PC 09-10-01CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok,
Staff present:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public
Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Melanie Shaffer Freitas, Consultant
Chair Kwok called the study session to order on the housing element.
Study Session:
Mr. Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director, reviewed the progress of the revisiou of
the housing element, as set forth in the attached staff report.
Mr. Piasecki said that in previous discussions, Com. Auerbach brought up the issue of the two
other housing elements for comparison purposes; those being Los Gatos and Palo Alto and asked
staff to look at a number of policies. A chart contrasting those policies with the current element
was prepared and staff suggests that 11 of the 23 policies be included in the housing element or
land use element, and that the wording of 7 others in the current draft be retained, which
accomplishes the same objective.
Secondly, Com. Auerbach suggested other recommended edits for the technical document and tile
housing element document that will be in the General Plan. Staff feels they are productive
suggestions and will make an effort to incorporate them into the version that will be submitted on
September 24th. They do not alter the general direction or substantially change any of the policy
framework that is currently in the plan or that staff suggests be incorporated into the plan. Mr.
Piasecki asked that the Planning Commission review the comparison charts, and provide staff with
direction on major issues for incorporation from this point for the September 24th meeting. A
draft will be provided on September 24th and the Planning Commission will be in a position to
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Com. Auerbach said most of his concerns had been addressed. He said that the technical
document should be more of a statement of meeting ABAG's estimates rather than Cupertino's
needs, since more information such as the census data was needed to better understand Cupertino's
needs. He also suggested a language change: rather than stating it was to meet Cupertino's needs,
it would better be stated as "to meet the ABAG estimate of adequate sites."
Com. Kwok commented on the ABAG projections and also Cupertino needs. He said Cupertino is
a local community and ABAG should be used for projections as a guideline, but tile ulti~nate
Planning Commission Minutes z September I0, 2001
purpose is what Cupertino's needs are. Cupertino should not rely solely on ABAG's demands, but
make a realistic projection based on jobs and available spaces.
Com. Corr said that the process is ABAG driven and it needs to be addressed t¥om that standpoint,
keeping in mind that Cupertino's needs will be addressed, which is what the process calls
Ms. Melanie Shaffer Freitas, consultant, explained that the Housing and Community Development
of the State of California will review the housing element, not ABAG; and will request some
changes and ask for more information in certain areas. Staff will accommodatethe requests and il'
the expectations are met, the HCD will certify the housing element.
Com. Auerbach discussed two issues for Planning Commission consideration. Page 52 of the
technical document, Summary: Item 1, Page 50; "the 1993 housing element identified a five year
need providing 80% of the new construction need" He said he asked that some of tile
inconsistencies in usage be identified in that they were comparing their performance of their 5 year
plan from 1993 to 1998, to their actual record from 1990 to 2000. Obviously. it is comparing
somewhat apples and oranges; but the more important detail is that what that implies.Ii'om 1990 to
2000 is that we built about 200 units per year, and it wasn't enough. Let's say 93 to 98, given the
benefit of the doubt, 250 units a year. At 250 units per year Jbr 5 years is 1250 units
approximately of our 2587 goal. So, by my calculation I have asked staff to look al this perhaps
they have the actual yearly numbers; we met about 50% of the goal. The reason that becomes
important is that what we are being asked to do here is come up with policies that are going to
produce 2325 units in a 5 year period, and if our previous policies were capable (?]'that. they met
80% of the goal, then that isfine. If the policy only met 50% of the goal, it means they need to
address policies in a way that will help accelerate that previous rate to meet tile 2325 goal. He said
it was important to emphasized in the document that the 2325 number will be difficult to achieve.
Com. Auerbach said he requested the language be added to what is referred to as the honsing
element. Ms. Shaffer Freitas clarified the terminology, noting that the city was actually submitting
its housing element to HCD, which they labeled the technical document.
Mr. Piasecki clarified that the technical document includes the document which although
redundant, will also be in the General Plan, which is why the state will be reviewing the whole
package.
Com. Auerbach suggested making Chapter 8 identical to the housing ele,nent. Relative to Page 8,
Item 12, the jobs housing balance program states that the goal is to reduce the.jobs housing ratio
from 2.4 to a specified number, and he felt they were not in a position to specify a number.
In response to Com. Patnoe's question if there is a history to putting a ceiling such as that in
General Plans, Mr. Piasecki said a few communities have tried to do that and Cupertino has done
so in terms of traffic generation. He noted that it could also be done in terms of jobs housing
balance or imbalance.
Com. Chen said she assumed there would be some language added to the development review
process for any new applications that may create an impact to the job aud hot, sing balance or have
to be evaluated. Mr. Piasecki said he felt it would be appropriate for the second round; but in the
early round he was comfortable that the number they were asked to produce was on target of what
they should be producing, if not more. The second round will have the actual data on how many
square feet are needed and what the impact will be.
Planning Commission Minutes a Bel tember I0, 2001
Com. Auerbach said the state places a tremendous burden on internal consistency of General Plan
documents, so it would be inconsistent to say that you are trying to reduce jobs housing and
balance when your permitted square footage and target housing are not in sync. On tl~ose two
elements he said he had comments on the individual housing elements from other plans, but
nothing further on the technical document, referred to as the housing element. He said he was
pleased with the housing element in terms of its reduction in number of policies and pinpointing
the most effective ones and the ones they could do. Com. Auerbach said he was content with that,
and hoped that his issues with the technical document would be addressed.
Com. Patnoe referred to Page 8, No. I 1, surplus property for housing. Relative to the timeli-ame,
he asked if the programs were being started in 2002 and not 2001. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City
Planner, said that one of considerations was that there was already a work program and a bndget
for 2001 and 02, and some of the programs would have to be staggered for both the work program
aspect and the budgeting. Some things did get put off a year, but could be reprioritized. Coin.
Patnoe said he felt it was not something they should wait on, and they should be looking for land.
Mr. Piasecki reiterated that for purposes of the document, the planning areas have been identified
and assigned what units can be expected to be generated in those areas, with a refined map
showing the location of the properties. Therefore, not much would be lost by putting it off and
doing the listing in 2002 and 2003. The housing element and land use element will suggest putting
housing in areas where they did not previously allow housing or did not I~ave any housing in the
industrial areas, office, parks, and some commercial areas. The concept of tnixing land use is very
strong in this element and what it does is assures the neighborhoods that it won't be iu the single
family neighborhood, but at the edge or along the major corridors where there is no hot, sing
currently. Corns. Auerbach and Patnoe agreed that it was a good idea to include the map as part of
the document.
Chair Kwok referred to Page 3, affordable housing, and questioned the 378 units for very Iow
income and 188 units for Iow income. Ms. Shaffer Freitas explained that ABAG makes the
determination of what the income distributions are.
