PC 06-26-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
5:45 P.M. June 26, 2007 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Study Session of Planning Commission of June 26, 2007, was called to order at ~ 5:45
p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by
Commissioner Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO mE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
David Kaneda
Marty Miller
Gilbert Wong (Acting Chair for Study Session)
Commissioners Absent: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer (arrived approximately 8 p.m.)
Vice Chairperson: Cary Chien (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Senior Planner: Gary Chao
Assistant Planner Piu Ghosh
Public Works: Glen Goepfert
STUDY SESSION
1. Global Green Sustainability Project - Draft Report.
Pin Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
. Stated that the 2007 Work Program approved by the Planning Commission and City Council
included implementation of the sustainability policies in the General Plan.
. The implementation of the sustainability policies has been divided into two phases; the fIrst
phase, a summary analysis of the currently existing efforts of the city related to green building
and sustainable development has been prepared which provides direction for the second phase.
. The consultants from Global Green will present an update on their progress on the project.
Walker Wells, Global Green USA, Consultant:
. Said their presentation would include a summary of the analysis they had been working on for
the last three months related to the topic of sustainability. The study has included the City's
General Plan, goals, policies, programs, and ordinances and an analysis of those based on some
of the elements of sustainability and the one of the most commonly used green building
programs.
. Said that the project was a result of direction from the City Council and Planning Commission
for the City to move forward at a faster rate in terms of implementing the sustainable policies
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
June 26, 2007
in the General Plan. The purpose of the analysis is to provide an inventory of what is
happening in the city to identify that degree of implementation, and to provide some judgment
in terms of how Cupertino is doing relative to the two topics. Sustainable city programs and
green building programs were the areas studied and a background on each was provided at the
previous study session.
. Sustainability fosters new synergies among city programs and the public in an effort to link
environmental responsibility, social equity and economic stability.
. Green building is the umbrella that includes a number of issues including energy effIciency,
water efficiency, recycled material.use, healthy indoor air quality, and land use that cities are
implementing or operating programs around. Green building and green building programs can
be a way to tie together different activities that the city may already have underway and
identify any gaps that may need to be fIlled.
. The dominant green building program and one used for the analysis is LEED (the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design). He said there were a
number of LEED rating systems and they used the LEED system for new construction as it is
the most tested of the LEED rating systems.
Monica Gillcrest, Global Green USA, Consultants:
. Said the study was broad based in order to include what is currently happening; the focus being
on the goals and policies, and looking at the intent of what the city wants to achieve and things
that back it up. Included in the study were the General Plan update from.2005, the Municipal
Code, web site information, handouts, the Cupertino Scene and interviews with city staff to fInd
out what happens in practice as well. The General Plan clearly delineates guiding principles
that helped defIne what the intent is for the City of Cupertino when looking across the board at
where the City wants to be headed. The policies primarily came out of the General Plan.
. She said the main focus was on Section 5 (Environmental Resources and Sustainability) of the
General Plan, as it is where the City has spent its time defming where it wants to go in terms of
environmental resources and painting its own picture of the future of sustainability in
Cupertino. She reviewed Table 1, General Plan Policies Related to Sustainability, outlined in
the draft report, Pages 9 and 10.
. She reviewed the environmental programs that the City administers, input from the City staff
interviews which are included in the draft report, Pages 7 and 8; and Appendix BLEED NC
Rating System Analysis. She said that in the City of Cupertino there are a number of policies
on the books that support sustainable sites and are consistent with the LEED policies.
Cupertino is trending because a lot of focus has been spent on smart growth and new urbanism
and those types of principles.
Walker Wells:
. He said as mentioned in the earlier study session, there were two possible paths to follow; one
of a sustainable city program or the path of a green building program. Their analysis
concluded that if the City were to decide to pursue.a sustainable city program, they would need
to fIll out or augment what is there in the areas of economic and equity components of
sustainability. Currently most of what the city is doing in the way of sustainability is related to
the environment.
