PC 07-11-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P .M. JULY 11, 2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2006 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Staff present:
City Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Planning Intern:
Asst. City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Ciddy Wordell
Piu Ghosh
Noren Caliva
Eileen Murray
Approval of June 13, 2006 Planning Commission minutes:
Corrections as noted:
. Page 13, Com. Saadati, second line: Delete "are interior work;" and insert "and interior
work do not require environmental impact;" Th
. Third line: insert "as" after "such"
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve the minutes of the
June 13, 2006 Planning Commission as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Wong
abstained.)
Motion:
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Deborah Hill, Cupertino resident:
. Expressed concern about pedestrian and cyclists safety at major intersections in Cupertino
because of speeding motorists.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Noted that the Public Works Department was aware of the issues regarding the concerns about
pedestrian and cyclist's safety at the major intersections.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
July 11, 2006
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. M-2006-02
Rick Cole (Valero
Gas) 10002 No.
DeAnza Bl vd.
Modification to a use permit (6-U-96) to allow sale of beer and wine
at an existing service station. Planning Commission decision
unless appealed.
Noren Caliva, Planning Intern, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a modification to a use permit to allow sale of beer and wine at
the Valero Gas Station located at 10002 No. DeAnza Boulevard, as outlined in the staffreport.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit modification to allow
sale of beer and wine at the Valero gas station in accordance with the model resolution.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the sale of wine and beer at the gas station.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Requested that information be provided relative to the proximity of the facility from St.
Joseph's Church and School, and the interior planogram.
Rick Cole, Applicant:
. Said that they would follow the city ordinance and ensure that the beer and wine was located
more than five feet from the entry door and the counter.
. Relative to sale of the beer and wine, he stated that signs are posted stating that identification
will be required, and also staff would participate in training relative to checking IDs.
. He said that it was verified by the applicant and the ABC that there were no churches within
500 feet of the sale of the beer and wine. He also noted that neighbors within 200 were
noticed and no protests about the proposed application were received by the applicant or ABC.
. He said that the sale of beer and wine at the station was provided as a convenience for the
customers. The sale of beer is not permitted for single cans, only six packs or 12 packs. The
sale of beer and wine at the gas station convenience store was projected to be about $10,000 to
$15,000 per month which would generate sales tax for the City of Cupertino.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing. As there was no one present who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said the reference that Vice Chair Giefer was referring to was included in the applicant's
letter; and is not a requirement of the code to not be within a certain distance from a school.
She said the school is within 350 feet of the service station and the applicant may need to back
up the statement that they provided saying they were not within 500 feet. She said she did not
have the information whether ABC has that requirement; but they would issue the license.
Rick Cole:
. Said they relied upon ABC's investigation and was not aware that the property was within 500
feet of the school. After the application has been filed, ABC will report whether the schools
are within 600, and if so, the school(s) will be noticed.
2
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
July 11, 2006
Ciddy Wordell:
. If the City Attorney concurs, staff can issue the use permit and ABC would or would not issue
the license.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Said that staff could condition the approval on the agreement of the ABC. She said she was
interested in knowing the ABC regulations regarding distance from schools and they should
bring it to their attention that there is a school.
. Also said that the Planning Commission could approve it if it met their criteria, and felt that
the ABC would make a determination from their investigation.
. Said that it may have been missed because it is a private school.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that as of last week, ABC had not completed their investigation.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said the proximity of the service station/convenience store is a key issue. She said she had no
problem approving liquor licenses within the city of Cupertino, if they meet city criteria.
. She said that they have not confirmed if it is an ABC rule that it must be further than 500 to
600 feet, away from a school. If ABC hasn't finished their investigation and found that out,
she said she would be more comfortable doing a conditional use permit pending that
information.
Com. Wong:
. Concurred with Vice Chair Giefer; and said he had no problem recommending approval of the
permit; the city receives valuable sales tax dollars from the application.
. Suggested that it be made a conditional use permit, to double check with the ABC; it may be
their oversight of not looking at the school, and a followup done to ensure everything
necessary has been done.
Com. Chien:
. The permit is consistent with uses of the area, the application has been run through the
Sheriffs Department and they said there was no problem; however, there is no conclusive
report from ABC, and without that it is difficult to grant the permit.
. Said he would support a conditional permit and a report was needed from ABC;
Com. Saadati:
. Concurred with the other Commissioners that approval be upon ABC's approval and also that
the display of beer and wine be a minimum of 5 feet away from the entrance and cash register.
. Suggested that they revisit the ordinance regarding sale of alcohol within the school areas at a
future meeting.
Chair Miller:
. I think from a logical standpoint it doesn't make any difference; because if the ABC doesn't
approve it, they will not get their liquor license.
. Said he would support the condition as well.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application
M-2006-02 with the condition that the applicant follows up with city staff to
ensure that the application conforms with the ABC regulations.
3
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
July 11, 2006
Amendment to motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, to add that it staff verify with ABC
that the applicant is meeting all the ABC requirements,
particularly relating to the proximity of the school.
The amendment to the motion was accepted by Com. Wong and
Com. Chien.
(Vote: 5-0-0) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
2. TM-2006-07 (EA-2006-08)
Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon
Development)
10114 Crescent Court
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4-acre property into five
parcel sizes greater than 10,000 square feet, and an
approximately 35,000 square foot parcel for creek
dedication. Tentative City Council date:
July 18, 2006.
Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a 2.4-acre parcel into five parcels
and a remaining 37,073 square foot parcel to be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, as outlined in the staff report.
. She noted that the dedication ofland to the Water District is contingent upon the City of
Cupertino and the Water District entering into a joint use agreement for recreational purposes
Ifno agreement is reached, the dedication would revert to the City.
. She reviewed the retention of trees and removal of trees for the application. A total of 19 trees
are proposed for removal, most of which are either located in the roadway, in building pads,
are in poor health, or removal is necessary to keep other trees healthy.
. Staff recommends that either one or both of the two specimen sized trees be saved; and
recommends that trees #14 and #26 which are coast live oaks, be retained as protected trees
since they do not interfere with roadways or building pads and are in good health.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, in accordance
with the modified model resolution. Staff has added a condition to the Condition No. 10, Part
B, to save tree No.7.
Scott Kelly, applicant:
. Provided a history of the irrevocable dedication to the creek. When consideration was first
given to property for potential development, a 6 lot development was considered. After
discussions with the Santa Clara Valley Water District about the proposed development to see
if there may be any requirements from them regarding building beyond the close proximity to
the creek, it was decided that a 5 lot development would be more appropriate for the
neighborhood
. When the Water District was shown a tentative plan they said there would be no impact on
their creek and they would have no further restrictions on the city. The dedication was made to
the Water District, since in the past they have contacted current homeowners and got their
permission to access the creek, and have taken equipment down and done creek work up and
down the creek, primarily upstream north.
. Stated for the record that they were not necessarily in total agreement with all the existing
resolution, and wanted review it item by item. He said they were seeking communication
flexibility with some items in the resolution, including tree removal, the issue of the pavers,
public vs. private street, and the verbiage and requirement for the slope easements behind Nos.
4 and 5.