Com. Corr referred to Page 64, No. 11, Surplus Property For Housing: "In conjunction with local
public agency, school districts and churches ..... "and questioned the statement relative to
churches and school districts particularly as they typically do not have surplus properties lbr a
program such as this, and they were already in an agreement with the city and througl~ Parks and
Recreation Department to keep that open space property as open space or recreational use. Also,
the teacher assisted housing program in districts such as Santa Clara Unified, will be reviewed
applicability in Cupertino. He said that with all BMR and any affordable housing projects, he was
concerned that ghettos would be created where the housing is built for those people. He said it
was more appropriate to have the BMR units scattered throughout the developme,~t such as was
done in Oak Valley.
Com. Corr referred to No. 15, Regulatory Incentives; and agreed with the waiving of park
dedication fees and construction tax base for all affordable units; and discounted parking sta,~dards
for affordable development. He said he felt that as they looked at mixed use developments, the
parking ratios should be addressed. Relative to No. 14, Density Bonus Program, he suggested
changing the ordinance definition of affordable unit to housing costs affordable at 30% of
household income for very Iow and low income households. Ms. Shaffer Freitas reported that the
state was using 30%.
Planning Commission Minutes eptember 10, 201}1
Mr. Piasecki said that mixed use was one of the substantive elements and will be addressed as it is
a fundamental component of the plan. Surplus property for housing will be addressed and
although city resources are limited, if there is underutilized property such as DeAnza College some
of the land could be used for housing for teachers and city workers.
Com. Auerbach said he observed that some of the policies do not have objective statements, and
he asked that they all have objective statements.
Com. Corr referred to Page 63 of the technical document, housing ~nitigation plan residential
mitigation, stating that projects of 9 unitsor less may choose to pay the in-lieu tee. He questioned
if the word choose should be used. Mr. Piasecki said that it was intended, to either provide a unit
or choose to pay the in-lieu fee. Com. Auerbach referred to the housing element policy
comparison sheet, Item 12, dispersal of affordable housing throughout the community; and said
that it might address Com. Corr's concern.
Com. Patnoe said that there were items discussed at the last meeting that staff recommended be
included in the housing element. He said he was generally supportive of the recommendation.
Referring to Com. Corr's comment about mixed use, HP 1.4, No. 6 under the Los Gatos page,
(support mixing residential with non residential mixed use), he said he felt it should be moved to a
more prominent section rather than the back of the document; to let the public know the direction
they were headed with new future projects.
Relative to Item 11, HP 1.8, Com. Auerbach said he felt it was important to encourage new units
for ownership and rental; and affordable units should include all forms of housing, not only
apartments. Referring to Item No. 14, HI 1.9b, he said Los Gatos' restricting affordability of new
units to 80% of median income was more stringent than Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki saidthat it was
suggested not to have a lower affordability percentage since it would exclude some groups snch as
teachers, service workers, and public service workers that Cupertino has been trying to target. Ms.
Shaffer Freitas said that the BMR program already targets rental units to be afibrdable under 80%,
and Cupertino is already doing and having a targeting of 80%. Only the owuership traits can go up
to 120%.
Com. Auerbach referred to No. 18, retaining smaller units, and discussed tile potential of
developing a rehab program for the Rancho Rinconada units, particularly the rentals, as most of
the homes in the development were 50 years old. Mr. Piasecki summarized that Com. Auerbach
was suggesting the renovation of smaller older units before people auto,natically tear thegn down
and respond to the market and build a big house. He said he did not disagree with tile concept, and
there needs to be a way to structure policies that might accomplish that twist on tile issue
retaining the more affordable units with programs to assist people who are interested. He noted
that such a program would not assist people in the higher income groups, so tile policies would get
a small spectrum of home owners and may not have the effect sought. Mr. Piasecki said that it
would fall under a more general program relative to inspection of the older units, and a resale
inspection program to put people on notice that there are problems in a particular unit that ueed to
be taken care of. He summarized that it is a different issue but through the identification of tile
problem, it could help people decide whether they want to make a decision to renovate their unit or
remove the unit; and much of the removal of units has been clearly a market driven issue. He said
there is a way to discuss some kind of a program to ensure some units are maintained over time.
Com. Auerbach asked that staff address the issue.
l:'lanning C:ommia ion Minutia 5 ptml cr I0, 7.001
Com. Corr concurred, noting that the units in Rancho are 50 years old, and Garden Gate would be
joining the city hopefully and was older than Rancho. He said people purchasing the older units
could possibly get some assistance to restoring them.
Ms. Wordell clarified that the rehab program was directed to single family ownership and not
multi family. Mr. Piasecki clarified also that in most cases it was for things such as broken water
heaters and leaking roofs which the residents could not afford because of their income. Coin.
Auerbach suggested that the issues of building inspection and code enforcement aud the rehab
program getting the two to work together might be considered in the General Plau update.
Com. Auerbach referred to No. 23, Palo Alto's H18, Cleanup Campaigns, and suggested staff
contact Los Altos Garbage Company to see what program is working best for collection of debris
in the other cities, rather that the Cupertino residents choosing two days per year tbr their cleanup
curbside.
Mr. Piasecki suggested keeping the references more general in the document so that adjustments
over time could be made for the most effective way to implement that particular program.
Chair Kwok opened the study session for public comment.
Mr. Dennis Whittaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, said he had several concerns. He said coufirming tile
job count was illustrated well at the beginning of the week; ABAG used figures, probably I'rom
within the last two years, but housing and jobs are what are dependent on each other and if they
reviewed what happened with HP and Compact this week, Compact HP, and Measurex were tile
biggest employers other than the school district and they were counting on those HP and Tandem
Compact jobs. He said the loss of jobs will have a big effect locally. He said without the updated
figures, it was difficult to have internal consistency. He said there was discussion about
developing a list of acceptable properties that could be developed down the road and the public
should be aware of these, which is carried out by process. He said he felt that it was important that
the public always is aware of where the city might allow the housing to go; and he restated that
when there is talk about fair share of jobs and housing, the current figures are needed. Mr.
Whittaker stated bis disbelief that the legislature could force the city to have 2300+ housiug when
Los Gatos and Los Altos are not landlocked like Cupertino and Cupertino is counting on the jobs
being there. He said he would like the State California to confirm that not a single job will be lost
with the Compact/HP merger; however, he said he felt jobs could not be guaranteed. He said there
was the merger; downsizing of the economy; jobs leaving; people moving out of tile city because
of the rents; and tenants in Town Center are leaving because of the demand for higher rates. Tile
city is losing jobs, yet ABAG is forcing them to stick with the 2300 figures. He said that
Sacramento needed to provide realistic numbers.
Dr. Richard Popejoy, Cupertino dentist and Cupertino resident, said he agreed with many of Mr.