. Secondly, in the process of developing a sustainability program the next step revolves around
creating a metric to help determine if you are doing better or worse across that topic area.
While there may be goals, policies, and some ordinances in place for implementation, the next
step would be to assess the indicators in certain areas, such as how they are doing in protecting
heritage trees; are they doing well vs. just having a policy that says they want to preserve them.
If the city were to do this, it would be something the city would need to do it on its own. He
said there was some local support with many knowledgeable people; however no regional
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
June 26, 2007
entity to provide a lot of support on sustainability programs. Because it would be more
homegrown, they estimate it would take about 18 to 24 months to flush out the components,
develop the indicators, set priorities and get it up and running.
. Relative to green building, the main conclusion is that if you were to go down this path, it
would be consistent with what is already happening, which is a focus on the environmental
element of sustainability. It would be a very effective tool to further implement those
environmental goals. The next step to do that is to look at the trends of what is being built and
what is likely to be built in the City. If a program was put in place, it would target the right
type of development. There is a lot of regional support on the green building side, including
groups such as Build it Green that support public agencies in the Bay Area and also other parts
of California are putting in place and implementing programs. He said there were also
workshops on green building, as well as certifIcation programs.
. There appears to be more things to leverage on the green building side that are pre-existing
than there are on the sustainability side. He said if the decision is made to go forward with the
green building program, they could go through the next few steps and have the basic
framework of a program together in six to nine months.
. He referred to the issue of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and the impact it may
have on local governments and what local governments might be expected to do to respond to
AB32. He noted that there were speculations that Environmental Impact Reports may have to
include a section on global warming impacts on certain development projects. He said it
would be advantageous for Cupertino and put the City ahead of the pack in being prepared, to
be more specifIc in documenting the actions it is taking to benefIt the environment to reduce
energy, hence reducing carbon emissions.
. He said an example of an equity indicator. is percent of housing that is affordable to people
earning the average wage in the city. Others would be the level of educational achievement,
degree of literacy, and access to health care.
Com. Kaneda:
. Asked if there were cities that required sustainability for private sector, not government
organizations?
Walker Wells:
. Said there were some cities that have started requiring green building of private sector
development, including Santa Monica which requires that all development down to the single
family home meet about ten discreet, prescriptive criteria around sustainable building, green
building. They have their own ten requirements, not LEED or Point. For larger projects, they
are asking them to meet the intent of LEED, and document that they are not getting LEED
certifIed but are using the LEED criteria in the design of their project.
. Pasadena, Long Beach and the City of Los Angeles are not saying you have to get LEED
certifIed, as LEED certifIcation happens outside of your control, but are requiring that it be
shown that the developer is being serious about the LEED process by submitting a checklist
that LEED would approve.
. He said it would be important symbolically for Cupertino to adopt a policy for its own
buildings, whether it is for new construction or existing buildings. If you are looking at having
an environmental impact, you need to look at private sector development which is why one of
our next steps is this outreach process. It is to talk to the community that is building because
that is who we need to be engaged with.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said in his opinion the trend on the level of green or sustainability had changed over the years.
He said that fIve years ago there was little talk about it; three years ago there was a lot of buzz
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
June 26,2007
about it, but little getting done; and a year ago le&Ilt;ed silver was a major item, and now is
not big since platinum is major or zero energy buildings is the big thing.
Walker Wells:
. Said he felt the trend was occurring but happening among the relatively small slice of leading
edge builders, the top 20% to 25% targeted. He said with all the programs they are involved
in, they are trying to capture all buildings with some fundamental training, education, and
familiarization with the criteria that needs to happen. The high achievers may be achieving
higher, but there is still a need to lift everybody up to the same level.
. He pointed out that cities were becoming more sophisticated in how they set up their programs.
Cities such as Washington D.C. and San Francisco are taking the approach of creating
temporal markers as part of the program to measure progress over a period of time.
. Provided a comparison of the LEED for h~mes and Alameda County's rating system. He said
most of the criteria are the same; the main point of divergence is that the LEED for homes does
have a house size based criteria, 2400 square feet would put it at zero; a smaller home would
give more points; a larger home would require earning more in other parts of the rating system.
He noted that Green Points does not have that. Relative to administration, LEED asks for more
documentation, a more vigorous third party certifIcation whereas Green Points tries to be more
accessible to a broader pool of people. He added that it is not necessary to make a choice, it
can be said that one program will encourage the use of Green Point and then give you a certain
level of incentive if you get all the way to LEED or give an incentive for either one.
Walker Wells:
. Said that Energy Star homes are the foundation for almost every green building program in the
country .
The meeting was open for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that they prepare and implement Il green
building program. (Vote: 3-0-0; Chair Giefer and Vice Chair Chien absent)
Adiournment of Study Session: The study session was concluded and Vice Chair Chien
reconvened the meeting of the regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Regular Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. with the same
Planning Commissioners and staff present. Chairperson Lisa Giefer was absent and arrived later in
the meeting as noted below.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Plonning Commission minutes of June 12, 2007 Plonning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the June 12,2007
minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent)
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
June 26, 2007
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff noted receipt of a modifIed condition of approval for
the Villa Serra application.
POSTPONEMENTIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
. Vice Chair Chien requested that Item 4 be discussed fIrst since applications 2 and 3 are
housing development projects and it is important to have a full body present for those
applications to be heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
4. DIR-2006-17,Steve Cox
(HPC Architecture)
10100 No. Stelling Rd
Referral of a Director's Minor ModifIcation to a use
permit (I-U-73) to expand an existing pre-school
program for 54 to. 158 students at an existing church
(Abundant Life Assembly of God) Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a Director's minor modifIcation to an existing use permit of a
church property. The applicant is proposing to expand an existing preschool from 54 students
to 138 students; the project will not involve any outside modifIcations or additions. The project
is categorically exempt from CEQA.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the model
resolution.
. Answered questions relative to the Pang Engineering Report.
Steve Cox, Applicant:
. Explained that they were able to expand the facilities without new construction. They also
plan to do code upgrades for handicap accessibility on the existing facility.
Greg Wendschlag, Senior Pastor, Abundant Life Assembly of God Church:
. Said they were pleased with the service that the school offers the community and the hundreds
of children who have enjoyed the preschool education. He indicated that they notifIed all
residential. neighbors on Alves Drive and spoke with many others, and received favorable
feedback. They are working with one neighbor who expressed personal issues.
. He reported that the main bible study is on Wednesday night, starting at 7:00 p.m., preschool
closes at 6:00 p.m., therefore the preschool traffIc does not overlap with the bible study traffIc.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
DIR-2006-17. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent).
2. ASA-2007-03, TR-2007-02,
EXC-2007-06, V-2007-02,
(EA-2007-02) Michael
Ducote, 20800 Homestead
Villa SerraJThe 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 Serraffhe 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
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
June 26, 2007
requirements; variance for front, rear and side. yard R3
(apartment) requirements. Continued from the June 12,
2007 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City
Council date: July 3, 2007.
Aki Honda Snelling, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application which was continued from the June 12, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting, at which time the Commission requested the applicant study the site plan to see if
there were ways to revise the site plan. The applicant submitted a reviewed plan which is
outlined in the staff report.
· The revised plan incorporates some reconfIguration of the site plan by switching some of the
building types around and changing some driveways on site to acco!lllllodate some comments
that the Commission recommended at the last meeting. As a result, the revised proposal is for
116 units as opposed to.117 units and they have eliminated the need for front and side yard set
back variances along Homestead Road and Stelling Road. The proposal now accommodates
889 parking spaces on site, which equates to about 1.78.parking spaces per unit.
. The applicant's responses to the Planning Commission comments on June 12 are contained in
the staff report.
· She said that widening the park area would bring the Franco Cul de Sac street to 32 feet from
40 feet. It would be taking 8 feet of public street road way space but creating city park public
space in its place.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the architectural and site approval
variance, parking exception and tree removal permit based on the model resolutions, with
staff s recommended changes and also to refer the application to the City Council for fInal
review and approval.