. He discussed the results of the geologist's report and said he felt before they turn over almost
an acre of land to the city, they would like consideration of some flexibility on the resolutions.
4
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
July 11,2006
Chair Miller:
. Summarized the issues of concern from the applicant:
1. Trees 4 and 5
2. Pavers
3. Easement on Lots 4 and 5
4. Private Street.
Piu Ghosh:
. She read some text from the geotechnical report relative to the first recommendations from the
Murray Engineers regarding the setbacks from the top of the cliff because of the potential for
erosion. She said the letter from Murray Engineers referred to the clarification of associated
improvements, not regarding setbacks.
Com. Saadati:
. Said that options included setbacks and erosion control. He expressed concern whether it has
been studied in detail or evaluated.
Piu Ghosh:
. It was after the study they did with borings and reviewing the results of those borings that
resulted in the recommendation that a building setback be recorded for lots 4 and 5. There
were no other options in terms of stabilizing the slope in any form. The only recommendation
was that there be a building setback of 25 feet from the top of the cliff and that lot 5 be on
drilled piers.
Com. Saadati:
. Expressed concern that if there was going to be erosion, it would occur at 25 foot, 50 foot or
10 foot setbacks. If there is going to be an additional surcharge load on that slope, that could
trigger a slide.
. He questioned whether pier design was explored because 5 feet deep will not be sufficient;
piers need to go down 20 to 30 feet down to the base of the slope; also additional planting on
the slope needs to be provided to prevent erosion and needs to be maintained.
. Regarding trees, how close are the trees #4, 5 and 6 to the proposed building pad.
Piu Ghosh:
. Said she understood that the soil 25 feet back from the top of the cliff is stable enough for
construction of buildings; however, Cotton Shires stipulated a condition that
for future developments they need to be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer prior to issuing
the building permits. Since the building development cannot be controlled by the subdivision,
the condition was removed.
. He illustrated that the trees are in the potential building pad because the setbacks; the two trees
which are crossed out with an X are Nos. 4 and 5 and the dotted line is the minimum building
setback that the building could potentially have. The buildings aren't part of the application,
just the subdivision.
Scott Kelly:
. Said he was aware that there were 12 protected trees on the two sites. He said he was
proposing to remove 2 specimen trees on Lots 4 and 5, and have adjusted the original plan to
incorporate the retention of those 3 additional oaks, and are willing to work with staff.
Com. Chien:
. Said that they should replace as many trees as are taken out of the protected trees.
5
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
July 11,2006
. The Barry Coates report says there are 12 protected trees that are planning to be removed; the
model resolutions calls for more, which is often the case. He asked what the rationale was for
requiring over and above what is being protected.
Piu Ghosh:
. Said that some of the trees on the list are mature trees, whether or not they are protected or not
and they add value to the neighbors who live on the neighboring properties.
. From a quality of life perspective, it would make more sense to replace the value of the trees
that they are removing regardless if they are protected or not. Additionally, once a project
comes in for subdivision, all trees are up for protection regardless of whether they are part of
the heritage/specimen tree ordinance or not.
. Pointed out there were three specimen sized trees that the applicant is proposing removal of.
Com. Wong:
. Asked for clarification on the slope easement.
Piu Ghosh:
. Explained that if the slope is unstable or potentially could be unstable, associated
improvements are required to the main house not including what they are calling the easement,
which includes things such as a detached cottage, mother in law cottage, or detached garage or
swim pools without further geotechnical review of what is being put in there.
Com. Wong:
. Relative to the applicant's concern about public street vs. private street, it is not impossible to
do a public street, it would probably be similar to an RHS with a smaller street.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that since it is not a standard street for this area, they would not want to accept it as a
public street; it does not have the standard width.
Com. Wong,:
. Questioned why they were moving forward with the application if it did not have a standard
width. The past applications presented were mainly for unit subdivisions and the street
referred to is not that large.
. Said he visited the site with the applicant and staff and it appears to be a very long street. He
said whenever considering 5 large subdivisions and having them enter a private agreement,
especially when it is known that the particular area may have concerns regarding drainage, it
may behoove them to take responsibility of the street especially since it is known that with Mr.
Varian's dedication, there should be more give and take.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said there may be some environmental impacts that increase when the street is widened; there
is more hard surface than on a narrower street. She said she was not aware of the reason the
applicant wants a wider street, so he may want the street to be public at the narrower size
because the lots are larger in that case. The Public Works Department would want it to be
private if it is not standard. If the preference is for it to be public, then I think based on what
they have told us, they want it to be wider.
Scott Kelly:
. Explained that a public street would be beneficial to them cost-wise and relative to
maintenance, as they are asking for a street maintenance agreement amongst the owners in the
6
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
July 11, 2006
CCRs and that becomes burdensome.
. Addressed the street issue. Public Works informed him in May 2002 that they took over an
easement and recorded it so the City of Cupertino maintains that portion of the street entering
that property line, but they chose at that time not to widen anything into the park. Staff states
that they left themselves with a substandard situation they could have remedied back in May
2002 and they chose not to. He said it was their wish to take what exists and move forward;
the plan will begin at 20 feet where it has been left at the property line and will be widened to
28 feet to meet the fire requirements.
. He said they were going above and beyond what is existing and are adhering to fire specs.
Piu Ghosh:
. Pointed out that if the applicant was expected to keep the portion of the road a public standard
at 28 feet, and said they may not make 3 lots on the left hand side of the property. If they did
widen it to 28 feet, there could still be parking on their side of the street; it could be 28 foot
public road with parking on one side.
Com. Wong:
. Expressed concerns that it would not align with the neighbor, and it would affect all the
protected trees. He questioned why the city did not look at the property when they created the
road which was substandard when they created Varian Park.
Piu Ghosh:
. Said she spoke with Glen Goepfert and they were not pleased about taking land away from the
city; despite knowing that there was going to be a dedication.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that staff would bring the information on Varian Park back to the Commission.
Piu Ghosh:
. Relative to the applicant's concern about trees 4 and 5, she said it was an issue at the ERC
meeting and the ERC recommendation was to see if the two trees could be saved.
Com. Wong:
. Said he understood the Chair's concern, but he questioned the practicality of the back yard.
Piu Ghosh:
. Said they could do an exception for the second story to first story percentage; which would
get the larger setbacks and smaller footprint and grant them a back yard.
. She said the trees need pruning as they grow close to the ground. The canopy will rise when
the dead wood is cut and cleared out, and it will be a usable back yard.
Chair Miller:
. Asked the applicant what the issue was relative to public vs. private, since they did not have
to have CC&Rs; all that is needed is a road maintenance agreement.
Scott Kelly:
. Said the concern arose upon receipt of the staff report that the paver issue is a condition of the
resolution. He said he has been dealing with Planning staff for months, Public Works for
almost as long, and it was the first time he heard about pavers being an issue.
. Relative to the public vs. private, in meeting with Glen Goepfert and Public Works staff,
7
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
July 11, 2006
some items came up and he was informed that they did not have a lot of jurisdiction on the
private road, and he expressed concern about the mandate of paving the entire site.
. He said he assumed everything was fine and other than the pavers, the street was where the
Planning Department wanted it, and Public Works added their approval. It was made smaller
to protect tree No.8; which was done at the direction of Steve Piasecki.
. Confirmed that the main issue was the pavers, not the street issue.
Scott Kelly commented on lot 4 and 5 slope easement.
. Said that Piu Ghosh addressed the issue, especially on Lot 5.
. Suggested that Murray Engineering and Barry Coates provide the appropriate verbiage.
. He noted there was a big difference on No.4 and 5 regarding top of slope and top of cliff and
they are not looking to get into the slope.
. He said that the geology report including 4 to 6 weeks of testing results.
. Said the structures themselves have to be mitigated, which should be left up to the geologists
themselves, not the developer or the city, but professionals hired to do the job.
. In response to Chair Miller's concern about erosion, he said that there are no erosion concerns;
erosion is fully addressed in the report.
Chair Miller:
. Said that relative to trees 4 and 5, staff suggested as a compromise in terms of keeping them,
to grant the applicant a more favorable first to second story ratio, and asked the applicant if it
would help at all.
Scott Kelly:
. He said not likely; the lot could be livable over 4,500 feet, and a house is being planned to
finish up at 3,800 to 3,900 square feet. He said they were not building something to the
maximum; but were asking to have those trees removed, create a pleasant
back yard and follow the replacement guidelines.
. Said he did not know if trees 4 and 5 could be moved.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Morey Nelson, Civil Engineer for the project:
. Supports the application.
. Addressed the issue of the pavers. Said that while the pavers are permeable, what is
underneath them is compacted base rock which is not permeable. If the base is compacted the
proper way to support fire trucks or any other heavy trucks, the section will not be permeable.
. He distributed a detail of a bio swale and a percolation trench that they currently use in designs
in Los Altos and Menlo Park. He described the process and said he would propose the process
for the project to percolate as much water into the ground as possible. In the event of a heavy
storm it may reach its capacity, in which case there would be an overflow pipe that would be
connected to the existing storm drain system. He said he would propose it in lieu of the
pavers, which he said would not be permeable.
. He discussed the issue of the retaining wall at the southeast corner oflot 1. He said they are
trying to design the street to maintain the access for the Water District to allow them to
maintain and have access to the creek area. He said it could also be used as a hiking pad.
. He said they designed the road so that the grade will permit the access to the creek area with
the existing road. There is a low point at the corner and it will require some excavation at the
center line and will require a 4 foot high retaining wall on the inside corner of the road. This
will prevent the need for any additional grading above that retaining wall.
8
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
July 11, 2006
. The reason they do not want to grade that area, is there are a number of trees they are trying to
protect. Staffhas come back and suggested that the wall be no higher than 2 feet; ifit is 2 feet,
they will have to do some grading or they will not be able to provide the access for the Water
District, nor a pedestrian path on that existing road. He said they would like to maintain the
height of the retaining wall at 4 feet maximum rather than 2 feet that staff has suggested.
. Said the bio swale could be incorporated on each one of the lots to prevent water from flowing
from one lot to the other.
Jan Stoeckenius, Cupertino Road:
. Referring to the aerial view, said that the neighborhood does have private roads currently
Amelia Court and Orchard Court. It is not something unusual and would not be a problem
with maintenance.
. Suggested that the requirement be mitigated to call for pavers only on the cuI de sac or part of
it because the street was exceptionally long.
. Suggested that a condition be added requiring Public Works to look at the lot at 10076
Crescent Road which is at the south corner of Crescent Ct. Crescent Road extends into the
right of way of Crescent Court currently, making it a very tight turn around in that area.
Steve Paterson, Cupertino resident:
. Said they demolished their home and built a new home in 2001, and followed all the codes and
laws, and were held to task numerous times over various issues. He said they dedicated over
20% of their lot to the city, paid about $60,000 from their own funds to pave it and turn it over
to the city, and the city did not give them any city land for their project. Where the road went
through there was Varian Park on one side, and the Paterson's land on the other side. The land
was taken from the Paterson's, not the city.
. Said that out of respect to a precedent that has been set and out of fairness, he felt the
developer should be paying the freight for what they are doing.
. Relative to the creek property, he said if all the property was buildable, they would be
considering a 8 or 9 house development, not a 5 house development. He said he felt they
were dedicating the land because it was not buildable and of no use to them, not out of
generosity.
. Said the laws are in place to protect the property owner as well as developers who buy
property. They need to be balanced, but the laws don't need to be bent or broken in order to
maximize the developer's profit. He said they need to be respected and enforced just as they
were when he was doing his project.
. Asked that the Planning Commission proceed with caution.
. In response to Com. Wong's question, said that when he dedicated a portion of his property to
the city, only 20 feet was dedicated because it was deemed appropriate and per code. The city
Public Works was very studious about anticipating future development.
. He said they almost had to anticipate a cuI de sac on their property and they took issue with it
and said that if someone develops the adjacent property in the future, and it requires a cuI de
sac, they need to put the cuI de sac on their land. It was an object of debate and study and that
was deemed legal and appropriate.
Laura Paterson, Cupertino resident:
. She said they were required to put in a 20 foot asphalt road, with a berm on the orchard side.
. She said that when they were told they had to pave the area, because there was an existing
easement for another property, and they suggested to the city in order to make it wider, that
9
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
July 11, 2006
they take a few feet off the city orchard; the city said they would never give up city land.
She said it was a dead end street for them and they moved forward.
. She said they never used the street that they paid $60,000 for.
Brian Kelly, President of Kelly Gordon Development:
. Relative to the pavers versus public and private street, he said there was no justification for the
demand in the report for pavers to be installed on that street, because the standard city
requirement is 3 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of base, which they are willing to comply with.
In discussions with staff, this item was never mentioned by anyone in any of the meetings. He
said they are willing to go public or private street.
. Behind Lots 4 and 5 regarding the slope easements, it is a term that the Planning staff has
derived. He said that geological reports are very clear on what can or cannot be done back
there. The staff report is confusing; it comes across sounding like no patios, no swim pools,
no gazebos, etc., which he felt was not the intent of staff. He said he felt it was the intent of
staff and the geologist that anything in that 25 foot setback of a permanent nature would have
to be designed to take into consideration what the geological situation is.
. Relative to the question of the detailed nature of the studies, their borings and their computer
programs are geared to meet the criteria of the 1906 earthquake which is the standard they
designed to and base their report. Their report came back stating that there are no problems on
the property, and because of the sloping nature of the property behind Lot 5, they are
suggesting pier and grade beam design on the structure. On Lot 4 it is standard foundation
with no consideration at all.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Expressed concern about the problem with the access road and said it appears from what was
stated tonight, that there are a number of issues considering private vs. public.
. Said she was opposed to parking on the private road abutting the orchard. The issue with the
project is that the 4,000 square foot homes will generate up to 5 or 6 cars and children will be
riding bikes to school, and there will also be emergency vehicles, trash trucks, and street
sweepers. If the project goes forward, there needs to be a detailed study on access to this area.
. Relative to the slope areas along lots 4 and 5, she pointed out that the area is a 100 year flood
zone with very steep cliffs. She suggested that no one build near the edge of the cliff area
because in 1989 about 1-1/2 miles away, a home on pillars pier slid down the slope.
. Said that she felt the project is objectionable, and asked that the trees be saved.
Deborah Hill, Cupertino resident:
. Said that removing the trees on the street was not a good idea.
. Recommended that it was not safe for the people to park where they live.
. Make sure the streets are safe; it is unsafe to build houses on the cliffs.
. Expressed concern about the traffic in the area.
. Opposes the project.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Pui Ghosh:
. Relative to the earlier discussion about pavers in other subdivisions, she clarified that the
Alcazar subdivision had 224 linear feet of pavers required, 28 feet wide through the cuI de sac
to the end; as well as the Stelling Road subdivision which had 233 linear feet of pavers.
. On this project, pavers would come in at 20 feet and widening to 28 feet at 211 linear feet of
pavers at the shortest edge and then where it curves, the edge will be longer.
10
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
July 11,2006
. Stated that normally they don't support having retaining walls taller than 2 t03 feet because it
interferes with the site triangle for drivers who are trying to negotiate the corner.
. Slope easement - Staff acknowledges that even though it did put down in the staff report that
slope easement be recorded subject to certain conditions, that did not get included in the
resolution and that language will likely be included, that it be specific to what kind of
accessory structures cannot be put on the slope easement, that needs to be recorded for Lots 4
and 5.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Stated for the record when the Paterson's improved their property west, they had to pay for the
street improvements to Crescent Court which the city now owns, and is a paved surface.
. What is being discussed is a private street adding onto the end of Crescent Court that is
proposed to be in pavers.
Chair Miller:
. Said it appeared that the issue of pavers or no pavers is first and foremost; and is it helping
water retention. In this case the applicant has said if the underlay is not permeable, it does not
do anything for water retention. He questioned why it appeared to be a double standard, as the
pavers are requested for decorative purposes.
. He noted that the property referred to on Stelling was not a requirement, but an offer by the
developer to do it.
Piu Ghosh:
. Said that she was not stating it is a requirement; but that the approved subdivisions in the past
had been using pavers.
. Clarified that the condition reads that the private roadway shall be paved with interlocking
permeable pavers or similar material on sand.
Com. Saadati:
. Said that other material such as crushed rock makes it permeable.
Chair Miller:
. Asked if there was a staff requirement that there needs to be pavers for the point of water
retention, because the applicant has proposed another alternative to water retention.
Piu Ghosh:
. Explained the rationale for having the permeable pavers on the roadway. Currently the site
has one single family home with surrounding open area. With the five lot subdivision, there is
the potential of having 4,500 square foot homes on each of the lots, totaling about 23,000
square feet of paved area, not including driveways and other structures that could potentially
be built on the property, which would lead to water not percolating the way it has been.
Morey Nelson:
. Said that another base material could be put beneath the pavers; however, it has been shown
that if anything other than the compacted Class 2 aggregate base is used, the pavers will not
hold up to traffic and will become unsightly, especially with heavy trucks driving over them.
That base is needed in order to make the pavers remain fixed; when the base rock is
compacted, it becomes impermeable and water will not go through it.
. Explained that the proposal with the percolation trench is to put it underneath the street and the
water will percolate into the ground. It could also be used on each of the lots, with a trench on
11
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
July 11,2006
each lot to mitigate the impermeable surfaces created by the lots and the driveways. He said
the pavers would be for decorative purposes only as they do not act as a way of getting water
to go through the street section into the ground.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
. Addressed the three issues raised by Mr. Kelly:
. The trees on Lots 4 and 5 - definitely agree with you that we need a practical back yard and at
this moment, since you are only asking for a subdivision, I don't feel comfortable with the tree
removal of Tree 4 and 5. I believe that when you come back for your subdivision, we can
address it at that time.
. Regarding pavers vs. public street or private street, the main concern is not public or private,
but the pavers. He agreed that the pavers are for decorative purposes, and concurred with the
civil engineer's suggestion about how to do it.
. Regarding the slope easement, he said he favored Mr. Kelly's suggestion.
. He said there was an opportunity to subdivide five pieces of property and give one piece back
to the city for recreational purposes. He said that the applicant worked closely with staff and
he felt some of the issues could have been talked about earlier instead of brought out in public.
Perhaps in the future the city can do a better job of letting the applicant know of something
they were not aware of.
. Regarding public vs. private street, he said he was inclined to support the public street because
there are 5 family homes going to be passing through the Paterson's property, as well as
delivery trucks, and dump trucks, and it is beneficial that the city be responsible. The
developer would have to improve the streets before the turnover to the city.
. Said he was not opposed to not having asphalt street, with the suggestion of the civil engineer
regarding runoff.
Com. Chien:
. Emphasized that the Planning Commission held the residents to high standards when they
came before them with plans to build their dream homes. The reason for the high standards is
to reflect on the quality of the city and to have its neighborhoods reflect on that high quality.
. Said he desired a superb product; the homes are very beautiful, and there is no doubt that
something will be built to match the character of that neighborhood. He said he did not feel
staff imposed any conditions that would prevent the applicant from moving forward with the
project.
. With respect to the specifics, the trees are another hot button issue that has come up recently.
The residents, developers and businesses who come the Commission with tree applications are
asked to maintain at least a 1: 1 ratio for replacement. According to the City Council, the
standard will likely go higher, as people cut trees, they need to be thoughtful about how they
replace some of them, including more than just one tree.
. Said he supported staff's recommendation for replacement; and noted that when the applicant
returns with the specific architectural site approvals, there is another go-around to look at,
which trees could be in the footprint or which trees could prevent having a usable back yard.
. Said he did not support the use of pavers since it will be a private road and private roads
should be maintained by the people living on the street. He said even though a precedent has
been set, he did not feel it was appropriate to require them at this point.
. He said there was conflicting information about the slope easement, but he would support what
was worked out.
12
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
July 11, 2006
Com. Saadati:
. Said the trees do not need to be addressed at this time; when it is seen how the proposed
building will affect it, it can be addressed at that time.
. As long as there are other means and methods to provide the seepage through the sites, the
pavers would be acceptable. One option would be to make the road wider to put the bio swale
in the center; or put some soil under each side or on one side of the road.
. Said he supported the paved surface as long as the site would have substantial permeable area
and not adversely affect the environment.
. Said he did not have a strong opinion regarding public vs. private street; whatever works for
the city is best and needs to be consistent with other site approval in the past.
. Relative to slope easement, he suggested that the two teeltBieaI engineers work together to
resolve the issue of what would be the acceptable setback.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she supported the language contained in the motion relative to the slope easement. .
. Encouraged the applicant, when asking to remove oak trees, to consider keeping the California
native pepper tree that is on Lot 4; it is not very tall and would not interfere with the building
pad and would provide some interest in trading off with some of the oaks proposed. It is an
indigenous tree to the area.
. She said that the street was a key issue. She said she felt that the 5 lot proposed subdivision
was not being overdeveloped. She said she was puzzled why they were not considering a
public street.
. She pointed out that the Patersons paid for their improvement but the city did not agree to
increase the width of it by 8 additional feet to make it a perfectly standard street. She
questioned why that decision was made at the time, since it put the project in a very peculiar
situation in that they will have a standard width that potentially could be a private street
connecting to a substandard public street. She said she was unsure how to ask Public Works to
handle it, pony up 8 feet of Varian Park to make it a wider, standard street.
. Said she preferred a public street from the Paterson property on. If it was a private street, she
said she was not opposed to pavers since it would be consistent with many of the prior
subdivision projects.
Ciddy Wordell:
. The tree removal is part of the tentative map; what is shown as removed or retained would be a
part of the approval at this meeting.
. She said she understood from Public Works that the 28 foot width is not a standard street and
that is the reason they don't want it to be public; parking on one side is not standard. The
standard street width is 36 feet, with parking on both sides, which would not be accepted as a
public street.
Com. Wong:
. Recommended that tree Nos. 4 and 5 remain; and said he supported the remainder of staffs
recommendation.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. She referred to tree No.4, and pointed out that the base was conjoined with a dead walnut tree.
She said she questioned the long term viability of the tree since it is not known what will
happen to it once the base of the walnut tree is moved.
. Said she would like to save tree No. 27 an indigenous California pepper tree, which is on the
corner of the proposed building pad for lot No.4.
13
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
July 11,2006
. Said she would be willing to allow the applicant to move tree No.5. If they were willing to do
that, they expressed that they would not be willing to move it to the back of Lot 2 since there is
an adjacent structure on the property that is built on the property line.
. Tree No.5 is approximately 30 feet, and would provide good structure for that resident if it
can be moved.
. Other than the comments on the trees, she said she supported staffs recommendation.
Chair Miller:
. Regarding the slope easement issue, there appears to be no disagreement. Staff has said that
they are willing to go with whatever the geotechnical report says; and the applicant agreed.
. Relative to the issue of pavers vs. non-pavers, he said it was not an issue about the pavers, but
a runoff issue. He said he felt they should not be requiring a specific solution with respect to
runoff; if if the applicant can show that he is mitigating runoff by some alternative means, it is
acceptable as opposed to having permeable pavers.
. Said he would support addressing the runoff as opposed to the material used on the street.
. Relative to public vs. private street, the city standard is 36 feet, and if it is not 36 feet, the
tendency is to want a private street. He said he did not have a strong preference.
. Relative to the trees, Vice Chair suggested a separate proposal because of her concern that tree
No.4 may not survive. He proposed they work the issue to the DRC to deal with the changes
with respect to trees.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application
EA-2006-08. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application TM-
2006-07 with the following amendments: Section 3, No.3: The private roadway
material, remove the language regarding the interlocking permeable pavers;
Add: if possible to use bio-swaIes and trenches as presented by the civil
engineer; No.7: Tree removal: not to remove trees #4 and #5; Tree #26 - next
to the pepper tree which is a specimen sized oak that the applicant is proposing
to level off. Also a recommendation for Public Works to see if this can be
converted to a public street under the residential hillside.
Amended Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Giefer to add the native California Pepper
Tree, No. 27 adjacent to No. 26 which should not inconvenience the
developer since No. 26 will impede the development of that corner
already. Com. Wong accepted the amendment. (Vote: 5-0-0)
A discussion ensued regarding the correct location of California Pepper tree
Piu Ghosh:
. Said it could be required of the tentative map that the pepper tree be saved or looked at when
development plans for the building come in, as it would be easier to see where that tree is in
relationship with the building.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she concurred if it was agreeable to the remaining commissioners.
Com. Wong:
. Said that he would prefer a continuance to get a better picture on the tree issue since they are
14
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
July 11, 2006
important to the community.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. She suggested that if there was a continuance, that Public Works be present to address the
issue of private vs. public hillside standard street, and why they are not attempting to make a
public street even if it meets hillside standards as opposed to a 36 foot wide street; because
there are maintenance issues for new homeowners and other
issues that come into play.
Com. Saadati:
. Concurred, and said there were many unanswred questions worthwhile visiting, especially the
width of the street.
Com. Wong:
. Withdrew the motion.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to continue Application
EA-2006-08 to the July 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Com. Wong:
. Requested that the geotechnical staff representative and a Public Works staff person be at the
next meeting.
Scott Kelly:
. Requested that before the next Planning Commission meeting, the city arborist go to the site
and look at trees #4 and #5 and address the possibility of pruning or not pruning and come
back with a recommendation
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said it was unlikely the arborist would be able to schedule a visit to the site in the next two
weeks because of their backlog.
Chair Miller declared a short recess.
3.
U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06,
TR-2006-09, (EA-2006-09)
Cliff Chang (Chang
Architecture) 10495 No.
DeAnza Blvd.
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Review to
demolish an existing 27,000 square foot office building
and construct a 60,000 square foot office building and
parking structure. Tree removal and replanting for a
proposed 60,000 square foot office building and parking
Structure. Tentative City Council date: July 18, 2006.
Ciddy Wordell, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval to demolish an
existing 27,000 square foot office building and construct a new 60,000 square foot office
building with two level above grade level parking structure; and tree removal to allow the
removal and replacement of 21 trees to accommodate the proposed building as outlined in the
staff report.
. She referred to the site plan and illustrated the project layout, pedestrian access points,
vehicular entrances on Mariani, setbacks, and landscape plan.
. Reviewed the proposed tree removal, architecture, traffic and potential parking structure glare
15
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
July 11, 2006
and noise, as outlined in the staff report. Staff has recommended that the garage come back to
the DRC for review for more interesting architectural detailing.
. She discussed the reciprocal parking easement between the property and the parcel to the west,
a smaller office/medical building. One of the provisions of the existing reciprocal easement is
that if either property owner makes any changes to their parking in terms of reconfiguration,
the other party has to provide recorded written consent to those changes. A condition which
needs to be added is that the recorded written consent needs to be provided prior to filing of
the final map.
. Relative to the garage, she said the applicant has had some discussions with the property
owner and they will talk about that as well as the adjacent property owner. The adjacent
property owner already has some concerns about the garage in terms of its height and how
access is taken, and the applicant is trying to revise their plans to meet those concerns.
. The last issue is one of General Plan conformance as outlined in the staff report. There is a
new policy in the General Plan addressing the issue of new significant office development and
it was based on the belief that new office development often does not bring any particular
fiscal benefit to the city and that there should be a way of trying to assure that it does so that
the city does receive some benefit from the new development. Some of the existing larger
office developments in Cupertino already provide some fiscal benefits, such as Apple and
Hewlett Packard; hence the idea would be that other significant new office development will
do something similar.
. Staff recommended a condition that said when the tenant is known, they would determine at
that time what the fiscal benefit would be. Staff has had some discussion with the city
attorney, and they are concerned that it will be a difficult thing to enforce. Not only is the
actual mechanism not known, but it would be very difficult to enforce from tenant to tenant, as
they change what kind of fiscal benefit they will provide.
. Staff proposed that there be a possibility of saying there will be a fiscal benefit that will be
determined by the City Council as part of this application, and they feel they can come up with
an analysis of what kind of revenue to expect from an office development and that the property
owner would agree to a certain amount every year and it be written into a condition.
. Staff is recommending approval of the applications, subject to receiving a recorded written
consent on the reciprocal easement, and also a recorded covenant obligating the property
owner to provide significant revenues to the city or in-lieu fee which the City Council will
determine as part of this application.
Com. Wong:
. Relative to the General Plan conformance, he said he understood where staff was coming
from, as they want to encourage more sales tax generation for the city. He questioned the
legality of a private property owner, and said he felt by holding it in limbo until there is a
General Plan amendment, it was unfair toward this particular application.
Eileen Murray:
. Said it was a General Plan policy that has been approved that has no mechanism for
enforcement, and also no specification of what similar benefits would be, as similar benefits
are actual terms. The city attorney's office has concern that the project is not in compliance
with that; not through any fault of theirs.
. Said she understood the concern about potential unfairness; however, it is not in compliance
with the General Plan because there is no tenant; the city has no idea what type of revenue
stream they are talking about, if they are talking about one.
. She recommended that the item be continued because of the many unanswered questions, and
that a minute order be forwarded to City Council to seek clarification on what the mechanism
is, how would it apply, and develop and ordinance to be reviewed by City Council. She said
16
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
July 11, 2006
that presently the policy is unenforceable and a mechanism should have been in place before
coming to the Planning Commission.
Com. Wong:
. Asked staff to summarize their goal regarding the public storage facility.
Ciddy Wordell:
. The public storage facility has a high number of square feet and if the North Vallco area
square footage allocation were given for their expansion, there would be little square footage
left over for other uses. It would accommodate this use and their use, but not much more.
. Said that a recommendation will go to City Council that the square footage allocation be
prorated down based on the kind of actual use, which is extremely low traffic generating,
extremely low employee generating, and not comparable to the square feet in a typical office
building. It would therefore retain a larger amount of square footage in the North DeAnza area
for additional office use.
. Said that staff would like to see the number of square feet attributed to the new public storage
facility lower than the actual square footage it is since it is not equivalent to office square
footage, and the use is such a low impact use.
. Said that public storage may be used as another category vs. office; it would pull down on the
office square feet but not to the 100% level that another type of office use would.
Com. Wong:
. Relative to the site plan, presently the garage is at zero. He asked how it would affect
development for next door by having a garage at the property line.
. He said they could develop into another parking structure, the immediate parking structure
abutting another parking structure.
. Asked what the setback was for an office building.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said there has to be a 5 foot fire separation; other than any visual or aesthetic impacts there
might be, there is a 5 foot separation that would be required by the fire department.
. The office building setback could be at the property line. There was a similar approval in
Monta Vista where a building virtually on the property line was approved because the adjacent
property was 5 feet away; it is a separation that matters, not the property line. You cannot
build something over the property line, but you can build it close to the property line, as long
as another building isn't within 5 feet.
Com. Wong:
. Said that the property has been subdivided into medical office building, and asked what the
concerns were of the next door neighbor and the impact of the parking structure to the smaller
office building on Bandley and Mariani.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that staff talked to the property owner and their concerns are about the visual impact of a
taller building close to theirs; and about additional traffic generation on their property as a
result of the increase in the square footage and the number of people that would now be using
that site. The applicant is working on a resolution to address the neighbor's concerns.
. She said she was not aware if the applicant was proposing anything above Title 24 with
regards to this building in terms of energy efficiency cooled roofs.
. Relative to traffic, she said there was a traffic report done to determine that there were no
17
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
July 11, 2006
significant impacts.
. They analyzed the net difference and the number of peak hour trips read were the difference in
the peak hour trips that they considered insignificant.
. Said there were not fire requirements with the new General Plan.
Chair Miller:
. Asked if the recorded written consent ofthe neighbor was a city requirement or something the
owners did themselves.
. Said he felt that type of agreement would give the next door neighbor an unfair advantage; it
essentially takes the approval process out of the Planning Commission's hands. The owners
should have the same rights as everyone else in terms of representing their concerns; but not
one that basically gives him the right to essentially approve or deny the project on its own.
Eileen Murray:
. Said that the easement was drawn up by the owner of both parcels granting the egress/ingress
easement before they subdivided the property. The easement requires that if any changes are
made in the configuration of the parking, approval will be granted so that they are not
surcharging the easement or overburdening the easement or doing the reverse, taking away
parking that the other property owner needs. The function of an easement is to give the
dominant party the power to control the right to park or pass on the property.
. She noted that the city was still involved in lawsuits regarding the last one they ignored and
she felt it should be a condition in this case.
. She said they were legal documents, and were not creating the problem. The owners can reach
an agreement prior to approval of the project or it can be approved with that as a condition.
. They may have required the egress/ingress easement because it is done frequently with
adjoining commercial properties so that people don't come out on the streets and back out on
streets.
Carrie Ngo, Sandhill Properties, applicant:
. Said they had been in discussion with the adjacent property owner Jane Wu to address some of
her concerns about the project. Her concerns included the illumination of the existing
driveway on Mariani between the two properties; the proximity of the parking structure to her
building, the height ofthe parking structure, as well as the traffic from the project going to her
Bandley driveway.
. As a result of the discussions, the architect come up with several plans to be presented to the
applicant. She chose the plans she felt addressed most of her concerns.
Cliff Chang, Chang Architecture:
. Illustrated the plan that was developed to address Mrs. Wu's concerns.
. Said they were considering an alternate plan for the garage and were still going through some
budgetary studies on it, because it had a significant impact on that. The current plan has the
garage 10 feet away from the property line and what the neighbor indicated she would like to
have is 39 to 40 feet from their building to the garage. He said it would move them from a
very efficient perpendicular 90 degree angle parking to a one way parking structure. The
biggest difference is that the structure has moved from 10 feet from the property line to the aea
illustrated, totaling 39 feet from their building, which opens up an access way from Mariani
which currently exists now. It is being moved a small amount to access into the parcel shown
and into the applicant's garage.
. He pointed out that they could not move their project any closer to North DeAnza Boulevard
because of the mature trees at the corner and along the frontage. Work is being done around
18
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
July 11, 2006
the trees in order to preserve them, resulting in being squeezed down in the back to get the
appropriate amount of parking needed. The end result is a one way garage but the biggest
impact other than being very inefficient because of going to a one way system, is that they are
forced to go below grade to make up 37 stalls. It is a significant impact on the price and is
being evaluated.
. Reviewed the building design from the North DeAnza view.
. Said that the roofing materials were highly reflective white 4 ply cap sheet to minimize the
heat gain on the roof. Energy efficient glass over and above Title 24 requirements will be
used.
Carrie Ngo:
. Said the neighbor preferred the revised plan since it had the 39 foot distance between the
applicant's parking structure and her parking structure.
. She said the applicant also agreed to provide two rows of landscaping between the two
driveways.
. Awnings will also be put on the buildings.
. She said they would be willing to close off the easement to prevent cars from going on the
neighbor's property onto Bandley Drive, if they were permitted to do so.
Ciddy Wordell:
. In response to Com. Wong's concern about tenants in the office building, she said that
accountants or a law firm would not generate significant sales tax for the city. She said it was
discussed earlier and there may be a type of compensation regardless of the type of tenant
occupying the space.
Eileen Murray:
. Said that there was concern that if there was an in lieu fee there needed to be a nexus study,
and it would not be up to the Planning Commission to make the determination.
Com. Wong:
. Said that he did not see the nexus on the in lieu fee, and City Council would have to address
the issue.
Chair Miller:
. Requested clarification from Mr. Chang relative to following through on going underground
for the parking structure.
Cliff Chang:
. Explained that the building was priced with an above grade garage; if forced to go down
almost an entire level for the entire footprint, the difference in cost is substantial, plus the
construction time.
Carrie Ngo:
. Said that in order to make the project work and be acceptable to the adjacent property owner,
they are willing to go to one level of underground parking to make the project work. However,
if a second level of underground parking would not be feasible for the applicant.
. She said that they were requesting the Planning Commission to approve the present plan.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Clarified that from staff's point of view, it is unusual to be bringing in a change of plans at
19
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
July 11, 2006
such a late date; but the applicant had a strong need to move ahead. Staff would have
preferred that it had been done earlier.
. She said that staff has not had the opportunity to review the revised plan with underground
parking. On the surface it appears that the height is the same; the number of parking spaces is
still adequate; it physically has been narrowed; and it appeared that there would not be issues.
Cliff Chang:
. Said that the parking structure could potentially go up; but the adjacent property owner was
opposed to it.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Sam Wu, representing Dr. and Mrs. Wu, owners of the building:
. Said that the property was a quiet facility with relatively no traffic in the area.
. He said that because their building was a medical center and not an office building with heavy
traffic, he felt the new building, with the parking structure next to their building conflicted
with their best interests.
. He said there was an agreement written when the two buildings were equitable, that Parcel A
has the right to use Parcel B to access the property and vice versa. With the new building with
over 200 parking spaces, it questions the land agreement or traffic use agreement because there
would be increased traffic through one property to the other.
. The traffic study assumes that the building is a 27,000 square foot capacity; however, the
building next to them has been vacant for over 4 years, and there has been no traffic generated
from that building. The new building has 210 parking spaces which will result in an increase
of 210 cars going in and out especially at peak times. It is a dramatic increase in traffic which
does require a traffic study. Furthermore there is a current problem of no stop sign on the
corner of Bandley and Mariani and during rush hour there is heavy traffic. With increased cars
and also the issue of traffic entering Highway 280 south, there will be a big traffic impact with
the building.
. He noted that there were inaccuracies in the architectural plan relative to the placement of the
buildings.
. Proposals included sinking the parking lot one floor beneath ground, and another was to
reduce the square footage of the office building, reducing their parking as well.
. He said they were opposed to the parking exemption since they did not support the parking
structure as they felt it would affect the current status of their land.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said the site is a high visibility project; the building has been vacant a long time; and is a
heavily forested site with high visibility on that corner.
. She said there were many large trees on this site; it would be good to have the large trees and
mature landscaping retained particularly at the front of the property. She said that it appeared
that the issue was being addressed.
. Expressed concern that the building was too large for the area. She said that Apple leases a lot
of commercial property adjacent to this site and has indicated that they may be releasing those
buildings in the future if they move employees to the eastern Apple site. If the Any Mountain
building is doubled, it may force Apple's previously leased buildings to convert to housing.
. Said she was opposed to doubling the size of the office building when there is so much office
building space in the area. It may set a dangerous precedent because of the shift of balance of
power in the city with Apple.
. She suggested that the parking be underground completely. It is a big expense but it is a high
20
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
July 11, 2006
visibility project and may reduce the size of the building.
. She asked that the safety of the pedestrians in the area be considered to prevent accidents and
InJurIes.
Gary Lessing, Bandley Drive:
. Complemented the presentation to see thatthere is an attempt to improve the look of the site;
the building is old and decrepit.
. Expressed concern about the size and scope of the project, and agreed with previous comments
on the concern about amount of vacant space that would be available in the immediate area,
and whether putting something into the size and scope of the proposed project is appropriate
on that corner.
. Said in his opinion, relative to size and scope, the project would be improved if they were able
to acquire the entire parcel, because of the situation with the Wu family and the reciprocal
easement, it is going to look like a major structure sitting next to a somewhat residential
looking office building and will look rather incongruent in the look and feel of the North
DeAnza beltway.
. He said that a major traffic issue will occur. He discussed the traffic patterns at Mariani and
Bandley at various times during the day, and the difficulty in making turns onto Highway 280
between 3 and 5 p.m.
. He said he concurred with the Wu family's concern about the traffic impact from the traffic
coming out and exiting onto Bandley Drive, and using the Wu's patient entrance to their
property .
Jacqueline Noonan, Cupertino resident:
. Expressed concern about the impact of the additional traffic that would be generated by the
project, as well as the lighting in the area.
. Said although the Wu family has been generous in considering the issues, they have not made
any decisions. She said they were cooperative, but it is changing the whole area of their
property .
. She invited the commissioners to visit the site and visualize what the property will look like.
. Said that it was a large beautiful building, but questioned if it was needed there at this time.
. The additional parking spaces will only increase the traffic problems around Highway 280, 85
and the traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
. She said a traffic light is needed at Bandley and Mariani, as well as traffic signs, and signs for
no parking on the street.
. Said that there was also a noise factor caused by the traffic going back and forth. Their
building is a medical clinic and having a quiet area is important.
. She said no one would want a similar parking lot facing DeAnza Boulevard, and they do not
want one in their neighborhood.
. She said they were appreciative of the landscaping, and they would be cooperative, but she felt
it was not in their best interests and it was destroying the area with so many empty buildings.
Bob Lessing, co-owner of Bandley property:
. Said that traffic was the main concern; and noted that the new Pinn Brothers building would be
responsible for at least 50% of the cars going out to get onto Bandley Drive and come down to
Mariani to turn onto DeAnza.
. He said he did not know how large the structure is, and visited the site to see how many units
there were. He said it would be another factor on the density of the small area being
discussed.
21
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
July 11, 2006
Com. Wong:
. Said when the property was subdivided from one property, the Wu family applied to the
Planning Commission two years ago to have the property subdivided so they could open an
acupuncture medical facility.
. Recommended that the Wu family work with the next door applicant since they were trying to
bring new Class A office buildings to Cupertino. It was unfortunate that the private agreement
was not taken into account.
. He asked if the Wu family was amenable to the proposed new parking structure.
Mr.Wu:
. Said that he had not discussed the issue with his parents and that they would have to come to
an agreement with the developer.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that nothing has been suggested in the model resolution about screening and landscaping
for the new project. Staff wanted to have some type of green screen considered when they
come back with the parking design, but there hasn't been any discussion about a band of
landscaping.
Com. Wong:
. Said that there was concern about traffic from the testimony heard; with potentially 200 cars
coming in and out. He asked if the traffic study was needed since Bandley has a lot of
development with the Pinn Bros. project.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that the traffic study was done in a technical sense in looking at the numbers of trips
generated; it didn't analyze movements or the existing situation; it just talked about the new
increment not being significant.
. If the Planning Commission felt more operational information was needed, staff would provide
the information.
Com. Wong:
. Another concern brought up in the public hearing was that there was an abundance of vacant
office space along North DeAnza area.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that the traffic study was done on the basis of square footage; it didn't analyze vacancy,
but stated that it would create so many additional trips and they were not significant; so they
did not do a study of the existing situation; it was just a new increment.
. Said it was typical in that if they determined that the new amount of traffic is insignificant, the
conclusion was that additional traffic analysis would not need to be done.
Com. Wong:
. Suggested that for future, staff look for the same type of agreement and as a condition remove
them, so they can subdivide parcels and not be faced with the same problems presently
encountered.
. Asked the city attorney if there was agreement from both parties, would it be redundant to
make a motion to weigh into the issue. He said he felt it was a reoccurrence of the previous
22
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
July 11, 2006
application.
Eileen Murray:
. Said that a condition could be placed that an agreement would have to be reached because that
is what is in the easement, if it is to move forward.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said that one issue of concern with the project is that there are varied opinions in terms of
whether or not the project conforms to the General Plan. She said she would prefer to have the
city attorney make the determination so that the unresolved issue would be clarified before
moving forward.
. She said the application was not complete at this point since there was no agreement between
the two property owners, and even though it could be made conditional, she wanted the city
attorney's direction regarding the General Plan conformance. It would provide more time to
work out the details on what was being improved.
. She said she was not willing to move forward on the application, and would oppose the project
based on the two aforementioned issues, if the remaining Commissioners moved forward and
approved the application.
Chair Miller:
. Clarified that the next door neighbor had the power to veto the project for any reason, and if
so, it would not move forward.
. Summarized that the three issues were the agreement, the revenue benefits to the city; and the
particular site specific traffic problems which have not been studied by staff.
. He said it was an unfortunate situation because applicants propose conversion to housing and
nobody wants that; and the subject application is for a Class A building which is welcome,
but not by some of the neighbors; and is consistent with what else is going on DeAnza
Boulevard, but there is a deadlock over moving ahead.
. Said that the applicant has a right to develop his property, but in this case it appears that
property has some restrictions on it that prevent him from doing so.
. Said he did not feel that they could move forward on the application. It is similar to the
previous one where there was not enough information and too many unresolved issues. He
suggested continuing the application to work on resolving the issues.
Com. Wong:
. The city attorney suggested making a motion on the condition that they get written approval
from the neighbor; they have to rule on both, they have to get permission from the neighbor
and have to conform to the General Plan.
. Said he did not want to discourage applicants to not come in for more Class A buildings; they
have already spent a great deal of money on their plans and are considering underground
parking which would cost $20,000 per stall.
. Recommended that the project move forward.
. Expressed concern that they had not fully evaluated the project, and were passing it onto
Council without giving them a rating on the traffic issues and revenue issues.
Applicant:
. Said they would prefer a decision from the Planning Commission at the present meeting. He
said that relative to General Plan conformance, the City Council could place a condition to pay
in-lieu fees.
. He said they have worked with the neighbors recently to address their concerns and feel that
23
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
July 11, 2006
the proposed building will be a pleasing addition to the area.
Chair Miller:
. Clarified that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council can overrule a private
agreement, even with approval from the city. It will not be able to move forward until the
private agreement issue is resolved.
Applicant:
. Said they understood, and said that they felt their recent negotiations had been favorable, and
they hoped to reach agreement within a week. He restated that he understood they needed to
have their agreement to proceed.
Com. Chien:
. Said that continuing the application is not going to change anything physically; they need
additional time to resolve their issues with their neighbors and through no fault of their own,
the City Council needs to resolve and give clarification of the policy with respect to the
General Plan.
. Said they were consistent with the General Plan in that the General Plan asks that this corridor
be commercial office buildings; however, there is the new plan which they are not consistent
with, which is where the contention exists.
. Said he would not make a blanket statement that they were not consistent with the General
Plan and supported moving it forward to City Council. It would also allow them additional
time to complete their agreement with their neighbor.
Com. Saadati:
. Said he would have preferred that the item would have come before them in later weeks so that
more information was available. The proposed building is a Class A building and since the
City Council would make the final decision, it would be appropriate to forward it to Council.
Before it is sent to Council, issues related to the agreement need to be resolved and more
information on traffic be provided. If there is no agreement with the other owner, it should not
be forwarded to the City Council.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application
EA-2006-09 (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application
U-2006-06 with the following conditions: (1) A comprehensive traffic study be
conducted and forwarded to City Council; (2) Relative to General Plan
conformance, the City Council has to devise a mechanism in order for this to go
forward; (3) Relative to the parking structure, even though there are rough
semantics, recommend support of Plan B Alternative and recommend to City
Council rather than the original one; (4) The landscaping as well as the
mitigating factors on that parking structure comes back to DRC for final
approval; and (5) That a condition be added requiring recorded written consent
on the easement.
Amendment to Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, to add to the tree protection, that
parking or storage not be permitted under the trees. Com. Wong
accepted the amendment; second by Com. Chien. (Vote: 5-0-0)
24
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
July 11, 2006
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Applications
ASA-2006-06 and TR-2006-09. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Eileen Murray:
. Suggested that minute order be sent to the City Council regarding the General Plan policy,
because even if the project goes nowhere, the city needs it clarified that they set up some type
of mechanism to enforce the policy.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to send a minute order to
the City Council with regards to General Plan Policy No. 2-42 Revenue Analysis
of Office Development. Council needs to set up a policy and mechanism to
better understand what is meant and how to enforce it as a city. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Consider canceling the August 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chien, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to cancel the
August 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to accommodate vacation
schedules. (Vote: 4--0-1; Chair Miller voted No.)
OTHER:
Com. Saadati:
. Relative to the sale of alcohol near school locations, he requested reports from the Sheriff's
Department hot it has been impacting the sale of alcohol to minors, by the store being so close
to schools.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held since the last Planning Commission
meeting.
Housine Commission: July meeting was cancelled due to lack of business.
Economic Development Committee: Meeting is scheduled for next week.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetine with Commissioner:
Chair Miller reported:
. The Senior Commission discussed having links on the city website of senior services
available; considering changing frequency of meetings from 4 meetings to 6 meetings per
year, but not getting staff support. There was also a question of what their role was and
whether it was to focus primarily on the senior center or a broader perspective of senior issues.
. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission talked about the issue of safety at school sites,
particularly Kennedy, Monta Vista and Lincoln, and is working on ways to improve bike
safety and making the city more bike friendly. Also discussion about the importance of a gate
on Scenic Circle for students.
. Library Commission reported on providing more self checking upstairs and also looking into
25
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
July 11, 2006
providing automatic sorting which will improve efficiency of their operations. The mayor also
asked that they cut a window between the library and the coffee shop so that people in the
library could go to the window for coffee and sit there in the room adjacent to the coffee shop.
. The Telecommunications Commission is concerned about the number of cell tower
applications not being approved; plans are to revise the telecommunications plan with an eye
make it more acceptable to avoid the conflict with the community and the applicants.
. Parks and Rec had concerns about Stocklmeir and Blackberry Farm.
Report of the Director of Community Development:
. No additional report.
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting
on July 25 . ,ilt 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall.
. a 7.1#(;
~..(1/
lis, Recording Secretary
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved as amended: August 22, 2006
26