Whittaker's statements; many dot commers are leaving Cupertino and ten health professionals itl
Town Center have also left. He said vacant properties are plentifid and yet the city is tryiug to
meet a ratio of 2300 new places to put people in Iow income situations, where it is contint, ing to
allow more commercial and retail development, and as that spirals up, so do those needs. He said
be hoped they had topped out because if not, there would be more traffic and more problems. New
houses are being built, 56 in Monta Vista which will affect the schools, and no one went to tile
schools. He said the school principal recently appeared at a City Council meeting stating they did
?lanning Commission Minutes 6 3cptcmbcr I0, 2001
not have the room for the students now; the schools are being impacted with the new
developments, yet the state is making those demands. Dr. Popejoy said to let the state come down
and repossess the city; they will not do that. He cited Saratoga and Monte Sereno who do not have
a lot of ABAG units and they are not planning to; they may include the numbers oil a list but have
no intention of having that kind of intensity. He said he has been in Cupertino 40 years and
watched the growth and was proud of some of the ~3rowth; noting that Cupertino was tile home of
some of the greatest computer companies. He said he felt that Cupertino had a thought process
until at least 20 years ago; however, now more buildings are high rise, requiring more ABAG
numbers they don't need. He projected that if the change in the General Plan is allowed, tile city
will deteriorate and have a ghetto somewhere. He said he was offended about tile remark that
teachers would form a ghetto. He complimented the Cupertino High School teachers and said tile
city was making it difficult for teachers to stay in Cupertino. ABAG may solve tile process, but it
is not likely as the teachers won't be able to buy the homes. He said the only way to get it is to take
a place like the next door park and put units in therefor teachers and city workers only. Dr.
Popejoy said that it was a strong position to take, but not do it one at a time. He said they were
granting approval for nine, and in a few months, nine more. He said he did not want the in-lieu lee
which he considered as buying off. The fine doesn't cover it because the applicant/builder plans
on making $1/4million more if they pay a $20,000 fine and that is not acceptable.
Chair Kwok closed the public hearing.
Mr. Piasecki summarized that the adjustments discussed in the study session would be preseuted
on September 24th for further discussion and finalization.
Chair Kwok declared a recess until 6:45 p.m. for the regular Planning Commission meeting.
CALLTO ORDER
SALUTETOTHEFLAG
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok,
Staff present:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public
Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Melanie Shaffer Freitas,
Consultant.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of August 27, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting
Com. Patnoe requested the following changes to Page 13, Paragraph 4: Line 3: delete "at least".
Line 6: delete "that for the", insert "a". Line 7: delete "what" insert "the city".
Chair Kwok requested the following changes to Page 15, Paragraph 2, line 2: change "14 units"
to read "1400 units".
Page 19, second row: "Row" should read "Road".
Plannin Commission Minu es 7 S¢tmlocr I0, ZOO1
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved approval of the August 27, 2001 regular Planning Commission
minutes as amended
Com. Auerbach
Passed 5-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted receipt of a letter of iuvitation t¥om
New Start Working Group to the September 14th meeting; and noted informational postcards
regarding the Railvolution Conference on September 13-16 in San Francisco.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: Ms. Joanne Tong, 22339 McClellan Road, addressed the
Planning Commission relative to the housing element. She questioned the building height issue
and underground parking for 23 units being constructed. She asked how the two issues would be
communicated to the community.
Mr. Piasecki said that the housing element does not address height directly; but the land use
element of the General Plan does address height. He said he was not aware of suggestious to alter
it and suggested that the community continue to follow the housing element process to ensure that
the concerns on height are addressed. He said he would meet with Ms. Toug lbllowing the
meeting.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
02-TM-01 (06-EA-01)
Summerhill Homes
10120 Imperial Avenue
Tentative map to subdivide a 4.15 acre parcel into 56 lots and common areas for a 56 unit
townhome development (Public hearing for use permit and zoning were previously scheduled)
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 2001
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved to postpone Application No. 02-TM-01 (06-EA-01) to the
September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Patnoe
Passed 5-0-0
CONSENTCALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
22-U-67 (M)
Avery Construction (Glenbrook Apartments)
10100 Mary Avenue
Use permit modification to convert an existing accessory building (social room to two guest rooms
at an existing apartment complex)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Commission Minutes 5 Dt mb r 10. g001
Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, illustrated the site plan for the apartment
complex which included the complex, surrounding park, shopping center, senior center, and the
area for the proposed conversion. He reviewed the applicant's request to convert the social room
to two guest rooms for apartment residents' use. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Mr. Gilli noted that one of the proposed guest rooms would be handicapped-accessible. Mr.
Piasecki stated that they would notify the applicant when they apply for the building permits if
both units were required to be handicapped-accessible. Mr. Gilli noted that changes to the
structure would be internal with the exception ora new door and a small pop-out on one side; and
said the building would have to meet the uniform building code for an occupied room and would
have a higher standard than a social room. He said he had not received calls from the residents
objecting to the proposed conversion to guest rooms. Mr. Gilli reported there is a high demand tbr
guest rooms and said the present social room is not used often; and noted that there are still other
social rooms in the complex. He explained the usage fee process for the guest rooms, which
mainly covers the housekeeping fees and said he felt it was a reasonable fee.
Mr. Kevin Weinmann, architect, said that the report was comprehensive and the owners were
trying to address a demand of the tenants to replace the social room, which two still exist and are
not used frequently. He added that the other goal was to provide a handicapped-accessible guest
room.
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input.
Dr. Richard Popejoy, said when such a room is built, there is nothing to preclude the applicant
from charging $200 per night next year, which becomes an issue; will it become a rental space or
another mini hotel? He said he felt if the building permit was approved, the applicant could easily
raise the rates because of costs; and where are those issues being addressed with proposed building
standards. He said if a single family house is proposed in Monta Vista, the markers are put up
which shows the height for two stories and the visual impact. Saratoga fire department also has
put up the markers where they are going to build one more story. He questioued why Cupertino
was giving preferential exclusion to commercial and retail developers; why aren't they required to
do the same things on a project such as this, or a project like redoing Town Center or the three
stories on Highway 9?
Chair Kwok closed the public hearing.
MOTION:
SECOND:
Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 22-U-67(M)
Com. Chen
Com. Corr amended the motion to add a condition that the applicant meetthe requirements of the
ADA for both units if required. Com. Auerbach accepted the amendment to the motion.
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
o
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
12-U-00 (M)
Ashraf Rageh (Nextel of CA)
10555 Mary Avenue
Planning Commission Minutes 9 SeDtcmber I0, 2001
Modification to delete the requirement to remove an existing antenna monopole (Pac Bell
Wireless) and allow co-location on an approved antenna "treepole" (Nextel) with a different
wireless company.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reviewed the application which he noted was a
modification of a use permit approved by the Planning Commission last year regarding proposed
antennas located in the city's corporation yard. Presently there are two approved antennas located
in the city's corporation yard, one that has been built which is a 40 foot tall Pac Bell Wireless, and
another one approved last year which is a treepole located north of it. A condition of the use
permit was that Pac Bell Wireless relocate its antenna to the taller treepole. He reviewed the
previous permit and site context, visual analysis and review by the Telecommunications
Commission, and radio frequency emissions testing as set forth in the staff report. He noted that
Nextel has not been able to achieve the agreement with Pac Bell about the co-location of antennas
onto the next treepole; partly because of exchange of assets. The modification being requested
now is twofold: that the original use permit be amended to delete the requirement to remove this
monopole and force the co-location onto this pole and the other condition requested is to allow
another carrier (MetroPCS) to do the co-location on the Nextel pole; which would result in having
two poles with three different carriers on it. He noted that staff had concerns about their ability to
camouflage the top of the antenna. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Mr. Jung reported the last minute comments from the Telecommunications Commission:
recommendation that in some respect the Pac Bell tower be demolished and at some point their
antennas be co-located on another (illustrated) pole, resulting in having three antennas on the pole:
MetroPCS, Nextel and Pac Bell Wireless. He said that the applicant could address the
recommendation.
Com. Patnoe questioned why one pole with three carriers could not be used. Mr. Jung responded
that Pac Bell Wireless already had an asset and had incentive to move. Nextel is affected because
they have been paying rent to the city for a year now, without a pole and without generating any
revenue and they are interested in building something.
Mr. Ashraf Rageh, Nextel, said that it was unfortunate that they were unable to get Pac Bell to
agree to co-locate on the proposed tree pole. He presented an outline of the letter explaining the
reasons it would not work, and summarized that as Mr. Jung said earlier, it is an asset and relates
to ownership - who is going to own the new pole. He said Nextel because they were told they were
not meeting the conditions of approval and could not build the tree, they tried vigorously to get
another carrier on the pole and create the co-location which would be a first for the city. He said
he felt it was a good project for the city and was a good example for other carriers when they want
another site for the future. Also the site does create a benefit of safety with increased
communications in the area. Relative to the comments from the Telecommnnications
Commission, Mr. Ashraf said he felt the best alternative was to recommend approval for the
project and for Nextel to work with Pac Bell in the meantime to try to get them to co-locate on the
pole once the ownership issues are resolved. The best way to accomplish that would be for the
Planning Commission to re-examine it when the use permit is up for renewal. He said he did not
want it to be a condition that if Pac Bell did not agree to share the pole, they could not extend their
permit, but they would re-examine it and attempt to get Pac Bell back on the pole.
Mr. Jung said that he was not certain ifPac Bell's permit had an expiration date; lie would research
to see if it was approved at a time when the city was including expiration dates on their permits.
He said that there would be more leverage if they were more interested in expansion or changing
the pole itself. He said the applicant did prepare additional RF studies and they were asked to
address the cumulative effect of not only the two antennas on the pole itself, but the adjacency of
the Pac Bell pole and the studies calculated with all three antennas operating simultaneously.
Mr. Ashraf said he felt they could accommodate the Telecommunications Commission request to
accommodate the study for second stories. Mr. Jung said that making it a condition of the permit
was not necessary because there are no two story homes on the particular site. He said that a
condition for installation to accommodate a third set of antennas from a structural standpoint might
be appropriate if the decision was made to approve it. Mr. Jung said that the condition shot, Id
read: "The applicant shall build a treepole that is capable of carrying a third set of flnsh mounted
antennas to the monopole."
Chair Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. The public hearing was closed as there
was no one who wished to address the Planning Commission.
Chair Kwok questioned if they could bring Pac Bell back and impose some conditions. Mr. Jung
said not without first reviewing the use permit to see if there is any leverage in terms of expiration
date on the permit itself or at some future date if they wanted to change the pole in some way,
either add some height or change out the antennas. He said if they don't allow the upgrade of the
pole itself or their antenna installation, it would make it less usefnl for them and they would
probably seek other options.
Mr. Kilian questioned the Planning Commission if they were still deleting the requirement to
remove the existing antenna from that application; since that is the request, and said if approved, it
deletes that requirement. He said they are communicating that they may want to discuss options
about leverage, etc. It was stated before that Nextel would be allowed to put this tree tip if they are
able to get Pac Bell to demolish the old antenna and were now saying that Nextel can go ahead
with building the tree irrespective of whether they can get Pac Bell to demolish it or not. He asked
if it was their intent or not since they expressed also that they wanted to use whatever leverage the
city has to require Pac Bell to remove the antenna on their own. If in fact Pac Bell has an existing
right that doesn't expire, is it a conditional right, then they have a vested right to remain and have
the antenna remain at that location regardless of what Nextel does. Mr. Kilian questioned whether
the Planning Commission wanted to continue the entire item for two weeks to discuss that, or were
they comfortable going ahead with allowing Nextel to build and delete the requirement that they
get Pac Bell to buy in on this.
Com. Auerbach said he felt they could use the tower in Cupertino.
Com. Corr expressed concern that it was crafted one way, and they are now asking for something
different, and he did not feel it was fair to ask staffto rewrite it. He said lie felt the application
should be continued and have it presented again in such a way that it addresses the Pac Bell pole
and allows Nextel to move ahead. He said they complied with what they were asked to do, to get
somebody on the tree with them and they are prepared to move forward.
Com. Corr said he was not opposed to approving Nextel's application to have a different tenant on
the tree; and he concurred with Com. Patnoe's comment to make it big enough so that a third
Plannin Commission Minut ptmb r I0, ZOO1
person could get on the tree, but he was concerned about the Pac Bell pole, and could not support
what is presented tonight except to say yes to Nextel to go ahead and do the tree with their other
tenant. Com. Corr added that he would like Pac Bell to do something with the pole such as hang
some branches on it or something to resemble a tree or go over to the tree.
Com. Patnoe concurred, and said there was a sense of support for allowing it to go through, but
they should have all the information and actually have a resolution that helps eliminate one pole
and put three companies on one particular pole instead of having two right next to each other when
one would suffice. There was consensus to continue the item.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to continue Application 12-U-00(M) to the
September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Auerbach
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
07-U-01
Tom Swarner (PEN Co. for MetroPCS)
10602 No. Portal Avenue
Use permit to construct three flat panel antennas on a monopole and four outdoor equipment
cabinets
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the application for use permit to locate a 3 panel antenna
slimline monopole on property owned by the California Water Service Company as set forth in the
attached staff report. Staff is recommending the planting of 2 trees on the site in strategic locations
to improve the existing screening, and condition 1 to be modified. He referred to the site plan and
illustrated the proposed location for the monopole, and outlined the screening recommendations.
Mr. Jung reported that the Telecommunications Commission suggested staff consider a tree pole
for this particular location, resulting in another treepole. He said based on tile slimline design, too
many branches could not be attached as it was not structurally a strong pole, and was suitable
one set of antennas but not two, and may need a thicker monopole in order to do a tree pole.
Relative to the assessment of radio emissions to second stories, it was done at the ground floor,
and given the distances, neighbors are more than adequately protected at 85 feet and 143 t'eet. Mr.
Jung said that staff' supports the application.
Com. Patnoe questioned if there were other nearby locations considered for tile project; and if it
was workable at 50 feet opposed to 54 feet to immediately blend in with the trees there, rather than
wait for the two to three years' tree growth for the trees to eventually shield it from both sides.
Mr. Jung said that there is another vacant property but not owned by the water district; however,
relative to a different location on the site, because of the proximity to residential, they were
looking at something closer to the highway 280 border, away from the residential. He said there
were problems with interference with the existing mature tree cover one way, and to some degree
the pad does get in the way also. If the pole is moved, trees have to be taken up itl order to get in
there. The proposed location appeared to be the best location on the site itselfi Mr. Jung noted
that the only comment received from the public was a concern about the potential interference of
antennas on a resident's pacemaker.
Planning Commission Minutes lz Beptember 10, Z001
Mr. Tom Swarner, MetroPCS explained that the subject site it is not an ideal co-location
opportunity because of the density of the vegetation on site. He pointed out that there are two
sectors pointing up and down the freeway and one that points to the residential neighborhood. I le
said the latest technology must provide all levels including wireless, data transmission, computer
devices and stationary points as well as autos, which makes it difficult for them in so,ne situations
because they are in a residential environment and need to deal with the aesthetics of that and how
to make those sites the least visible. He said in this case, with the existing vegetation, there may
be an opportunity for one more set of antennas to go lower down on the pole, bnt again the
antennas would have to shoot up and down the freeway; there would be no opportunity for them to
reach the surrounding neighborhood because the trees would block them. He pointed out that the
particular location onsite chosen for the pole is a small clearing, which worked well lbr them, since
it actually then was the farthest point from both side residential streets, with a clear site up and
down the freeway; and the tower top sits at the top of the trees. The engineer wanted the 54 I~et
even with the tallest trees on site. Testing the antenna at 50, 52 and 54 feet resnlted in degradatiou
at 50 and 52 feet, but was more positive measurement at 54, which is the reasou they chose that
location. Mr. Swarner said that he would retest the heights if it was a condition, but he would like
a compromise at 52 feet. He said in this case, they wanted to present the site as being the screen
and the backdrop for the antenna itself. They would have to test to see if there were another
opportunity for another set of antennas to go on the pole. He said they also like to co-locate with
existing utilities and such. Mr. Swarner said that he would prefer to have a decision rendered
tonight, and as a condition would look at adjusting the heights to use existing vegetation now to try
to screen the slimline design.
Relative to Chair Kwok's question about the possibility of moving the pole to one side, Mr.
Swarner said that it was not feasible as there was not ample room. The existing trees along the
freeway are thick and the rootline cannot be disturbed, and there is also a small pump well there
that cannot be moved. He reiterated that it was a tight location and they had no alternatives. It
was also the only place to go onsite and not impact the view of the residents.
Com. Patnoe said that with regard to the height, the applicant selected 54 feet to match some of the
trees that are there now to ensure a clear signal, and now as part of the couditions of approval '
would be the planting redwood trees to help eventually screen it from Drake Court, which is where
he was concerned with the project. He questioned that once the trees are grown, won't it block the
signal? What is to stop the applicant from wanting to come back and reqnest to go ten ti:et
higher?
Mr. Swarner said they may have to make compromises in some instances, and may have to come
back at a later date on the height issue. Trees that grow up around the antenna will block the
signal there. He said they were willing to live with a certain amount of degradation, but the thick
vegetation would present a problem. An antenna could still exist there, bnt would not have the
optimum signal, but ample coverage in the area could be provided. He said the degradation l¥om
the proximity of adjacent vegetation could be worse the closer the tree is to the tower, bnt it
depended on the vegetation type, size and thickness of the leaves. He pointed out that pine needles
spew or break apart the beam, and the small needles divide it up and cause problems tbr the signal.
If the trees are closer, certain vegetation can be penetrated. Related to the city's height limitation
of 55 feet, Mr. Swarner said that ifa tree grew taller than 55'feet, they had a mechanism to trim it
down to under 55 feet so that the reception will not be affected.
Planning Commission Minutes 5eotember I0, 2001
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wished to
speak; the public hearing was closed.
Com. Corr expressed concern about the appearance, and said there were past discussions ou how
to camouflage the antennas, where this one clearly does not. He said he had a problem with
approving one and then turn around and say they are going to take another one out in the same
meeting. He said the tree pruning would totally defeat the screening solution and the photo in the
packet showing the location with the trees and the pole from the freeway ignores if you get directly
opposite the pole where it is standing in the clearing so that whole pole is showing. Com. Corr said
he would rather opt for the tree, as it does not have to be trimmed, looks good frmn the beginning
and does not have to be shortened.
Com. Chen expressed concern that in previous discussions they talked about the possibility ot~
building the post to accommodate a co-location and it is also written as part of the conditiot~ inthe
resolution. She said the applicant is saying that it is not a preferred choice; or is not possible to
make this location a co-location for future wireless antennas. Com. Cheu said she wanted to keep
it in the condition that it is a clear understanding that the approval of the resolution is to make the
location available for future additions. She questioned if the pole has to be designed differently to
accommodate this condition?
Mr. Jung said the slimline design was structurally unable to allow a co-location. He said it was his
previous understanding that the pole was too narrow to allow a co-location of additional antenna:
but he anticipated for the future that perhaps the antenna technology itself would catch tip with the
pole technology to have available narrower, lighter antennas that could co-locate on a slimline
pole; thus he retained the co-location condition in the model resolution (Condition 2). In response
to Com. Chen's question if it was a tree design, could they accommodate existing technology to
make a co-location; Mr. Jung said they could, and that the pole itself would be larger and it would
have the stealth of that and it would be capable of supporting additional antenna at that site.
Com. Auerbach said in his opinion it was another aspect of modern living; people want cell phones
and need coverage and therefore need antennas, and although some are unsightly, people take
them for granted. He said he felt the artificial trees of odd shapes were not preferable to putting up
antennas to achieve the best coverage. He said the proposal was for a remote location with a
slimline design, which was preferable to the big array antennas and be was inclined to support it.
Com. Patnoe asked ifa condition of approval could stipulate that the trees not be trimmed to below
54 feet.
Chair Kwok questioned what the status of the Telecommunications system master plan was since it
addressed the issue of use of artificial vs. real trees for the antennas. Mr. Jung said that staff was
reviewing their options for the master plan; however, the plan itself has been on the back burner
for some time; and the consultant's agreement is being finalized. He said one thing working in
their favor is the fact that the communications industry is not presently in a strong growth mode
and fewer applications are being received. The companies are interested in the cheapest
construction costs possible and looking to locate mostly on buildings when they can.
Com. Auerbach said he was prepared to approve the application as staff outlined with the possible
exception of changing the specification of the tree and irrigation to the location soutb of the pole;
and he would want to give more flexibility in both the tree type and the location. Com. Patnoe and
Planning C0mmissJ0n h4}nutes 3eptember 10, 2001
the other Planning Commissioners said they were supportive also. Com. Chen said that she was
considering the artificial tree that provides for co-location and questioned the economic impact for
the applicant (Mr. Jung noted that it was approximately $100,000 for the artificial tree vs. live
trees) She noted that adding two living trees would be beneficial to Cupertino. She also
questioned if the monopole was approved, would it be possible to build another post next to it in
the future. Mr. Jung said that he was not certain if any of the site was available for another pole
because of the well equipment and whether there was any underground piping in the area.
Com. Patnoe asked the applicant why they could not install an artificial tree to allow other carriers
to piggy back on it as well and immediately screen the pole from the community. Mr. Swerner
responded that the size of the foundation of the large pole was beginning to affect the existing tree
roots. Relative to other equipment located on that site, there are areasto locate other equipment
except that you have to run various cables for electricity to the pole and you have to be concerned
with the existing tree roots. He said it was a tight situation; if you expand and make a larger tree
type pole, it takes a larger foundation to do that. A larger pole of any design would provide fbr
more accommodation for co-location. He said presently, they could probably co-locate two more
antennas on the pole.
Mr. Jung clarified that although it might not be the preferred solution, it is not necessary to
underground the cables; and above-ground cables preserve the trees onsite, although it is not
attractive.
Mr. Piasecki clarified that if it is the Planning Commissioners' wish to pursue an artificial tree pole
in this location, they could ask the applicant to go back and do a feasibility stndy to address the
issues about roots and other access.
Com. Patnoe said that Com. Corr raised an appropriate point earlier about tile prior item on tile
agenda, that they are again considering putting up a slimline pole as opposed to trying to shift the
decision towards something that is more camouflaged immediately, and questioned il' it is
something that should be continued. The applicant requested that a decision be rendered. He said
he felt the decision to allow the pole will go through, but the question is what sort of pole will be
used. Com. Patnoe said he was prepared to move forward with the application, and he liked the
fact of planting two new trees which would screen the pole from the neighborhood. He said he
was also open to getting more information, including have an arborist look into the root issue. He
said it was important to be consistent with their decisions.
Com. Corr said it was important to be consistent when signaling the community and business
community what is expected or what will be approved for Cupertino. Discussions relative to the
master plan included doing things to camouflage, and it did not specify that it had to be a tree, bnt
to camouflage. There were a number of examples of how things could be ca,nouflaged and that is
what they should be doing, not putting up more monopoles, and then telling Pac Bell they have to
take theirs down. He said he was not in favor ora moratorium on poles nntil such time thereis a
master plan.
Chair Kwok stressed the need for the completion of the master plan so that there would be
consistency in making the decisions about the antennas. He said he was not inclined to move
forward with the application until the master plan is completed.
Plannin Commission Minutes
Com. Auerbach said he felt they had an obligation to the businesses to be able to conduct bt, siness
and to have some reasonable expectation of being able to have a hearing date and have a decision
rendered. Mr. Jung stated that they were in negotiations with a consultant relative to the master
plan, but it could take six months to a year before something is approved. He said he felt waiting
that period of time was unfair to the applicant and was not a pro business stance for Cupertino.
Chair Kwok said that he agreed in essence, that the project should not be delayed because it is not
the applicant's fault that the master plan is not in place.
Mr. Swarner said that MetroPCS' schedule is to get their network on air by January; they have
been tied up in the courts for 4 years and purchased the licenses from another company. He said
they would have to do the study in two weeks. He commented that place,nent of the trees farther
away from the pole would necessitate not having to prune the trees. He said they would prefer to
use natural vegetation in this case as they did not feel the site could accommodate a larger size
monopole.
Com. Patnoe suggested putting live trees on the site as well as the artificial tree with antenna to
visualize which would be the appropriate choice.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Patnoe moved to continue Application No. 07-U-01 to the
September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to allow fbr the preparation of
a feasibility report.
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
08-U-01, 06-Z-01, 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)
R & Z Development
20075 De Palina Lane
Use permit to construct 9 single family townhomes on an approximately one acre parcel.
Rezoning of an approximately one acre parcel from RI-10 to P(Res)
Tentative map to subdivide an approximately one acre parcel into nine parcels for a townhome
development.
Tentative City Council Date: October 1, 2001
Staff presentation: Mr. Jung referred to a map and site plan and reviewed the application. Itc
reviewed the site design, architecture, setbacks, site description, project description, and landscape
plan (including the stormwater quality management improvements) as outlined in the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the project; the negative declaration has bee,1 recommended by the
Environmental Review Committee.
Mr. Jung said there was no gate as part of the proposal. Relative to the proximity to tile creek, tile
water district has an unimproved service road they use to maintain the creek, and have indicated
that they do not need additional right-of-way to carry out their functions, and are willing to enter
into a joint use agreement with the city relative to the use of the space. He said it not only serves
their needs but any other recreational needs the city may be interested in.
Mr. Jung said the 100 year flood is contained within the channel known as Regnart Creek in this
location. He said there have unfortunately been instances where development has been allowed
Planning C0mmissJ0n Minutes September lO. 2001
with back yams abutting the creeks (November Drive). He said he did not foresee how the creek
would be restored to a more natural state unless the development was set back literally. He said
there was no safe distance away from a creek that is allowed to run its course enduring light aud
heavy flows.
Chair Kwok recalled that for the November November Drive project, as part of the conditions,
they established rehab funds for the creek and used rip rap to stabilize the creek. He questioned
whether the creek was stabilized now. Mr. Jung said that unlike November Drive, the creek was
in a semi natural state that had been channelized with gabion baskets. He said there were not
problems with erosion at that location, but as Com. Auerbach stated, there is a retaining wall that
was probably put there to forestall any future erosion.
Mr. Jung said that there was no established setbacks in residential areas; only in hillside areas, lie
reiterated that they were dealing with a planned development where the setbacks were negotiated
between the applicant and the city. He said the area was wide enough for a public trail and staff
did not feel the need to extend the width, noting that the width was similar both further east aud
west.
Mr. Jung referred to the Preliminary Grading Plan and answered Planning Commissioners'
questions regarding the storm drainage system.
Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, said it appeared the downspouts were going into a system
but would pop up and go into the drainage swale. It will not go directly to the street system
because it is prohibited; storm leaders cannot go directly to the storm drainage system, but they are
going to use this percolation to take care of the flows from the roofs.
Mr. Glenn Cahoon, project designer, referred to the preliminary grading plan, and explained the
drainage drainage system and answered Commissioners' questions. He also illustrated the location
of the retaining walls and reviewed the landscape plan. Referring to the landscape plan, Mr.
Cahoon said there were some trees they would have to remove because they were in the fbotprint
or driveway areas; and noted that 24 inch box trees would be planted. He illustrated the screening
to protect the neighbors. In response to Com. Chen's questions about parking, Mr. Caboon
reported that each unit had a two-car garage, with an apron in front for gnest parking. He
illustrated where the guest parking would be and noted the location of the pathway to the units.
Mr. Cahoon reported that there were no windows or decks on the side to comply with the privacy
act of the neighbors. Relative to the location of the chimneys, and Com. Patnoe's concern, Mr.
Cahoon said that if necessary, the chimneys could be deleted and the direct vents could be used.
He noted that fireplace manufacturers make a variety of styles, but most are designed with the gas
log, and have taken it a step further by creating the direct vent to address the bnilding code lbr
having fireplaces in bedrooms. He pointed out that chimneys are an architectural feature which set
a period and are not a function.
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Dan O'keefe, 34 Paseo Alba, San Clemente, CA., read from a prepared text. "1 oppose the
development and intend to offer my reasons for traveling from Southern California to speak
against it. Of course I want to express care for the best interest of the applicant, but I also want to
express the same care as a returning resident relevantly affected by the development. Both sides
can be served by lower density. This being said, I begin by distinguishing the similarities and
Planning C;ommi aion Minutes cptcmt r I0, ZOO1
differences between the RSE development and existing units in tile south side of Rodriguez
Avenue. The RSE development puts 21,000 square feet of living space on approximately one
acre; four existing Rodriguez duplexes on approximately one acre puts approximately 12,000
square feet of living space on one acre. These figures were worked out today by Mr. Gatti, (a
member of the Planning Department) and myself. The RSE development has 2 feet of landscaping
fronting Rodriguez and two driveways, which means one third of tile landscaping is not thcing
Rodriguez Avenue. I contend that this is a traffic hazard, a phantom image ora PUD, 33% of the
landscaping fronting Rodriguez is lost; the existing duplexes, two plex developments and the
PUDs devote 20 feet setback to landscaping two feet by this development. The proposed fence
facing Rodriguez does no more than devalue and debase the existing property on Rodriguez. The
RSE proposal in my opinion warrants denial. There is ilo two story triplex oil Rodriguez Avenue
and this development has a two story triplex. The moral grounds for denial of this application is a
sea of asphalt and I believe it is neither vague nor ambiguous; it is crowded, very dense. As you
know, the soutbside of Rodriguez was divided between low density and high density for 36 years.
This has been a divide where there are duplexes and not high density oil the south side. As a
former Planning Commissioner and member of the City Council, that came before us constantly,
and I object to the fact that the Planning Director compared the south side with the north side and
compared this development with the Biltmore Apartments and the fact is that this is going to be
subsidized in my opinion by street parking. There is no way that 21,000 square feet on one acre is
going to have the kind of parking spaces that it needs, the aprons, etc. aud in my opinion from my
experience, I believe that there is going to be fences there and I believe that there isgoing to be a
setback problem and I think that this should be reduced at least by 2 to 3 nnits. I would also say
that the amenity park has great delights, pleasures; when I listened to the applicaut I felt that we
were talking about Versailles. We are talking about one acre with really minimum setbacks and
there are problems and the problems are with the creek. The problems are with Rodriguez, cars
are going to back out of the developments on Rodriguez with a two foot setback on Rodriguez and
that is going to create a traffic hazard. 1 would also say as I looked at this development, it states in
this application there will be no increased traffic hazards. I say there will be; driveway backing
cars right out to Rodriguez; Obstruct views ... I believe the chimneys and those buildings are
going to obstruct views with the duplexes to the west; and adversely affect tile architectural
character. I think this is a breaking of a very significant line; the south side of Rodriguez and
again for about 16 years on the City Council, as a mayor and a Planning Commissioner, Rodriguez
set precedent, you did not have high density on the south side of Rodriguez and to compare again
as the Planning Director did, with the Biltmore Apartments, is wrong. And the chimneys, I tbiuk it
looks like a Welsh coal camp in my opinion and is a PUD in my opinion, I believe it is a
boilerplate in my opinion. I have never heard on my 16 years on tile City Cotmcil a marriage
between a Planning Director and an applicant. He should have said that there are 21,000 living
space compared to 12,000 with the duplexes, and I want to say again that the residents arotmd
Rodriguez are going to subsidize this and you are going to have before the Planning Commissiou
an application to add 24 hour parking on Rodriguez. When I was on the City Council and on the
Planning Commission we used to go to seminars on public safety; and as I recall pnblic safety was
a big issue in terms of design. As I look at this design 1 believe that it has many problems iu terms
of public safety. Access from the trails is going to be a factor and the other factor is going into the
interior, anybody that gets into the interior is going to be more safe and this factor makes this
density. I would like to see the development; I think it should be developed, bnt to say that he is
going to clean up transmissions and other problems, is something that I don't think the city of
Cupertino would every allow. I am returning resident and I hope never to see you again to
because you are not going to approve this and I feel that it does need some work, and I would hope
Flanning Commission Minutc Jcptclnbcr I0, ZOO1
in the future that the Planning Director would put out the pertinent facts. Thank you for your
attention; its really great to be back here, but attendance is Iow."
Dr. Richard Popejoy, welcomed back previous mayor Dan O'Keefe, and urged the Planning
Commission to take Mr. O'Keefe's comments to heart, since he felt things that are happening now
are pertinent to the comments made. He said certain issues of building the south side, the north
side were always in tact. He said he felt it does not make a difference where the building is uow,
the creeks will overflow; and although there weren't supposed to be overflows and storms such as
the ones they have had, Bollinger Road overflows every couple of years; and 100 year flood
concerns have now become 5 year flood concerns. He said the markers should be used to show
the neighborhood residents what is going to be built, so they can provide input and voice their
opposition if necessary. Dr. Popejoy said that Mr. O'Keefe's projections on traffic Were on target,
and he felt there would be a request for more parking and parking across the street in the Biltmore
Apartments. The creeks can overflow and do routinely, and none of tile figures will indicate that
information. He said he felt there were too many units, and 4 or 5 would be more appropriate with
more green area. He said every time they cover another square foot, it increases the problems.
Mr. Dennis Whittaker, said he was concerned about the quality of life. He referred to the traffic
on Rodriguez and said that if 9 units are built on the parcel, there will be 36 more cars driving up
and down Rodriguez. He said that Blaney is overused and Pacifica traffic is cut off during school
hours and new units on Rodriguez would create even more traffic. He expressed concern about
developing Town Center and making Pacifica and Rodriguez less traffic friendly, but more
pedestrian and bicycle friendly. He said with the added cars on Rodriguez it would create traffic
paralysis. Mr. Whittaker said that he was not anti-growth, but was concerned about where to put
the teachers and city workers because of the affordability issue. The city tries to get more people
who cannot normally afford to live in Cupertino, and with this application, they are missing out on
a BMR unit. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to drive on Rodriguez to see the impact
of 36 more cars. He urged that if Town Center goes through, not to block offor restrict Rodriguez
and Pacifica traffic as it would negatively impact the area.
Mr. Liu, 2172 Rodriguez Avenue, expressed concern about temporary storm drainage aud the
public walkway. He questioned if they put the drainage in the corner, if it would increase the
water level of his house, and how they would assure that would not happen. He expressed concern
also about the public walkway next to his back fence and how it would impact his back yard
privacy.
Chair Kwok closed the public hearing.
Chair Kwok said he felt that 9 units were too dense. Mr. Jung said that the maximum dwelling
unit yield for this site, between the creek and Rodriguez is planned at a density of 5 to 10 dwelling
units to the gross acre. If it were to build out at the maximum density, tile yield would be I I and
they are proposing 9. He said it was not the case that they were building less than ten units to avoid
the BMR unit, but that the primary concern was to create all asset fbr the commtmity and to
provide it with a well designed project that provides public accessibility to the creek aud the only
way to create a nice entrance and provide public accessibility was by not overcrowding the milts
on the project site. Also, the second story was pulled back from the first story developments and
all the design considerations and amenities shown resulted in one fewer unit. Mr. Piasecki
clarified that the setbacks on Rodriguez closely match the setbacks of the existing duplexes and
said that the area behind the Iow wrought iron fence would be landscaped with lawn aud rose
Planning Commission Minutes September I0, 2001
bushes, etc. The interest in putting in the Iow fence was to get a pedestriau level detail built iuto
the project from the very beginning and not just have the blank spaces that occupy area in front of
homes or in front of the duplexes.
The BMR program as it relates to the proposed project was discussed. Mr. Piasecki said that the
in-lieu fee is not comparable to the cost of the unit, $1 per square foot, which is something the city
has to resolve. The BMR program is what it is; ten is the dividing point. When staff worked with
the applicant, they did not want him to attempt to shoe in the tenth or eleventh unit, and uot have
the kind of amenities he is proposing. Design and integration wit the neighborhood is the first
priority. He said with small parcels like this when you are on the edge of the yields, he would not
encourage somebody just to simply get one BMR unit, to shoe horn it in. Chair Kwok reiterated
that he felt it was meant for medium and Iow density, and nine uuits was too dense.
There was consensus that density and the BMR unit were issues of concern.
Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, clarified that if they wanted the threshold question as density, it
was important that they be consistent for the next nine unit development that comes in. He said it
was a question of consistency, as how do you decide that this developmeut should far and above
exceed what is required and not another development,
Com. Auerbach pointed out that they had just concluded a study session where the opportunity was
afforded to change the housing element relative to the threshold level. He poiuted out that during
the discussion, there was no objection to ten units and no changes were made. Chair Kwok said he
felt it was not the BMR unit, but the density, since it would not be a Iow market rate house. He
· said it was important to have consistency relative to approving and denying projects where there
was only slightly more than one acre.
Discussion ensued relative to RI-10 zoning, Chair Kwok said that the compatibility with the
neighborhood also has to be considered. Coms. Auerbach and Corr agreed that the time to dispute
the density is at the zoning stage, not when applicants come to present projects, lf,nembers of the
public have issues with zoning and they think the zoning is too dense, it needs to be addressed at
the zoning issue rather than projects when they come before the Planuing Commission for
approval in areas that meet the zoning requirements. He said he also felt that the project fits within
the scope; was an exemplary project, and meets many of the criteria for walkability, accessibility
to the creeks, exposure to natural features, and meets the conditions for iucreasing the housing
stock in the community which supply and demand will lead to some mitigation of the housiug
prices over time. It is completely compatible with the zoning that exists.
Com. Patnoe said he had a point to make relative to the housing stock. The applicaut used the
word "infill" and it was timeto stop looking at the word "infill" as a bad word. He said he was not
opposed to the nine units, and was pleased with the project. He said it was unlikely that 4 parking
spaces per unit were needed, and he did not feel the density would present a problem. He reiterated
his concern about the chimneys, especially the two on the street. He said that the applicant could
be requested to eliminate the chimneys or modify the ones on the street side.
Com. Auerbach noted that the applicant said they would install non-sealed gas burning units which
required chimneys, but if necessary, he would put in sealed gas units which would not require
chimneys. Com. Auerbach said he felt the applicant had to sell the units and was aware of what
the market demand was; and Larry Cannon did not object to the chimneys. He said the decision
should be left up to the applicant and Larry Cannon.
Com. Chen said she was pleased to see a good design for Cupertino including efforts to meet all
the requirements and all the conditions developed over the years to increase the walkability and
build a pathway to increase the connectivity with tile neighborhood. She expressed concern with
the impact of the density on the quality of life as one of the speakers had commented on; noting
that the impact was on the parking spaces and the potential problem with on-street parking causing
safety issues for the neighborhood residents. She asked bow the traffic report addressed tile
potential increase in traffic and how to address the safety issues and parking issues for the
particular development. Com. Chen said she would like a parking analysis betbre she would
support the project. Mr. Piasecki said that a parking analysis was possible, but noted that
providing 4 spaces per unit was standard for a single family development; and questioned whether
Com. Chen was considering more of less spaces. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the recent
development on Imperial Avenue with 3 spaces per unit, and there was a traffic study completed.
He said he was comfortable with the requirement of 4 spaces per unit, and co,nmented that it might
be considered excessive.
Mr. Jung said a traffic report was not done because of the small number of traits. He pointed ont
that the net number of units is actually 8 and not 9, because of the existing unit there. He said
typically an 8-unit development generates very little traffic; using standard factors it is 10 trips a
day, or 80 trips in and out of the project. Com. Corr said that although only a small impact, they
add up to a bigger impact. Mr. Piasecki stated that it was is the purpose of the General Plan when
5 to 10 dwelling units per acre are assigned and a traffic analysis is completed.
Chair Kwok said he had reservations about the density of the project and tile traffic generated,
particularly Rodriguez, although the General Plan does designate it as 5 to 10 units, but it does not
mean that you can build up to 10 units, the same as it does give the flexibility of 5 to l0 units. Ite
said the compatibility with the neighborhood on one side of the street should be addressed. Chair
Kwok said it was a beautiful project, that provides trail and open spaces in the back, with a good
design, but he said he would not support the project with 9 units as he felt it was too dense.
Com. Auerbach said he felt 4 parking spaces may be excessive; and said he felt it was
demonstrable that if more cars were parked on the street, it would slow down traffic and it would
become safer for both cars and pedestrians. He said he would like to take advantage of more on-
street parking and pave less of the complexes in the future; and it was his goal bias to have fewer
parking spaces rather than more and utilize more of the city's infrastructure. Mr. Piasecki said that
the issue was discussed relative to Rodriguez and noted that when there is limited or no on-street
parking, high speeds can be achieved on the street. He pointed out that tile new urbanists'
principles and smart growth principles are talking about putting parking back on thestreet, which
slows traffic down.
Relative to the chimneys, there was consensus to let the applicant make the decision.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 06-Z-01
Com. Corr
Chair Kwok
Passed 4-1-0
Planning Commission Minutes 21 §eptember 10, 2001
Chair Kwok said he felt the project was not compatible with the neighborhood.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 08-U-01
Com. Corr
Chair Kwok
Passed 4-1-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 03-TM-01
Coin. Corr
Chair Kwok
Passed 4-1-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 14-EA-01
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
The application will be forwarded to the City Council for final decisiou.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Kwok reported that a meeting was scheduled
for September 12th for the housing element.
Housing Committee: Com. Patuoe reported a meeting is scheduled for September 13th.
Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Patnoe will attend the September 11th meeting.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Mr. Piasecki said he had no additional reports,
other than noting the article about the County's suggestion and possibly taking up an ordinance
lilniting the house size in Garden Gate.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
ineeting at 6:45 p.m. on September 24, 200 I.
Respectfully Submitted,
Recordiug Secretary
,4pproved as amended: September 24, 2001