to remove the tractor from their pro��erty or that the bi-plane would have to be removed
from Regnart.
Staff:
• It does not have to be removed, but has to meet the requirements of screening which has to be
behind a conforming fence. Said it would be difficult to sepazate the historical equipment.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
• Larry Goe, 10279 Brett Avenue: (Mr. Goe left the meeting earlier and his opinion was
conveyed by Gary Chao):
• Expressed concern about Section ] 9.100.030 specifically regarding the number of vehicles that
the current ordinance restricts in front and side yard areas. His concern is that there seems to be
a need for additional vehicles allowed to t�e stored; in discussion with his neighbors instead of
the m�imum of 4 vehicles permitted on r�;sidential lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or less, and 6 vehicles
permitted in other residential zones; he iecommended that those two numbers be increased
from4to6and6to8.
• He felt if somebody has a fairly large lot, and has the need, there should be a way for the city
to allow for storage of vehicles, specificall y if it is behind a fence.
Gary Chao:
• Said they were not proposing to change th�; section; it is not within the scope of being changed,
that is the existing ordinance. Section A 1 prescribes that those requirements only come up
when you are seeking to park in the front :✓ard area or side yard area visible to the public. The
one instance where it talked about rear y�xd area, is also a situation where you have a corner
lot and have a portion of your rear lot potentially visible.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 October 12, 2010
• The current ordinance allows for additional vehicles to be parked on any residential property as
long as it is not visible to the public, on the; front or the side setback requirements.
• Gary Chao explained that if a person has a fairly large lot and wants to put something in the
back yard, no one can see since it is fer. ced in, the current ordinance allows for additional
vehicles in addition to the number of cars being prescribed here; or if they have a large lot and
can build a sizable house with many gara�;es enclosed and the cars would not be visible, those
cars won't be counted toward that.
• Gary Chao said that in essence, the ordinance does address Mr. Goe's concern.
Staff:
• Said that vehicles over 10,000 pounds ar; not permitted to be parked in driveways, such as
tractors, semi-trucks that tow, big rig tractc►r; some tow trucks are over 10,000 trucks.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported it in its current form.
Vice Chair Lee:
- • Supports Option B; said that if it is farm equipment, it could be under the heading as heavy
equipment and was acceptable if it is not seen by the residents and screened behind a fence.
Farm equipment should be allowed on rf;sidential properties subject to screening like other
heavy equipment.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it made sense to him; and he was not sure there was a big difference between farm
equipment and any other heavy equipment
Com. Miller:
• Supported Option B.
Gary Chao:
• Said that usually code enforcement cases jre processed based on complaints received. Given
that the fann equipment has been there f�r more than 15 years, it was doubtful that anyone
would raise a concern. In the event that the property owner comes in for development, or
permit required for modification, that is w}ien staffwould move forward on it.
Chair Brophy:
• Said there was consensus for Option B, wi :h the statement all heavy equipment can apply to all
properties as long as it is screened. Staffv��ill make the change accordingly.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0
to approve Application MCA-20l0-OS with the alternative Option to allow farm
equipment to be classified as heavy equipment, and that it would be allowed on
residential properties including Rl, R2, RHS and A1 zones, but subject to screening
like other heavy equipment.
Friendly amendment by Com. Kaneda: That it apply to non-residential properties as well.
Vice Chair Lee and Com. Miller acceF ted the friendly amendment. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0-0.
Cupertino Planning Commission 30 October 12, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Commented that when PG&E and the Water Company are doing tree and line work with heavy
equipment, they stage their equipment on i he road where the horse corral use to be; and it is by
agreement with the property owners that they are allowed to park their heavy equipment there
for whatever period of time it takes to ma <e repairs; and none of that is screened. She said to
her knowledge no one complains about it because they are glad to have the work done, but it
flies in the fact of that type of staging. 'JVill PG&E and the water company park their cars,
their heavy equipment some place else anc bring it back every day.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The last sentence in the paragraph on lieavy equipment, says that heavy equipment may
temporarily be kept for construction or ir�stallation of improvements; if there is construction
going on, we do consider that. There is n��thing happening on this site, we have the ability to
say move it or screen it.
OLD BUSINESS None
NEW BUSINESS None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMII�IIS��ION
Environmental Review Committee
• No meeting. A meeting is scheduled for Thursday October 14�', Chair Brophy will attend in
Com. Kaneda's place.
Mayor's MonthlY Meeting With Commissioners:
• Meeting may be scheduled for Wed. Octot�er 13�'.
Economic Development Committee MeetinQ: No report.
REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF CONIl�[UNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the Council's iecision on The Metropolitan. They moved forward
with getting 40% of the frontage as non-retail, working within the rules the Planning
Commission set, restricting it to Building B and also said that if the non-retail is going to be
medical, they should work with staffto determine how many spaces can be in the garage.
• The Council also upheld the Planning Cor,imission recommendation to deny the map to create
the five condos; and asked staff to work with the applicant to rectify the DRE issue where they
actually went forward and recorded the fiv � condos.
' • The cell tower on Results Way has been a��pealed and will go to the Council shortly.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for October 26, 2(►10 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Elli s
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary