PC 06-12-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. June 12, 2007 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of June 12, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chair Cary
Chien.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Vice Chairperson:
Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Cary Chien
Lisa Giefer (arrived during discussion
David Kaneda of Item 4)
Marty Miller
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Assistant Planner: Piu Ghosh
Public Works: Glen Goepfert
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 22,2007 Planning Commission meeting:
Correction: Page 3, lines 1 and 3: Change "He" to "She"
Page 1: Delete: "Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray"
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda to approve the May 22,
2007 minutes as amended. (Vote 3-0-1; Chairperson Giefer absent; Com.
Miller abstain)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Steve Piasecki noted that various articles were received.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV ALS FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ruby Elbogen, Portal Avenue:
. Spoke in support of tree preservation, stating that many projects come before the Planning
Commission where they would like to remove trees. He said he opposed removal of trees in
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
June 12,2007
general, and said that when they build or develop in an area, they should take into
consideration a way to do it around the trees if they are full grown trees.
. Urged the Planning Commission to keep that in mind whether the development is residential,
industrial or commercial.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.
CP-2007-02 (EA-2007-04)
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Review of the Five Year Capital Improvements Program
(FY2007-08 to 2012-13) for conformity to the City of
Cupertino's General Plan. Tentative City Council date:
June 19,2007
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
CP-2007-02 (EA-2007-04) (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent)
PUBLIC HEARING
2. DIR-2006-07
William Stephens (T-Mobile)
20833 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Director's Minor Modification to install a wireless
telecommunication facility at an existing office center
(Stevens Creek Office Center) Continued from the
May 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for Director's Minor Modification for a cell site on an existing office
center located at 20833 Stevens Creek Boulevard located between the Whole Foods building
and Peets Coffee/Panera Bread, as outlined in the staff report.
. He reviewed the photo simulations of the proposed placement of the antennas on the structure.
. Staff recommends denial of the application as they feel the roof screens do not architecturally
integrate with the appearance of the office building and are not compatible with the
surroundings and at variance with the adopted siting and design guidelines and are inconsistent
with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposal, staff recommends
conditions included in the attached resolution of approval, that require the antennas to be fully
screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development as depicted in the
photo simulations.
The applicant was not present.
Vice Chair Chien opened the public hearing. As there was no input from the public, the public
hearing was closed.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the application.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to deny Application
DIR-2007-07. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent)
3. TM-2007-06 and TM-2007-07
Terry Brown (Hu and Peng
Properties, 10026 and 10038
Orange Avenue
Tentative Maps to subdivide an approved mixed-use
development into three parcels. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
June 12,2007
Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for tentative map to subdivide an approved mixed-use development
into three parcels, including two office/retail spaces and one residential.
. The use permit and architectural site approval were approved in July 2005; zoning is planned
neighborhood commercial/light industrial/residential with a density of 4 to 12 dwelling units
per gross acre. The land use allows commercial, office and residential uses.
. The proposal for 10026 Orange Avenue is a one-unit medical office, one-unit commercial with
residential uses on the first and second levels. The proposal for 10038 Orange Avenue is a
one-unit commercial, one-unit medical and residential units on the second floor with an
attached garage on the first story.
. Staff recommends approval of the applications in accordance with the model resolutions.
Terry Brown, Applicant:
. Stated that the proposal was part of a final development of a part of the Monta Vista area.
. There were no questions of the applicant.
Vice Chair Chen opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wish to speak; the
public comment portion of the meeting was closed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application
TM-2007-06 and TM-2007-07 per the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0;
Chair Giefer absent).
4. ASA-2007-03, TR-2007-02,
EXC-2007-06, V-2007-02,
(EA-2007-02) Michael
Ducote, 20800 Homestead
Villa Serra/The Grove)
Architectural and Site Approval to construct an additional
117 apartment units, a public park, a recreational facility,
and leasing office within an existing apartment complex
(Villa Serra/The Grove) for a total of 505 units. Tree
removal for removal of 123 trees and a replanting plan on
a proposed modification to an existing apartment
development. Exception to the Multiple-Family parking
requirements; variance for front, rear and side yard R3
(apartment) requirements. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Tentative City Council date:
July 3,2007.
AId Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application including the background information, project description, site
layout, architectural design, unit types, Homestead Road allocation, variance, tree
removal/replacement and conceptual landscape plan, park, parking exception, traffic, school
impacts, affordable housing requirement, and Environmental Review Committee
recommendations, as outlined in the staff report.
. Staff recommends approval of the project, with suggested changes to eliminate the need for a
variance from the front yard setback requirements along Homestead Road and side yard
setback requirement as outlined on Page 2 of the Model Resolution (Item 4: Site Plan
Modification.
. Relative to the site plan, staff recommends conditions to include a pedestrian connection
enhancement condition stating that the applicant shall contribute $50,000 for enhancements to
the pedestrian walkway along the east side of the North Stelling Road Bridge. The city shall
use the funds to add pedestrian scaled lighting, paving materials, railings and repainting of the
pedestrian facilities of the east side of the bridge.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
June 12,2007
. Staff recommends a condition relative to the park dedication requirement, that the applicant
shall dedicate and improve the approximately .45 acre area from the Villa Serra apartment
complex located at the southwest corner of the Homestead Road and Franco Court for a public
park as shown on the approved site plan. The condition also includes that the applicant shall
work with the city to incorporate the adjacent city-owned property into the park site that
currently houses the traffic operation center to create a .68 acre public park. Prior to release of
building permits, the applicant shall sign an agreement to provide up to $500,000 to fund the
relocation of the traffic operation center to a location with adequate existing or improved site
facilities acceptable to the city. Further details are included in the recorded condition.
. The Environmental Review Committee review the project and recommended approval of the
Negative Declaration. Additional recommendations by the ERC included to apply green
building/sustainability construction practices into the project; provide larger adequate size
trash/recycling enclosures on site; to work with the adjacent commercial center to the west to
incorporate landscape improvements that will soften the visual impact and create and buffer
between the commercial property and the project site.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of
the Negative Declaration and approval of the architectural and site approval; the variance for
the rear yard setback of 20 feet; the side yard setback along North Stelling Avenue; and also
the side yard setback for the one building that cannot meet the 18 foot setback requirement.
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve the parking exception and tree
removal permit based on the model resolution, including staffs recommended changes.
Steve Piasecki responded to concerns about parking on Franco Court:
. Said he did not know the reason for the No Parking Anytime signs on Franco Court, and it
appeared there was more than adequate width and capacity to handle any of the traffic that
would be going down the cuI de sac including trucks going into and out of PW Market. He
said the reason staff was comfortable allowing them to take a credit for the parking is that they
would be striping and installing it and would have parking available for the public using the
park. They wouldn't be able to park in the PW Market and hang out at the park all day legally.
They wanted to have some onstreet parking available to the public.
. Said they felt there would be a sharing relationship during the daytime; it is essentially
available at night for the residents of the complex and during the day for park users.
. Said he did not think they would need all the parking for the complex; they did a parking study
that shows that they can work comfortably with the 1.8 standard, if not lower. At night should
there be an overflow, the park is not going to be typically utilized extensively at night by the
public, so you will have 10 or 15 of these spaces available to the residents of the complex
should they need it. In the morning, they presumably go to work and go about their duties and
it opens it up for park users.
. Stated that the same applicant (Prometheus) went through a similar redevelopment project for
the Biltmore Apartments on Rodriguez A venue. Some of the building forms are similar to the
ones that were developed into that existing Biltmore site; however, it will not be the same
project in terms of doing a complete renovation of all the existing units. For the Biltmore they
changed windows and repainted everything; and a lot of construction occurred with some of
the existing units. He said they would likely need a construction management plan to talk
about where the staging areas are, where it is accessed, and ensure that it gets included as well.
Chairperson Giefer arrived at the meeting and resumed chairing the meeting.
Com. Wong:
. Said that the traffic report states the city indicates that Homestead and Stelling will have a PM
Peak traffic level service of E+ and Stevens Creek and Stelling will have a both AM and PM
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
June 12,2007
of the E+ and F respectively, under certain conditions. He asked staff what kind of mitigating
factors they were suggesting.
AId Snelling:
. The traffic study is not recommending any additional mitigation factors. The study stated that
the project itself will have no significant impacts on the traffic.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said the conditions cited are existing conditions caused by Whole Foods and DeAnza College
or other outlying factors. The trips from the project during the peak hour once assigned out to
the whole system become negligible in terms of impacting level of service.
Com. Kaneda:
. Asked staff for more information on how the landscaping plan was inaccurate.
Aki Snelling:
. Explained that the plan before the Commission is the tree removal plan submitted by the
applicant's arborist, indicating what they think are all of the existing trees onsite. The city
arborist went out to the site and found that a number of the trees are missing onsite, some of
the trees include trees that have already been removed. The city arborist found that there were
some trees that looked like they were indicated to remain onsite for the landscape plan but on
the civil plans were shown to be removed. There is some discrepancy on a number of trees on
site which is why the city arborist asked for a revised plan if the applicant's arborist could
provide that.
Aki Snelling reviewed conditions not in staff report:
. A condition for pedestrian connection enhancement that staff is recommending over the north
Stelling Road Bridge crossing over 1-280, south of the project site. Staff is recommending the
condition that would require the applicant to contribute $50,000 for enhancement to that
relative to the site plan, staff recommends conditions to include a pedestrian connection
enhancement condition stating that the applicant shall contribute $50,000 for enhancements to
the pedestrian walkway along the east side of the North Stelling Road Bridge. The city shall
use the funds to add pedestrian scaled lighting, paving materials, railings and repainting of the
pedestrian facilities of the east side of the bridge.
. A condition relative to the park dedication requirement, that the applicant shall dedicate and
improve the approximately .45 acre area from the Villa Serra apartment complex located at the
southwest corner of the Homestead Road and Franco Court for a public park as shown on the
approved site plan. The condition also includes that the applicant shall work with the city to
incorporate the adjacent city-owned property into the park site that currently houses the traffic
operation center to create a .68 acre public park. Prior to release of building permits, the
applicant shall sign an agreement to provide up to $500,000 to fund the relocation of the traffic
operation center to a location with adequate existing or improved site facilities acceptable to
the city. Further details are included in the recorded condition.
Glen Goepfert, PublicWorks:
. Suggested that a any motion to approve should incorporate an understanding that any move of
the TOC would be subject to meeting the requirements of the Director of Public Works.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that another condition states that if they are successful in expanding the park, they could
qualify for a park credit, since it will meet the ordinance requirements and the standard
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
June 12,2007
wording about the improvements, when they are accepted and how the city takes over the
maintenance and is reimbursed for it.
. The park dedication ordinance has criteria for when an applicant qualifies for a park dedication
credit, that is if you provide a lot of your own onsite facilities, namely a half-acre of open field
space, a quarter-acre of picnic facilities or a quarter-acre of children's play area, when you add
those up, the first you have to have is the half-acre plus you have to have at least four of the
six optional elements. You add it up and it usually adds up to about an acre of land at a
minimum; in this case because the applicant would be willing to dedicate and improve the
existing land as well as improve the city's facility as well as help us relocate it, we felt that
they could pass the half-acre minimum, that is the mandatory element, and then qualify for at
least three or four of the others. In the case of Eric Morley, they didn't meet that literally, and
they got a 37% credit, so that is why we said up to a 50% credit; and the ordinance doesn't
allow you to go beyond 50%; it just says you can only qualify for up to 50%. The theory is if
you are providing the park needs of your private facility on site, you will have less demand to
go off into the public park areas.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Asked Public Works staff if he agreed that the TOC site is an unimproved site, or was he
satisfied with its current location?
Glen Goepfert:
. Said it was an unattractive industrial building, with some storage space inside and industrial
fencing. There are different kinds of equipment stored, trucks, traffic signal elements, and it is
understandable why it would be seen as incompatible with the residential usage. The facility
has a well on the side; however, it lacks water hookups. It does have a shed, a large trailer for
storage of materials, parking area in front, inside the shed there are fiberoptic cables, there is
power, light, air conditioning, controller units that mimic the controllers for the traffic signals
that are out in the field; large monitors to be able to alter the traffic signal patterns remotely;
remote camera feeds so that conditions on the roadways can be observed. He said looking at
the site, it is not paradise; it is very functional; but could be beautified.
Aki Snelling:
. In response to Chair Giefer's question if the applicant was going to open up the fence on
Franco Court to allow pedestrian crossing through the area, she said that the only opening the
applicant is proposing is the new driveway that will open up along Franco Court, which would
allow pedestrian access.
. Relative to green building items, she said that the applicant's plans are conceptual, and they
haven't yet included specific green building standards in their plan set. She said that they
have included a list of the different green building sustainability construction practices that
they hope to look at and include in the project, but specific types they would include have not
been mentioned. She added that they would be replacing the pool.
Chair Giefer:
. Said there was a significant discrepancy between the applicant's arborist's report and the
city's, and questioned why they were reviewing the incomplete application.
Steve Piasecki:
. Explained that staff attempts to expedite all applications and if the Planning Commission is
uncomfortable with that element of it, they can continue it and ask the applicant to provide
clarity. He said that two hearings may have been needed for the item, and it was staffs goal to
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
June 12, 2007
get as much of it to the Commission and give the applicant the opportunity to try and correct
those inconsistencies.
John Ross, Prometheus Real Estate Group:
. Relative to the pedestrian path, said it has not been formally shown on the diagram and said
they are willing to provide the connection for the pedestrians.
. Said the arborist can answer questions relative to the discrepancies if there is still a lack of
clarity; and asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with making a decision
tonight, if they could narrow and constrain the condition of that particular issue as it would
help in terms of providing clarification on their side.
. Said they agreed with the majority of the contents of the staff report, and requested a
recommendation for approval.
. Said that the Villa Serra property was purchased in 1999 with the intent of redeveloping the
entire site. About three years after purchase, they went forward with a planning application to
a study session with the Planning Commission and City Council; that particular plan proposed
a redevelopment of the entire site resulting in demolishing all the existing buildings and
starting from scratch in constructing 1,250 residential units on the property. That particular
pre application was 100% consistent with all the zoning that was in place at that time, namely
50 units to the acre and 50 foot height limits. The applicant postponed the project for
economic reasons and subsequent to that delay or postponement, the city adopted a new
General Plan. With that General Plan the property was down-zoned from 50 units to the acre
to 35 units to the acre.
. He summarized that the present proposed project is 20 units per acre, significantly below the
rezoning and at two stories. Compared to the former plan provided, it is 750 units below what
was provided before, and a two story design vs. the prior four story design. Relative to the
down-zoning of the property, it is 370 units below what the maximum zoning would allow,
two stories for design rather than three stories, which is what the current rezoning would
allow. The current plan does not result in the relocation of any existing residents on the
property; whereas the prior proposal with the demolition of all units, unfortunately required
relocation of about 600 residents of the Villa Serra and The Grove properties.
. Relative to the rental vs. condominium aspect of the project; the one and two bedroom rental
apartments are to remain rental apartments; they are not seeking approval for condominium
plans for the city, and therefore they cannot sell the residential units without coming back
formally with an application to the Planning Commission and to City Council for approval.
He said they plan to own and manage the property internally for the long term:
. Said the amenities include a 5,000 square foot recreation building that is planned as part of the
amenity package for the existing residents and new residents, and also certain amenities for the
greater community of Cupertino. The recreation facility includes a large community living
room with a fireplace and a chefs kitchen; an expansive state of the art fitness center; also a
theater room with a greater than 10 foot diameter movie screen, with seating for 12-20 guests.
A new pool with a spa and outdoor kitchen for resident events and the public park has been
discussed at the meeting.
. Relative to sustainability; the County of Santa Clara and City of Cupertino have not formally
adopted any sustainable practices; a lengthy checklist was created relating to green
development concepts; a formal letter was sent to the city with their intent relative to the items
they plan to put into the property. He said he was confident that the vast majority of the items
on the list, if not all of them, will -be able to be incorporated. There are 35 items off the
checklist they plan to incorporate into the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
June 12,2007
David Johnson, Architect:
. Said the intent of the project was to reorganize the site, improve it, create more density and
upgrade the existing character of the site and the experience of living there; and create
pedestrian friendly streets. He said they were creating an important step in any city, which is to
create an edge to the boundaries to the site and the existing streets, Homestead and Stelling by
putting two story buildings out there with stoops and porches.
. The character is being retained in the sense of the green courtyards that are between the
buildings. The buildings that are there now nicely frame the green spaces; he said they strived
to maintain that feeling of green space surrounded by attractive buildings. They eliminated
four large parking areas and replaced those with buildings and green space; maintained the two
story height to be consistent with the existing buildings. They also added 120 enclosed
garages with garage doors and a new recreation area. Another green aspect of that complex
will be solar photovoltaic on the roofs.
. He said they are very interested in doing a green project and the greenest part of this project is
introducing 117 new housing units in an area that has a lot of jobs available so people do not
have to travel from long distances to reach Cupertino.
Com. Miller:
. Asked for comment on staff s suggested changes on Homestead.
David Johnson:
. Said they were still pursuing an appropriate answer on how to maintain the 20 foot setback. It
is a total of six units out of 117, and is very close to working as is.
. With more study and as staff suggested if we can work through that at the design review, if
you indicate your preference as to whether you will allow a 15 foot setback, or maintain the
20, I believe we can make that work.
. Reported on the meetings with residents in the city, including the CCC Group and a care
group. Said it was a positive meeting with a good exchange of ideas.
Com. Wong:
. Relative to meeting some of the variances, especially the parking, asked the applicant to
explain some of the means to meet the 2.0?
David Johnson:
. We have looked into the parking issue on many developments over the years. Internal studies
have been done which resulted in the need for between 1.4 and 1.5 parking stalls throughout
the entire portfolio.
. The study done concluded that the actual demand on the property was 1.18 which was lower
than what we feel we typically need on our projects. At 1.18 they concluded that we needed
about 675 cars to be parked on this site. The cities requirement is about a 1010 cars. We are
proposing 900 cars. Significantly above what the consultant came up with. We strongly feel
we are going to be in a over park situation. If we do not provide adequate parking for the
additional 117 units, we are really devaluing the property because we will have upset residents
and they are going to move down the street to where there is adequate parking. We take the
issue very seriously, we studied it very closely and we by no means would attempt to devalue
and get ourselves into a bind by not providing adequate parking.
. Said plans for refurbishing include replacement of the exterior railing on the patio balconies,
painting balconies, replacement of washers and dryers when new tenants move into a unit, new
cabinets, flooring, and counter tops and updating the interiors. Also plan on replacing the
T111 siding and planning a facelift in addition to the new recreation center which is very
significant.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
June 12,2007
Com. Wong:
. Asked staff if they were planning on combining both on one map, since they are master
planning the community together.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that the issue could be discussed with the applicant. It was not suggested because the
sites were developed independently and parked out independently from one another. Usually
it is preferred to combine them but staff did not feel it was absolutely essential in this case. If
they take the suggestion of moving the building over where the property line was they may
have to adjust the property line or remove it.
David Johnson:
. He said he thought they had the Grove at that time and they proposed to demolish all the
buildings and reconstruct; the new buildings they planned to build would cross property lines
and as a result would merge the two properties. We have not planned for a merge in this case
because we are not building over those property lines. As far as the amenities go, when we
purchased the Grove several years ago we did go ahead and implement policy to allow for the
sharing of the amenities and we opened up the two properties to work as one. We lease out of
one office and when we finish up with this improvement to Villa Serra those amenities will be
made available to everyone including those who live at the Grove. The property acts as one
even though technically there is a property line division.
Com. Wong:
. Said that he understood a few years ago they made a decision not to level everything and take
advantage of the General Plan Ordinance back then. He asked why not take advantage of
leveling everything and building it to the maximum capacity that is allowed today?
David Johnson:
. One of the reasons is the relocation issue is a very sensitive issue as far as residents and the
community are concerned. Secondly, the down zoning of the property by the city from 50
units to 35 units renders it more difficult from a financial feasibility standpoint to be able to
build to that density count as opposed to building 50 units to the acre. For us we can build
something like we are doing now, 20 units to the acre but if we were going to take all the
buildings out to replace them to a 35 unit to the acre density is really not financially feasible.
Weare better off not doing anything and then leaving the property as it is in terms of the unit
count. This is sort of a compromise in between. The real benefit is the lack of relocation
requirements at the end of the day.
. Relative to the TOC issue, he said they met with Public Works staff on different occasions;
preliminary ideas did not work out logistically. We could not accommodate everything that is
on that site so we did not have an easy solution. Our hope is that there will be another solution
to that in terms of other properties. We are not able to solve that particular issue on our own.
Chair Giefer:
. The proposed items on your green building practices list, you mention that the one that you are
not sure of the payback on is the photovoltaics. With the exception of that, if we added these
as conditions to your project, would you object to that?
David Johnson:
. With the intent that they were not conditions I would need to take a quick look at them. Those
items come from the County of San Mateo and the wording on them is fairly general. The
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
June 12,2007
only concern that I would have probably for the maJonty of them would be just the
interpretation of that because they are a bit on the vague side. If we were formally going to
have those as requirements, my strong preference would be to work with staff and make sure
that we are pretty clear on what we are doing within those line items. In general we do not
have an issue with having some formal mechanism to require us to do most of those items if
not all of them. I don't think I could do that right here tonight.
Com. Miller:
. We have not talked about the LOS at the intersection of Homestead and Stelling. Are there
any plans to improve that level of service? Is there requirement on the applicant to participate
in the improvement?
Glen Goepfert:
. The point that was made previously by staff and in the Traffic Impact Analysis is that there is
a cumulative impact that has lead to this LOS. What that means is that even prior to this
development being in place, there are approved projects which if built out could bring the LOS
down. As far as who is in first, it is a matter of who builds out first. Is there some
participation in improvements operational improvements at the intersection that could keep
that from happening. Potentially there could be. There are no specific improvements that are
identified by the traffic impact analysis but there could be a general condition that this
development participate proportionally in any improvement that would improve the elements
at that intersection.
. This is the first study that has shown that there is a possibility that the cumulative impact from
all the approved projects in the background without this project could conceivably lower the
level of service at this intersection. There is no specific improvement that is anticipated or
even identified at this point. This project as a contributor even though there is no significant
impact just by this project could participate in any improvement that is identified.
Steve Piasecki:
. The Commission could ask the staff to take a close look at that before it goes to Council and
make a recommendation to Council on some sort of traffic mitigation. I don't know what that
would be either. I don't know if we have identified anything right at this point.
Glen Goepfert:
. That is the problem at this point that there is no specific improvement that has been identified.
However, we could look at that and see if there is anything that can be identified and that this
project may participate in a proportional manner.
Steve Piasecki:
. This is a project that expedites the need to take a look at the level of service there and perhaps
suggest some improvements and whether this project participates or does not, or participates at
an appropriate level based on their contribution is a separate issue. The first issue is that there
is a problem with the level of service and what are we going to do or hope to do to improve
that level of service.
Glen Goepfert:
. Said it had yet to be determined.
Com. Wong:
. My concern is that it is already dangerous making a left turn coming out of McDonalds, going
back into Cupertino toward the central part of town. Said he liked the idea of vacating and
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
June 12,2007
giving it to Villa Serra to make the lanes more narrow. Are there any other mitigating factors
to make it easier to make a left turn?
Glen Goepfert:
. There are two things that the traffic analysis identified that are pertinent. One is just overall
the circulation including all the movements left turns, they did not find even by observation to
be a particular problem at this point. There was a suggestion as an improvement was to add a
median along Stelling in order to cut down on left turns out of the driveways in this area.
However, what is problematic about that as identified by the TIA is that the impact on the
intersection to the north, Stelling and Homestead with the anticipated u-turns would perhaps
be a contributing factor to the decline of LOS further so I don't see anything that needs to be
addressed particularly. When there is an arrow some consideration would be given to
maintaining some area in the center where the left turns can find a refuge coming out or going
in at the section.
Com. Wong:
. Said there may be a center island. He said his concern was that as one speeds along Stelling
Road, people speed up when they see a two lane to catch up to the traffic light. It is very
challenging to make a left turn onto Stelling Road.
Glen Goepfert:
. The TIA did not find any problem with the left turn access on this site. It is something that
could be monitored but it would be out of the scope of this project to do a monitoring of the
whole segment. Perhaps there is another way to address that.
Com. Wong:
. Said he liked staffs idea of narrowing the lanes.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Ruby Elbogen, Portal Avenue:
. Said he felt it was a mistake to allow fewer than 2 spaces per unit for the project. Said he lived
in a large complex andit is not only in consideration of the people who reside there, but also
for the visitors. There are over 500 units and no place for visitors to park. It is not safe to
have parking on both sides of Franco because big trucks go in and out of that parking storage
facility all day.
. If they are permitted to remove trees, he asked that they not be permitted to take as many out
as they want, and that they are required to plant mature trees in replacement.
. Clarified an earlier speaker's comment that the applicant met with members of the CARE
group. He said the Chair of the group Patty Chi confirmed the applicant met with two people
from the group about some concerns they had. They were not endorsing the project.
Wilson Fung, Celeste Circle:
. Said as a condominium owner he was concerned that the school district the students currently
attend is concerned that the building of these apartments may result in the zoning of Celeste
Circle to be moved to Nimitz School as opposed to the current zoning which is Garden Gate.
The rating of Nimitz is 120 points lower than Garden Gate. He asked what the possibility was
of maintaining zoning for existing condo owners of Celeste Circle.
. There are many trucks going in and out of the storage facility as previously mentioned; to the
left is PW Market, there is an entrance to the shopping center, behind those stores is the
loading zones and that is another entrance off of Franco Court. My concern is if they have
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
June 12, 2007
parallel parking on Franco Court, I am not sure if there is enough space for them to get out and
the Franco Court driveway is the only exit for Celeste Circle condos. I am not sure if that
poses a dangerous factor after having parallel parking and increasing the traffic. I would
request is at all possible to not allow the parallel parking on Franco Court and/or the entrance
of Villa Serra accessing Franco Court.
. The last request is the park build out. Is that a public park? Is the recreation and fitness center
public or private?
Steve Piasecki:
. We do not control where students are assigned. I understand that the school district has been
reassigning any new residents to Nimitz and has left the existing residents assignments alone.
That is a good question to raise with the school district. Franco Court parking is only proposed
on one side; we do not put any parking in that is dangerous. Typically recreational facilities in
the middle of a complex are not made available to other residents. We have the applicant's
concurrence with allowing the park at the end of Franco Court and Homestead to be public.
Nina Daruwalla, Celeste Circle, Cupertino, and a Public Safety Commissioner:
. Staff failed to mention the existence of Celeste Circle and the impact the project will have on
that. It also failed to mention the storage units where there is a lot of traffic.
. The signs along Franco Court state No Parking because of the massive trucks; it is one lane
each way. How can you have parking and still have enough space for trucks to turn in and out.
. The park is replacing tennis courts which are currently used for exercise by residents;
eliminating one and adding another does not make sense.
. Also concerned with the 96 homeowners in Celeste Circle, and the school impact that Garden
Gate and Nimitz will have. They may rezone their properties to Nimitz and decrease the
values of their properties. If that happens, what assurance can the school district or the city
give us, or compensate us with the fact that the property values may decrease.
. There are also safety issues associated with excessive traffic. Typically every family has two
cars; they are increasing units and decreasing parking; where are the cars going to park?
. The meeting with Prometheus has been postponed and we still do not know when we are going
to meet with them. Can anyone say that the school district will not change our home school?
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she felt the project was too dense for the property. Villa Serra is a lovely complex with
accessible parking. Perhaps it would be better if there were less units being added if that were
the desire of the city.
. There are a number of issues raised by previous speakers. A main issue is the traffic that
would be added onto Stelling and Homestead. Other issues include the school issues and
parking. Many people have more than 1.8 cars.
. She expressed concern about the possible conversion of the apartments to condos in the future.
. Asked that the Planning Commission protect as many trees as possible.
Norm Hackford, Cupertino resident:
. Said he was in favor of them meeting the setback. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent
doing a General Plan; why can't they come up with a plan that meets the General Plan. If that
does not fit them, have them tell us why and have them show us what the changes are. Let's
not start the other way.
. There is concern with that particular road and left turns into it. The bicycle paths keep getting
narrower; it might be a good place for a bus stop. I don't think we should give the easement
up. I would like to understand what they are doing with the park; they are taking the park out
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
June 12, 2007
and putting up housing and then putting the park outside. If they are adding 20% unit, they
should add 20% park; I don't understand the logic of the city putting the little park over there;
not many people use the other small park. Use the money for improving the other parks we
have. I think they should retain the nice facility that they have now and improve on it and not
try and make a separate park that is in the corner of the development.
. Parking is another issue. We do not want people parking in the shopping center and jay
walking across the street. There is poor parking and it should not change the parking beyond
the limits we have now without careful review.
D. Lum, Cupertino resident:
. Said he met with John Ross and Don regarding Villa Serra in April which were very
preliminary plans; what is presently shown is slightly different especially regarding the
setbacks. He said they objected to the exception to the setbacks and asked that the Planning
Commission adhere to the present setbacks.
. Suggested that Prometheus meet with some of the other developers in that area, especially the
two parcel owners of the commercial as well as the Las Palmas that is coming up soon.
. He asked if the annual fee for the maintenance of the park covers the whole maintenance or
just part of it.
. Said the increase in units was high, but is a good addition to the housing stock depending on
how they handle it.
Steve Piasecki:
. Clarified that there were 67 one-bedroom, and 50 two-bedroom units; maintenance will be for
the full cost of maintaining the park.
Lillian Wilson, Celeste Circle, Cupertino:
. Said she was concerned about the parking on Franco as well. She asked if a study could be
done on what type of traffic is turning into Franco Court from Homestead. I feel that there is a
lot and it is dangerous to turn into there for pedestrians. If you think there is enough space for
parking, I wonder if you could just increase the size of the park. Could the park be widened?
I think there enough rental units there and condominiums to allow for pedestrian walking. I do
not see the need for additional parking on Franco. If the park was built, I would walk and so
would others. To have a line of cars parking there and a mall structure there, it is not pleasing.
The wall is nice there because it creates a secluded area on that road. I am in favor of keeping
the wall that exists right now.
. If the smaller park has to be built because you cannot have the larger space for the larger park,
would you remove the parallel parking on Franco Court because then there would be even less
need for parking for the use of the park.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said it was a good suggestion to widen the park. You may lose the first five spaces and eight
or nine spaces coming off Homestead Road, but it would result in a greener and more
attractive entry into the area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
June 12,2007
John Gunn, Cupertino resident:
. Also a member of the Board of Directors for the DeAnza Forge Conner Complex at the end of
Franco Court. Said he did not know why they are asking for 117 units and why they are
asking for all the variances. It seems by definition that is going to be too dense. What they are
requesting, otherwise why are they in violation of the setback requirements, the minimum
parking variance and cutting down all the trees. They are proposing that the park on the corner
is too small.
. Said he opposed the development as a whole, and at a minimum the Commission should
consider only allowing them an additional development that would be in compliance with the
City of Cupertino's General Plan and other requirements and not grant them variances. There
was some discussion about the left turns onto Stelling; also left turns from Homestead into the
Villa Serra apartment. He said it was opinion that it was a dangerous situation where people
are making left turns against oncoming traffic on Homestead. Without putting in a traffic light
or something similar at the driveway, it seems it would be worse in terms of traffic danger for
people coming in and out of that driveway. Traffic at the intersection of Homestead and
Stelling is already very backed up in peak hours. On Franco Court there was a comment made
that having parallel parking would reduce the speeds. I did not understand that comment
because right now it is much safer as it is without parallel parking along Franco Court. There
are no dangers of collisions caused by people pulling in and out of parking spots when
someone is driving down the road or pedestrians being hit after exiting their vehicle.
. Said the complex at the end of Franco Court was 96 individually owned units.
Steve Piasecki:
. There is a mini storage that wraps around which was intentional to provide a noise buffer for
the Celeste Circle condominiums.
. The street has to work; it is not a function of making it less safe or the trucks can no longer
negotiate it. Truck templates will be put on it and analyzed before street parking is put in.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
. Said there was no citywide noticing on the project.
. In the summer of 2005, he met with individuals working over the General Plan for Cupertino;
the study agreed there should be a conceptual plan for the Homestead home area. However,
once again the developers are beating us to the punch coming up with something before we
have a plan for it.
. Expressed concern that the proposal would not tie together well with the proposed actions for
the other side of Stelling. Once again there was no Planning Commission study on this to see
how we are going to tie it all together. It is very ad-hoc; can't we meet the General Plan? This
development should meet the General Plan spirit and the letter of the law with no exceptions.
. The school district says they are in charge but everything that is built is generating students as
illustrated by the presence of bikes on the balconies. There should be a rational way of
coming up with the studies.
Patty Chi, Cupertino resident and President of The CARE (Cupertino Against Rezoning):
. Said they met with the developers in April and told them they did not like the setback which
was too close to the streets and does not meet the General Plan. They also expressed concern
that the 117 units was too dense.
. Does not endorse the project.
Com. Miller:
. Speaker Norm Hackford commented on how useful small parks were.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
June 12,2007
. He commented that he rarely saw anyone using the Sandra James Park across the street; and
said it ifit too small to be of value, perhaps it could be incorporated into the project and be put
to better use. He asked for staffs comment.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said one of the principles they advocated was that parks are more than just people running
through green spaces; they are visible elements of the community, and ideally one should turn
corners and see green just about everywhere. There are no facilities in this area, and they want
to open up the community.
. I think it is absolutely essential to this project. If you bury it in the center it becomes the
province of this one project and no one else gets to enjoy it. The Celeste Circle residents could
make great use of this facility.
. Said that the conversion of the units to condos was highly unlikely. The city's condominium
conversion ordinance requires a minimum 5% vacancy rate citywide before conversions are
permitted. In the past ten years only one application scarcely made got by the 5% rule. He
said the units do not lend themselves to converting as other projects have.
Com. Wong:
. The city does not have any jurisdiction over the school district. As we increase our housing
stock the school district has to re-appropriate the students so all the students are balanced.
Garden Gate is a high performing school.
Steve Piasecki:
. The school district has strict policies about re-assigning students and they typically do not do
that for existing students and existing programs. The district is the best in the state in spite of
the growth we have had, the assigning and the portables.
. Said he was confident about the school district, and they could always be questioned. We are
confident that with this project and the predominance of one bedroom unit and the study we
have done and the responses we have gotten that this is a minimum impact. We do not have
control over what the district might do; they have a good track record. I cannot offer anymore
comfort than that as they are a separ~te entity.
Chair Giefer:
. Said that the residents of Celeste Circle will continue to go to Garden Gate School as long as
they live on that street. The "new additional residents" would be redirected, such as infill
projects.
Com. Wong:
. Since Villa Circle is an infill project, half the current residents will be going to Garden Gate
and the other half that are infill would be redirected. There is a possibility where you have 505
units, half will be going to elementary at Nimitz and the other half at Garden Gate.
. He expressed concern that there would not be a sense of community where there is a
neighborhood where the kids go to two separate school districts. Stressed how they could
collaborate more with the school districts so they would not have an infill development project
where the students are being split up and going to two different elementary schools.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said there is a bigger concern where we don't want to have impacted schools as well. We are
balancing two competing goods. What we understood from some of the earlier student
generation studies is actually that the greater population is not occurring in Cupertino but to
the north in Sunnyvale where they are approving higher density developments. This is a fairly
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
June 12,2007
low density suburban apartment product that they are proposing in here, and it pretty much
does it. They are putting investment in, very similar to Biltmore, which is an attractive project
today. They added 24 units in that development, which is the same kind of product that they
are proposing here.
Com. Wong:
. In view of the fact that we don't control the school districts but this question comes up, is there
a possibility of having a discussion with the district to ask them do you have a policy and what
is that policy?
Steve Piasecki:
. Said they were likely speculating on what they think the school district will say; and it is
appropriate to ask the school district.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Relative to the park and traffic operation centers (TOe), what is the city's plan and backup
plan if and when it cannot locate a site for the TOe.
Steve Piasecki:
. We get a smaller park, still which has a high visibility on the corner, will be well designed and
publicly accessible, but will end up with a smaller facility. Now, the attempt of the wording of
the condition was that this applicant would still be on the hook for some time so we could
continue the search for an appropriate relocation for that facility and they would then be
required to come in and make the enhancements and tie the additional space. If we are
successful. That is the best we can do, there are some reasons why this facility has worked so
well for us, and it hard to find 10,000 square feet anywhere in this town.
Glen Goepfert:
. Would they meet the ordinance requirements for the amount of public recreation space they
need to provide?
Steve Piasecki:
. For the new portion, they are close to meeting that, but would have to do the calculation again.
But it is the best they can do, unless they tear down existing units or eliminate some of the new
units. I think eliminating some of the parking spaces does help a little bit and widens the park
a little. Weare going to need to get creative about what to do in front of The Grove if we are
going to meet the setback requirements. I think there are some alternatives we haven't looked
at yet with them.
Com. Wong:
. Because it seems that the applicant would like a decision tonight. And I am just curious that
can we give them enough guidance that everything is pushed back or is it better to have a
second meeting?
Steve Piasecki:
. That is your call, but I think that this little piece is fairly small in the context of everything
else, and if you said meet the requirement for the 20 foot setback provide an attractive
streetscape, and come back to the design review committee with a solution and/or identify one
measure and go to the Council.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
June 12,2007
Com. Wong:
. That is one of the variants that the applicant requesting with the setback and the other
exception is the parking. It seems like the only way to resolve that is the reduction of units.
Steve Piasecki:
. If you want to be literal about the parking ordinance requirement, you would have to take out
units to be literal. The parking ordinance allows applicants to provide parking studies to
demonstrate the actual because it varies. In this case, the one bedroom units are not going to
demand as many spaces as a three bedroom unit, or two bedroom units. They have done that
study and if there is something you do not believe about it you could question that, find out,
investigate a bit more. I am very confident that they will not have a parking problem from this
proj ect.
Vice Chair Chien:
. One of the conditions states that the applicant shall provide up to $550,000 to fund the
relocation of the TOe. He asked Public Works if they agreed, disagreed or did not have
enough information to comment on that figure.
Glen Goepfert:
. Said he did not have sufficient information to comment on the number. The Community
Development Director may want to leave this condition in order to maximize the chance that
this might be able to happen. We have no objection to that but I want to make sure that the
TOC is considered a project to be moved that it be fully funded; that there be a real chance that
we have a spot and that we have it fully improved to the same degree that it is here. My guess
is that $500,000 is not enough to do the whole job because that includes acquiring a new
equivalent site and putting all the infrastructure in. We do not object to keeping this alive just
in case there is a possibility that this could happen.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said he appreciated the Prometheus Group coming forward, taking a risk and trying to
maximize their investment property. He said he had difficulty getting over the fact that the
Commission was being asked to replace a city location for housing. As a Commission they are
asked to vote on projects based on its merits and its impacts and how those impacts are
mitigated. The Commission is being asked to relocate a city facility with no mitigation
measures at all. Public Works has testified that they do not feel there are sufficient funds to
cover a replacement location and everyone has agreed they do not have a location yet.
. Said he was not willing to trade a critical city facility for housing just as he would not trade a
police or fire station for housing.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said there was a need for higher density housing in Cupertino. It is an unpopular view and
adding housing in this area is going to have some traffic impact. However, if we do not have
housing in our city, people will be commuting from other areas into our city and you will still
have traffic impacts.
. For Homestead Road, he said he did not see any reason why they should not be able to
maintain the setbacks required on the front and on the sides. He said he could accept a
variance on Stelling with the provision to make the changes discussed, taking a lane out on
Stelling Road to create the impression of a 20 or 30 foot setback. He said he did not object to
a variance along 280.
. I think we need to take a hard look at Franco Court because it sounds like there are some real
issues since that is the only route out of the property. I am not convinced that the public park
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
June 12,2007
is going to need its own parking. When I see parks this small they tend be very local and by
the people walking distance from the park. I think if you put a play structure there so children
can play there then both apartment residents and possibly residents from Villa Serra will go
there and be able to walk there. I support the project.
Com. Miller:
. Said he felt David Johnson's comments were appropriate for the park, and he felt that people
were not going to come from driving distances to go to the small park; having parking specific
for the park is not necessary.
. Relative to parking, using the applicant's ratio, he said it is roughly 1.5 residents per unit;
working out the numbers for the entire project is 757 people for a complex with 505 units and
roughly 130 children and they are not going to be driving cars. It just seems like 909 spaces
that would leave 151 left over for guests; the parking should work. It also makes sense that it
is in the economic interest of the developer to make sure the parking works or he would be
devaluing his property.
. Said he agreed that they could possibly eliminate the parking on Franco and eliminate some of
the concerns of the neighbors.
. There is a modest increase in density here; the proposal is 20 units per acre; it is consistent
with the area and it is not an over increase in density. There are not a lot of vacancies in town
and this town does need some rental units. Here is a developer who is coming in for the first
time in quite a few years and is willing to do rental units, which is a welcome addition to our
housing mix.
. Said he was concerned about the setbacks but could work through that and make sure there are
proper setbacks on Homestead and there is a way to generate a proper setback on Stelling.
. Said that he was in favor of this project.
Com. Wong:
. Said he felt Prometheus did a good job in designing the infill project. The developer has the
right to build on the property, and it is important to follow the General Plan and the ordinance.
. Agreed with Corns. Kaneda and Miller that the parking spaces on Franco Court do not belong
there and should be eliminated; feels the 20 foot setback on Stelling and Homestead Road
should be abided by.
. Said that he is a strong advocate of parking and felt they should follow the parking ordinance.
. In order to support the project, it has to be 2.0 within the project and it cannot count Franco
Court.
. Said he understood Vice Chair Chien's concern if they could not find another space it will not
happen regarding relocation of the TOC; he would like to make the park bigger if there is an
opportunity to do so.
. Economics of the project need to be viable and I understand that too. If he follows the
ordinance and the General Plan with the exception on the south side of the property and 280,
190 feet is really not realistic and I think as long as we get the 20 foot setback I am fine with
giving that particular setback. The 2.0 is very important to me.
Chair Giefer:
. Before I make my comments I have a question for staff. We mayor may not be covering the
cost for moving the TOC to another area within the city. If it exceeds the $500,000 the
developer is putting towards that, where would the funds come from?
Steve Piasecki:
. Said the only source was the city.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
June 12,2007
. There is a couple other ways of looking at that and maybe we will ask the applicant to look at
that before this goes on to council. One would be if he does qualify for a park dedication
credit that the credit be utilized to help relocate the TOe. You could rationalize that there is a
current deficit of parks in the area and the city has a responsibility to assist in providing more
park space. If the other project on Stelling is approved they would also have to contribute to
the park fund. Those monies would have to help in relocating the TOe. There are a number
of options. I think Glen is probably correct when you start looking at fiber optics and 10,000
square feet of land,etc it can be very expensive. That has been the problem from day one.
Chair Giefer:
. Said in addition toher colleagues' comments, she was concerned about the discrepancy in the
tree report, and was troubled that many of the trees that the city arborist identified are not on
the civil plans or any other plans. It is a significant amount of trees and she was concerned
about what else they did not know. With the regards to green building, during the ERC the
applicant said they would come back with green building on the plans seen.
. I am not seeing that either. I think we need to increase the amount of housing and I think it is
a low enough density project that it would make sense for that area. I would lean towards
continuing the item until we can have a few details tightened up. One being the parking, to see
if we can come up with some additional parking places.
. Said she wanted a firm commitment minimally with regards to implementing more green
building. The setbacks sound like it is problematic for most of the Planning Commission. The
public was uncomfortable with the potential school redirection that might affect them.
. I think if we can get some firmer policy information from the school district that would be
helpful. I would like to continue the project until we can resolve some of the outstanding
issues; specifically how they will meet the parking demand within the complex and improve
that.
. Said she would support parallel parking or the elimination of parking on Franco. The other
thing was the combination into a single parcel but it does not seem like that was a reoccurring
theme with the commissioners for the amenities within the complex so at a later time it was
split and sold off they would both have equal access.
. Do not have a full understanding of the relocation of the TOC. We will not be providing the
full value of the park to the residents at this project or the adjacent projects until we resolve
that. Any further information on that we might get on that I think would be good. I would like
to see the project continued until our next meeting or the next possible date to bring it back.
David Johnson:
. Said he preferred a decision, but if one cannot be reached based on the data available, delaying
it to the next meeting was acceptable.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Why would we support the narrowing of a public right of way?
Com. Wong:
. My concern is that Stelling is mainly our north/south artery and we don't have a public access
over Mary Avenue over the freeway. That was made loud and clear in that neighborhood that
they don't want it to have vehicles over there, and I think that I have a concern regarding
safety on Stelling Road, that if we narrow down the street, and as folks are coming north from
Cupertino toward Sunnyvale, they tend to speed up to the two lane road. When you make a
left turn coming out of the shopping center, we make a left turn coming out, McDonalds and
the bowling alley are making a left turn coming out of Villa Serra, you have to cross over two
lanes of traffic, and then the folks coming from Sunnyvale there is also two lanes of traffic as
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
June 12,2007
well; if you narrow that corridor to two lanes, you only have to deal with two lanes of traffic
vs. four lanes of traffic, and it is mainly a safety factor of narrowing those roads.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said he appreciated the response, but needed to see data to substantiate the argument. He said
he supported not taking public right of way for private interest.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she was concerned for the bicyclists and how to accommodate a bike path at that point,
because that is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Com. Wong:
. Said he strongly believed in bicycle lanes and would trust Public Works to ensure when it is
narrowed, there is the full length of that bike lane.
. Relative to Franco Court, said he felt there was enough support to eliminate parking on Franco
Court, with the main concern being parking.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said he did not have a strong feeling that it had to be 2.0; however, would like to see the green
features nailed down. Also would like to find out what the discrepancy with the trees is.
Chair Giefer:
. Relative to parking, said she was not opposed to them meeting less than a 2.0 parking ratio;
three Commissioners agree that they did not need to see the parking ratio of 2.0 on this project
because the applicant had provided enough information.
. Said what they could answer tonight is where are the trees that are missing from the plans;
what are those additional trees that will need to be removed for the project to move forward?
Com. Miller:
. The ordinance states that they are allowed to substitute a study for the 2.0 and they have done
that. The calculations indicate they do not need it.
Chair Giefer:
. Summarized that they were good on parking in terms of the project, allowing them to be
under-parked because they have satisfied that; so I will get the tree list out and we can bring
the arborist up and he can show us where all 90 trees are missing from the plan now.
Com. Miller:
. Asked Com. Wong, ifhe can't get the 2.0, was he not in favor of moving ahead on the project.
Com. Wong:
. Said if he looked at the five things we have to prove, I think the actual site approval can be
approved tonight; the variance can be approved tonight; there are enough votes on the
exception; we are going to go over the arborist report now and the environmental report, I am
sure there is support; on four of the five there is already support to pass it.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she did not feel it was an appropriate use of Commissioners' time to review 90 trees
individually.
. Said she was concerned that there was an inconsistency in the plans presented.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
June 12,2007
Com. Wong:
. Said he wanted to ensure that each applicant feels they are adequately serviced by the Planning
Commission and city staff; and decisions would be made in a timely manner.
John McLenihan, Project Arborist:
. Said he received a copy of the city arborist's report which used his report for the tree numbers.
He said the city arborist had a problem because there were 90 trees that were not on the civil or
landscape plan;
. I just quickly looked at things and four of them he has listed in other areas to be removed
because they are in poor condition; in looking at the plan quickly when you were talking about
it, it looks like I am guessing most of the 90 trees are not in the area of the improvements and I
would have to go through the plans more thoroughly and I apologize for not having the time to
do so in the last week. They were not likely included in the civil plans because they were not
in the areas being developed. I don't know that anyone wants to go through them individually,
I can give you their location, if you want to go through them individually in relation to the
building numbers; I could do that if you want. I don't think anyone was trying to pull the wool
over your eyes, I am guessing they didn't include them because they weren't in the areas that
they were developing. I don't know if that was the city arborist's concern or not.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked how to rectify the differences between the two reports.
John McLenihan:
. There really isn't a difference between my report and his because all of the trees in his report
were taken from my report. There are additional trees 352 to 356 which were added, which are
street trees along Homestead Road; three Australian Willows and two Evergreen Pears. They
are not in good condition but as long as there are not driveways between the trees, there
shouldn't be any impact because they have to keep a sidewalk open during construction.
. Explained that on the projects either he or the civil engineer goes through and tags all the trees
and plots them. In this case we started this project in 2002 and then followed up again in
January and I don't think that the civil plans were done, so I tagged all the trees. They went
through and showed all the improvements and not all the trees I tagged didn't showed up in the
areas of improvements. What I am hoping for that we can verify is that we will find those
trees are not in the area of construction.
. Said that there is a drawing which shows the tree locations. If they are not numbered on there,
you can see canopy lines but no numbers; there are quite a few canopy lines on the sheet L2.
One of the other problems with this site is they have got 96 trees to remove and at least since
2002, there are about 147 of them that are not in good shape; they may still try to preserve
them. There are a few that could be relocated, particularly the Olives. He said he agreed with.
the city arborist about relocating those trees.
. The main reason for the proposal to remove the 96 trees is because the trees are either in the
footprint of the building or because they are in poor health.
Aki Snelling:
. The city arborist was comparing the civil drawings to the tree removal plan in the proposed
landscape plan, and that is where he found the inconsistencies, is that some of the trees that
were listed in the city arborist's tree survey either were not included on the civil plans or were
showing some inconsistencies on location.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
June 12,2007
. There were some trees shown in the path of the building that were shown to be approved in
one plan, but on the civil plan shown to be removed, or vice versa, there were some
inconsistencies.
Com. Wong:
. Asked if the applicant could come back in two weeks to address the inconsistencies.
John McLenihan:
. Said yes, as long as we have the plan that has the tree numbers on it.
Chair Giefer:
. The other question, if we postpone it to the next meeting, is there is also discrepancy in your
recommendation and his recommendation on trees to be moved where he is suggesting just
replacing them because it is his opinion that it wouldn't move; or if you would like to give
your opInIOn now.
John McLenihan:
. Said he did not recall if he rendered an opinion on that. They decided at the landscape
planning level with the landscape architect that they would try to relocate those trees to make
the project look more favorable to the Planning Commission. They would spend a large
amount of money moving that many trees; a lot of them are Chinese Elms in the neighborhood
of 14 inches in diameter and I would agree with the city arborist that it is more practical to
plant new trees and establish a long term canopy over the complex, so we are looking 10 to 30
years down the road as opposed to having a bunch of trees that are over-mature or on the
downside of their life cycle. I agree with him on that; I think that that issue is in the landscape
plan where they became trees to be relocated.
John McLenihan:
. The Palms would likely survive effortlessly and the Olives would likely relocate very well.
One ofthem is not in the best of health but Olive trees are forgiving when you move them.
Com. Wong:
. Relative to reviewing the 90 trees individually, he said he was comfortable with letting them
do the report, giving it to staff and forwarding it to City Council because staff can make that
recommendation if there were some discrepancies that can be handled at the staff level to the
City Council.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said it could be done with direction from the Planning Commission; verify the discrepancy,
ensure that it is not wholesale removal of trees and report to the City Council at the July 3rd
meeting.
Com. Miller:
. Noted that the remaining issue was green building.
Steve Piasecki :
. Suggested that the best method was to review their list and identify by number those that are
reasonably clear and those that are not. The goal is to see a higher level of specificity and set a
standard; the minimum requirement for instance being solar for the pool. If you wanted to ask
them to identify recycled materials for any of the siding that will be removed, and if they can
recycle any of that.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
June 12,2007
Chair Giefer:
. Reviewed the proposed green building practices list provided by the applicant. The first one to
provide public amenities such as open space does not need to belabored; Design an easy ped
bike and transit access - not necessary to discuss; Limit site impacts, balance, cut and fill,
preserve existing vegetation - that is part of the construction requirement currently. Use
native plants that are drought resistant; Maximize on store stormwater management through
landscaping and permeable pavement; what percent of the surfaces are permeable vs.
impervious? (Staffresponse: we don't know, and they will have to meet the standards). Do
we want to specify a percent of paving material, which we have in the past.
Com. Wong:
. Does it look like the new pavement, it looks like it has some decorative materials and I wonder
if those decorative materials are of that surface.
John McLenihan:
. Said they broke down the paving area and landscape area; we have 300,000 square feet of
paving and 511,000 square feet of landscape area, so compared to our typical project I would
say this is much more green.in terms of permeable. There will be a lot more stormwater
retention just by the nature of those numbers that we normally see.
. Said that there are some pavers which could be permeable and illustrated on the plan the areas
that could be permeable.
. Relative to recycling, he said they were working on recycling and trash enclosures, added
toters and cardboard recycling dumpsters, and said that the number of pickups would be the
final factor in determining whether they met the requirements, but it hasn't been finalized yet.
Chair Giefer continued review of green building practices:
. High efficiency irrigation systems - that could come back on the landscape plan. Adequate
space for storing and handling recyclables - did you add additional recycling near the units; it
was discussed in the ERe.
. That is one of the conditions on the project as I recall.
. Use spacing sizes and modular dimensions that mInImIZe lumber use and optimize
performance. How do we quantify that one or do we want to approach that one.
Applicant:
. We have an incentive to go ahead and do that; our framing subcontractor would have an
incentive to go ahead and minimize any waste of lumber. I am not certain which
subcontractors would not have an incentive to do that; we are on board with that and not sure
how we would define it. It is vague, but would be hard pressed to believe that any contractor
would want to throwaway more lumber than they would need to because they would lose
money by doing so.
Chair Giefer continued review of green building practices:
. Use oriented strand board; thumbs up on that one.
. Durable roofing materials; what is the roofing material you are recommending on the project.
Applicant:
. Composition shingle; the existing buildings are presently being reroofed, but we would use
the same material. Life of product is likely 30 years.
. Using sustainable siding material - we would use combination of cement plaster and cement
fiber product which has a good green certification.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
June 12,2007
Chair Giefer:
. The shading on the bullet point No. 23; provide shading on east west and south windows,
overhangings, awnings or deciduous trees - asked staff if that is fulfilled in the plans.
Aki Snelling:
. Said that staff had not completely reviewed the green building standards list.
Com. Kaneda:
. I am not sure how effective east and west would be.
Steve Piasecki :
. You could ask that it be included in the landscape plans or demonstrate to DRC that they try to
optimize that; eliminate east and west.
Chair Giefer:
. Agreed with Com. Kaneda that it is specifically on the south side.
Applicant:
. The existing buildings have excellent overhangs, which were repeated on our buildings. Said
he thought the bullet point refers to not just trees but overhangs on the buildings themselves
and they felt it was appropriate for this environment.
Chair Giefer:
. Suggested that the top selections be chosen from the list to expedite the discussion. Key ones
are:: Do you plan on insulating both your hot and cold water pipes throughout the project, or
are you willing to commit to doing that. (No. 19)
Applicant: Yes
Chair Giefer:
. 17 and 18 are standard; ask that they do that.
Chair Giefer:
. What type of lighting are you going to be using within the unit.
Applicant:
. Title 24 requires landscape lighting to be either low voltage or fluorescent and inside the unit,
the new Title 24 requires fluorescent in the baths and kitchens. The fixtures in the community
room will be either fluorescent or low voltage. Occupancy sensors do not typically apply to
residential projects. Use of Energy Star appliances has not been evaluated yet.
Chair Giefer:
. If you are updating the entire complex as well as your new units, you need to do that because
that is a significant amount of energy; if you are refurbishing the older units as an example and
not using Energy Star appliances, they are going to be pulling a lot of energy.
. Asked ifhe had any issues with formaldehyde free and other types of insulation.
Applicant:
. Said they were considering using hydronic systems.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
June 12,2007
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue Item 4 for two
weeks. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Giefer declared a recess.
5. U-2007-03, ASA-2007-05,
TM-2007-08, TR-2007-03,
EXC-2007-08 (EA-2007-02)
Clifford Chang
10100 No. Tantau
Use Permit and Architectural Site Review to construct a
10,650 square foot retail building and one level parking
garage on an existing office site. Tentative Map to
subdivide an existing 9.4 acre site into two parcels,
approximately .9 and 8.4 acres respectively. Tree
removal and replanting in conjunction with a proposed
10,650 square foot retail building and a one-level
parking garage at an existing office site. Exception to
the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a front setback.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Tentative City Council date: July 3,2007
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval to construct a one
story retail building and one-level parking garage on an existing office site; exception to the
Heart of the City Specific Plan for a front yard setback; tentative map to subdivide a 9.4 acre
site into two parcels, approximately 1 acre and 8.4 acres respectively; and tree removal permit
for tree removal and replanting in conjunction with a proposed retail building and one-level
parking garage on an existing office site, as outlined in the staff report.
. She reviewed the project description, site layout, architectural design, Heart of the City
Specific Plan Setback Exception, Tentative Map, tree removal/landscape plan, tree
replacements, and sidewalks, as detailed in the staff report.
. Relative to the landscape plan of the retail building area, staff recommends that the plaza area
be enhanced more by extending the plaza out to the public right of way along the
Tantau/Stevens Creek right of ways to allow four more pedestrian enhancements and visibility
for use of that area.
. Staff also recommends that instead of using the brushed or stamped concrete for the plaza
area, to incorporate interlocking pavers that would allow for some permeability from that area.
. She reported that the applicant indicated today that the tree plan shown had indicated that a
number of trees along Stevens Creek and North Tantau Avenue would be removed as a result
of the new building. However, since they have updated their plan, originally they had less
setback than presently proposing, and with the plan with the 32 foot setback, they are able to
retain the trees labeled Nos. 83, 84, a, b, and trees 88 through 92 which are the Ash trees along
Stevens Creek and Tantau Avenue that are back behind the sidewalk. The ability to maintain
the two rows of trees with the sidewalk in between will still be maintained per the Heart of the
City Plan.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the use permit, the architectural site approval, tentative map, Heart of the City exception, and
tree removal permits based on the model resolutions including staffs recommended changes.
Com. Wong:
. Expressed concern that problems may occur similar to those with the Panera Breads and Peets
Coffee relative to ingress/egress easements and reciprocal parking, if the property was sold to
another property owner in the future.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
June 12, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that there is reciprocal ingress/egress and parking for both sites over the entire site; and
unlike Panera Breads which carved out its own parking areas, it would be reciprocal
throughout. He said that the applicant can address whether they would be posting signs during
certain hours to restrict parking.
Aki Snelling answered Commissioners' questions:
. Clarified that the Heart of the City exception requires a 35 foot setback for the building; the
applicant is requesting to go down to 32 foot setback. Staff indicated that the majority of the
setback exceeds that by averaging.
. Relative to spandrel glass, the city architect looked at the plans and spandrel glass proposed
along the top and bottom part of the clear vision glass, the middle portion being the clear
vision storefront glass; the bottom band of glass would be spandrel, the top glass would be
spandrel. The city architect felt it would be best to maximize the storefront clear vision
window by requesting that the top span be clear vision glass as well rather than spandrel, since
spandrel is non-visible glass.
. Said that the correct number of trees to be removed was 54 rather than 63 since 9 trees can be
saved behind the back of the sidewalk.
John Zai, Sanyo Property Company, San Mateo:
. Reviewed the history of the project site located on the northeast corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and No. Tantau Avenue. Currently the site consists of a two story office complex.
The proposal is to construct a new one-story retail commercial building on the northeast corner
of Stevens Creek Boulevard and No. Tantau Avenue in front of the existing two-story office
complex, and a new one-level, 94 space parking garage at the rear of the site. Potential tenants
of the new complex may include a coffee shop, sandwich shop, Fed Express/Kinko's type
business, a bank or financial outlet, and similar businesses to accommodate about 1,800 to
2,000 square foot spaces.
Clifford Chang, Project Architect:
. Reviewed the project design which included outdoor patio spaces, and a link to the existing
office building. He said the proposal was to utilize a combination of pavers and decomposed
granite for the patio areas. He illustrated the location of the trees that would be retained, color
palette and finishes for the structure, and reviewed the various design features of the project.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Expressed concern that there was no public noticing in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood
regarding the proposed project. She said that some neighborhood homes on Judy Avenue,
approximately 500 feet in, directly across the street, received notification of the project.
Rancho Rinconada neighborhood is a large dynamic neighborhood who is getting a park on
the Lawrence Expressway border that is full of trees, and to have such a project on the border
of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood was an insult to the neighborhood at the east end.
. She commended the new owner for allowing the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood to retain the
two rows of street trees as they are a hallmark of the area and she felt the mature trees were
beautiful and that every part of Cupertino should reflect the same beauty. To have the
potential to be cut down or manhandled in any way is an insult to the neighborhoods of the
east end. The neighborhood has had to look at the empty lots of the HP properties, the
unattractive Loree Center for many years.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
June 12,2007
. She suggested that the application be continued to allow for citywide noticing of the proposed
project.
. She also expressed disappointment at the apparent mishandling of the arborist report on the
previous application, Item 4 of the agenda.
Aki Snelling:
. Reported that the project was noticed 1,000 feet, which IS greater than the normal
requirements.
Steve Piasecki:
. Clarified that the noticing occurred for 1,000 feet, which is a radius of 1,000 feet, resulting in
almost one-half mile in the diameter of the noticing. He said it was extensive noticing carried
out and he did not agree with the speaker's comment that there was no public noticing for the
project.
. He said the reason for the 1,000 foot noticing was that the project did not abut a residential
neighborhood, and the goal was to ensure that the nearby abutting neighborhoods received the
notice. He said it was 10,000 square foot building, and staff wanted to ensure the immediate
neighborhood was noticed.
Meta Christenson, Judy Avenue:
. Said she received notice ofthe proposed project.
. Said that she was pleased that there was activity at the other end of the city, since the only
attractive thing in that end of the city was the rows of trees and the office buildings behind
those trees. She said the Loree Center was at the entrance to Cupertino and was an
unattractive site.
. She commented that saving the trees was a positive action and the project would provide
another area of neighborhood places to go. She said she hoped that another Starbucks Coffee
house would not be one of the businesses as it would negatively affect the neighborhood
coffee house. She asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the continued
success of the businesses that have been in the area for many years.
. She suggested that some of the trees which are scheduled to be cut down, be moved to the
other side of the street, to beautify the street.
D.Lum:
. Said he was originally going to comment on the setbacks and was pleased the plans were
revised. He said it would be an asset to the city.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Chair Giefer:
. Relative to the new tree ordinance before the City Council and the in-lieu fees, asked if the
city could theoretically go to a landlord such as the Loree Shopping Center and ask them if
they would be willing to plant some trees from the city's tree waiver budget.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said it would be true in theory for street trees, but along with the trees you need irrigation and
you need to tear up some space and you impact walkway areas. He said he was not certain if
the Loree Center has dedicated sufficient room for that to be possible.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
June 12, 2007
Com. Kaneda:
. Said he supported the project and was pleased that they were saving the trees.
. Expressed concern that they were infringing on a couple of feet and he did not support making
exceptions to the guidelines because it may start going on a slippery slope.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Supports the project; it is well designed and will fit into the environment.
. Said with respect to the exception, the exception is not the actual building itself but are the
features and itself and he also supported that.
Com. Wong:
. Supports the project.
Com. Miller:
. Said he supported the project. He noted that the average setback is close to 46 feet, and as
Vice Chair Chien pointed out, the infringement is very small and will be appreciated as more
articulation to the building.
. Said the Loree Center is private ownership, and the current owner is making a lot of money
just the way it is, and as long as that situation continues, the property will not be redeveloped.
Several city officials have tried in the past to do that but have not been successful.
Chair Giefer:
. Said the applicants expressed a preference for a concrete type of decomposed granite and the
plan currently has pavers. Can we make that a flexible detail for them to work out with staff.
Staff responded that it could be done.
. Said she was pleased that the applicant saved the street trees on Stevens Creek and Tantau
because it was a concern; it is important to save the vista along Stevens Creek.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the application with
modification to trees 83,84,88,89,91 and 92 as discussed. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Com. Miller:
. Said he liked the concept of complementing the office building with retail on the street. They
have discussed the concept in the North Vallco area and this affirms the fact that it is a good
thing to do and the Marketplace will support it.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held.
Housine: Commission: No meeting held.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetine: With Commissioners: Meeting scheduled for June 13,2007.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting held.
Communitv Development Director's Report:
. Reported that Kiersa Witt was on maternity leave; Retiree Nancy Czocek will be filling in for
Kiersa Witt during her absence.
. Discussed three articles distributed to Commissioners.