· Said that recommending referrals of the application to the City Council was typical of large
scale projects such as the 116 new apartment units. .
Steve Piasecki:
· Said that other factors were that there was a city facility involved, the relocation of the TOC,
the dedication of the public park and the question about who maintains how much of that.
They are all appropriate questions for the City Council and they should have the fmal say on it.
Com. Wong:
. Said there was no mention of the Stelling Bridge improvement, the $50K, and the next
application is going to have the same thing as well. He asked what the nexus was and how the
applicant felt about it and what staff was asking them to do as there was no proposal to indicate
what they were asked to do.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that the applicant would prefer to keep the money rather than fund the enhancements to
the bridge. The concept which is one that has been embraced by Council policy and in the
General Plan, is one of connectivity, trying to make connections between new development
and existing projects throughout the community.
. In this case, while there is Serra Park in Sunnyvale, the other park they might walk to or
schools they may go to are Garden Gate, although the new rentals would go north to Nimitz.
They may want to go to Garden Gate. to utilize the open space facilities or Memorial Park or
walk down to the Whole Foods site. The concept is that both projects on either should do
something to help with the connectivity and that is primarily aimed at providing some
pedestrian scaled lighting fIxtures over that. bridge. It would have to be fairly lightweight,
perhaps painting the present gun metal gray barricade to make it a more attractive pedestrian
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
June 26, 2007
walkway. The nexus is that they are generating more pedestrian activity with the projects and
a signifIcant part of that needs to go south to access facilities. It is important. to provide an
enhancement that is primarily going to benefIt the two projects.
Com. Wong:
. Regarding Franco Court, there was a great deal of discussion at the last public hearing that
there was a signifIcant amount of Commissioners as well as public who had concerns about not
having aity parking and leaving Franco Court alone. We are now encroaching 8 feet into a
public street and also putting in 13 spaces on that public street. He asked staff to comment.
Steve Piasecki:
. Staff feels it is important that streets serve the adjoining land uses and that on street parking can
be a very effective tool for slowing speeds and makirig it safer for children and the elderly. It
is done where it makes sense, especially where there is excessive curb to curb and excessive
right of way, which is the case. He said they did not need parking to serve Villa Serra because
the parking study indicates only 1.3 parking spaces per unit. It is the Commission's call and
not essential through this project that you have it, but in the interest of serving uses as opposed
to creating big wide streets that people speed down, staff feels it would be an asset to have.
Com. Wong:
. Expressed concern that if the ordinance called for 2.0, why not just have a parking survey for
each application that comes through, and not follow the ordinance.
Steve Piasecki:
. The ordinance states a default value of 2.0 and says you can do parking surveys. In this case,
there are apartment units and the new units are largely one bedroom which don't generate the
same levels that other projects generate. It provides a mechanism to be sensitive to what is
actually being proposed.
. He reiterated that it was the Commission's decision to make recommendations to the Council.
Staff does not feel it is appropriate to have 2.0 or 1.8, and you can get by with 1.4 or 1.5 and
would be more than comfortable.
Glen Goepfert, Public Works Department:
. Said Public Works would have a different take on that; they don't want overnight parking, in
which case the parking would be not as useful as excess parking for Villa Serra. As a fme
point, Public Works would prefer not to see the road narrowed at all by parking or by the curb
being moved out because there is a potential for conflict between the truck traffIc and the
constant flow of residential traffIc.
. He pointed out that there was now a prohibition on parking on the west side of the street which
was likely put there to keep truck traffic from parking there; part of the No Parking At Night
would be to prevent that type of traffic from being there.
. He said Public Works feels if they don't need the parking, and it seems from the traffic
consultant as well as the applicant's own information they have compiled, that not more than
1.4 or 1.5 parking spaces per unit is needed, and if no overnight parking is allowed, they did
not consider it parking for Villa Serra. He said Public Works prefers to keep the width status
quo; which is different from Community Development's opinion.
Com. Wong:
. Asked if the Stelling Bridge was in the Caltrans or City of Cupertino's Public Works
jurisdiction.
. He asked staff to comment on moving the TOC south.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
June 26, 2007
Glen Goepfert:
. Said that because it is a state bridge, Caltrans could affect what is being done, but generally
when a municipality is in favor of doing enhancements on a bridge within certain limits, they
see it as the city's project. He said he did not anticipate doing anything that would be a
problem to the highway.
. Said that the requirement was that any move of the TOC would be fully funded by the project;
all amenities would be there and all utilities would be replaced. Previously it was thought that
there would be a remote location where the cost could potentially be very high; and $500K
may not be enough. However, it appears that Community Development has a condition that
fulfIlls those requirements and by moving it to the south perhaps there could be a lower price.
I don't know what that is because what we are calling for the applicant to do is to dedicate an
additional piece of land which satisfIes and would give us an equivalent piece of land for the
TOC and is responsible for funding the total move; so we think it fulfIls those requirements in
that memo and we think that moving it to the south is fme.
. One of the conditions is if it exceeds $500K, it would not come out of the city's budget as a net
cost to the city; it would e funded completely by the developer.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said the issue is greening of the corner, thus fulfIlling Council policy that is in the General
Plan. A park is needed to do that and this is one way to have the park and TOC too, and it is
an expensive way to do it. He said it was a win/win for everyone, it meets the policy structure,
will green the community more and is less expensive than trying to relocate it.
Com. Wong:
. Asked staff to address the area for trash and recycling.
Aki Snelling:
. Staff recommends doubling of the trash enclosure space to provide the necessary enclosed
space for the trash containers, toters and cardboard recycling inside. By doubling the width of
the trash enclosure, it would reduce the need for trash enclosures on site.
Com. Wong:
. Relative to schools, he said that the staff report stated that homeowner occupied homes, would
remain at Garden Gate School vs. renter occupied may be split between Garden Gate and
Nimitz Elementary School. He expressed concern as a property manager that they would be
discriminating between homeowners and renters, and asked how they could collaborate more
with the school district, instead of saying it is not a city problem, but a school district problem.
There is some inequity between renters vs. homeowner occupied.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that it was not a city policy to determine how that happens; the school district has been
doing it successfully for years. He clarifIed that as rental units turn over, there is disclosure to
them, stating that the unit used to go to Garden Gate, but now goes to Nimitz. He pointed out
that the quality of education throughout the district is about the same
Com. Wong:
. Said as the city grows and they want more rental properties, they need to work harder with the
school district and discern that if they do A, then B is going to happen, and that is a concern.
. Referred to the information on the dedication of maintenance of land for public park purposes,
and expressed concern about items being distributed at the dais at the last minute. He said he
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
June 26, 2007
was concerned with a property owner should maintain a public park for the city. He said he
was not comfortable supporting the item.
Steve Piasecki:
. ClarifIed that the information was distributed at the last minute because staff felt the condition
needed more clarifIcation. The applicant and Planning Commission continued the item for two
weeks; if it had been continued for a month, there would have been more time to put the
information in the meeting packets.
. He said they needed to provide better structure so the applicant was aware of his full
obligations. He noted that it was required of the Morley project, requiring similar conditions
across the street with the half acre park that is publicly accessible and maintained by that
property owner; the rationale being that the park is principally benefIting Villa Serra. If it was
not in a public park confIguration, it would be private; if it was private, they would be
maintaining it, and it would potentially impact their yield.
. He said in fulfIllment of city policy, the goal is to provide a public amenity that all folks can
use, be visible to the public and make the community look green to the people who use the
park and also the people who drive by and see the community.
. Why narrow Franco Court? Asphalt is horrible; when it comes to sustainability; green is great.
The same is being done on Stelling to try and green up the corner. The applicant's obligation
is something that the Council will have to take up because if the applicant doesn't provide the
maintenance, the public will. If the proportion is 75% applicant and 25% public; one can make
a case for that and staff is willing to listen to that. He said he felt the concept that the public
should pick up the tab for it, when it was part of a comprehensive package to make this project
fIt into the community better, is arguable and he suggested that should be a greater obligation
on the part of the applicant.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Said she had not had the chance to review it carefully since she just received the information,
and said she would be interested in the applicant's view. She agreed with staff that the users
were likely going to be 75% of the residents there; therefore it is more like an amenity or
added green space to their project.
· She agreed that it would most likely be used by residents and said it offers an attractive green
space for the unattractive corner area.
Com. Kaneda:
. Expressed concern about the possibility of narrowing Franco Court since it was the only access
to the fairly high density area where the condos are and putting the parking in along Franco
Court.
Steve Piasecki:
. ClarifIed that it was not narrowing the road and putting parking in along the narrow section.
. He said it was already discussed that they did not have to put the parking there, and that Public
Works would prefer not to, especially if it was being done as daytime parking.
Com. Miller:
. Asked Public Works staff if the recommendation for no parking further down on Franco Court
was because at night time they did not want large vehicles parking there, or because there is an
issue with traffIc at night that there isn't during the daytime.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
June 26, 2007
Glen Goepfert:
. Responded that the night time issue would be to keep overnight parking from being there with
trailers and trucks. The other issue is an operational issue as far as having the width available
for the conflict between truck traffIc and the residential traffic that will try to go around it.
. Said he felt as a life and death issue, not narrowing the road was not an issue since there was
no accident history for that area.
. Said he felt the No Overnight Parking is a sufficient issue to make since it is the existing
condition, and there is no reason to allow overnight parking to be there.
Com. Wong:
. Asked if the costs were exceeded by $100K to relocate the city courtyard south, where would
the excess funds come from?
Steve Piasecki:
. The width is 115 feet, which would be the city corp yard plus the width of those parking
spaces; if 8 feet were added, it would get closer to staff s original number. If the city desires to
relocate the TOC to a remote location, ftrst we have to fmd that it has to be a location along a
fIberoptic line; it is likely to cost quite a bit of money unless we fInd that there is excess room
in the future in our own corporation yard, and there are some private fIberoptic lines that we
are not aware of.
. If converting the space to public park, the park dedication funding could be used to buyout this
site and relocate it somewhere else, which is an option. .
Glen Goepfert:
. Said it was difficult to estimate the relocation cost; but that it would be less because the
applicant is being required to fund the relocation on the site to the south irrespective of the
cost. Public Works wants it understood that in order for it to be moved, it needs to be fully
funded.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that what is critical, is with the expansion of the park area into the existing TOC site and
the relocation of the TOC, the applicant may qualify for up to 50% credit against their park
dedication fees which is about $400K. There is a signifIcant benefIt for the applicant to try to
accommodate this move; not only in having a nice park at the corner, but recouping some of
the park dedication funds that they would otherwise have to pay.
Com. Miller:
. Asked staff if, from an operational standpoint, there were any issues relative to the TOC
moving twice.
Glen Goepfert:
. Said that the main consideration is that there be funding for the move, if a second move is
required. He said there is funding available for the fIrst move and there may be a limitation of
four years and they do not want to be in a position of having an underfunded project if another
move is necessary.
. Said they had not received extensive input from San Jose Water Company regarding impacts
of moving the TOC. The facility is part of what the city has long term leased to the water
company, and they are amenable with the conditions so the city can move forward on the
project.
Chairperson Lisa Giefer arrived at the meeting, and chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
June 26, 2007
Vice Chair Chien:
. Asked staff to comment on the temporary relocation of the TOC.
Glen Goepfert:
. Said from Public Works' point of view, the move of the TOC south was acceptable because it
incorporated the conditions they put forward, and it serves the purpose of giving a larger park.
. He said the second stage is unclear; but they understood that if it did not come to fruition, it
would be the permanent location which is acceptable since it fulfIlled their conditions. Their
conditions would have to be fulfIlled for the second move as they do not want the city to have
a net cost and staff has discussed some ways where that could happen.
Steve Piasecki:
. From your thinking from this application, consider this the permanent location, but the TOC
has moved in the past. It used to be in City Hall; there are different functions in the TOC that
make this workable and desirable from their standpoint; outdoor storage, fIberoptic line, the
ability to have the testing activities for some of the signalheads all in one location. This works
reasonably well for them. But it is still a relatively small site and there may be an opportunity
in the future, where the city says we think taking our industrial use out of this residential area
is a good thing to do; and if we do that, it is fIne, this applicant we would expect would
participate if that happens in the short term. If not, then they wouldn't.
. Public Works would not want a second move to be identifIed as a project until all the funds
were identifIed and as in the fIrst case. If there is a way, it may be decided that staff is saying
that the city decides they want to do it, but Public Works would not want to have a partially
funded project before it became something that got on the capital improvements list where
there was an: expectation that it would happen and that we were looking for that funding.
Identifying it this way, and getting some help with it, if it can happen is appropriate. The
expectation is that it is going to be in this location, and permanent. The other situation may
occur; however, the condition would be before it is taken on as a project, it would be fully
funded.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that they could attempt to control parking in the middle of Franco Court through signage.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said. that there was mention of a well in the park, and a possible structure associated with it.
He asked if it was possible to underground whatever needs to be there.
Glen Goepfert:
. Said that Public Works has not spoken to the water company about totally burying the facility;
it would be a major expense and is not something they would want to do operationally.
Currently there is an electrical draw from the street where there are transformers to a service
pole that goes to the well to the pump, which is the portion they would consider
undergrounding. It would take a lot to put the wellhead below ground and it would have to be
serviced underground, which is not feasible. It would be more practical to have a surface
building surrounding it.
. Said that the depth of the well was about 400 feet, and he doubted they would want to relocate
it if it went dry. He said it would likely be a limitation if it became infeasible to draw water
from that location. They would have to upgrade and replace pipe at some future date; some
work has been done recently. The life ofthe well would be dependent upon water availability
or the feasibility to draw it from there.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
June 26, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that in the event the well went dry in the future, it would be an issue for the city and the
water company, and the applicant would not be expected to participate in resolving the matter.
John Moss, Prometheus Group:
. Said the solar was for the swim pool for the common area. The panels would be on top of the
recreational facility.
. Relative to the condition about the TOC relocation, they do not object to. it coming to the
south; the cost will be minimal and will be borne by them. If there is a storage container on
that site, they are willing to relocate it to the other part of the site, but an open ended condition
about reconstructing some facility does not seem equitable, and they would like clarifIcation
that it would simply be a relocation of the existing cargo container or whatever containers the
city wants to have at that property but not a reconstruction.
. Said constructing a restroom facility at the park was not their previous understanding from
prior discussions. In the event the city requires a restroom facility for such a relatively small
park, there is no budget for it, nor the expectation that it would be something equitable for
them. In the event the park is mainly used by residents clearly they are within a stone's throw
of their own unit for the most part where there are restroom facilities built in the common area
setting, in addition to their private residences. If the city requires a restroom for public use, the
expectation was that. it would be funded by the city.
· Relative to park maintenance, he said he did not feel it is equitable for them to pay for
maintaining a public park. They would support a private park, but would expect that they
would fund the full cost of maintaining a private park. In the event it is public, it seems
equitable that the public would maintain that regardless of the percentage of the park being
used by residents vs. another one.
. Said that relative to the $50K for the Stelling Bridge, they did not feel the nexus to them was
reasonable.
. He said their preference was to build the parking in that location at the beginning of the
project. He said he was confIdent they had ample parking on the property, and it was best to
have additional parking at that location, and that the park was sufficiently sized.
. Said that relative to the parking on Franco Court, he agreed that in the event the parking will
be limited to certain hours of the day, evening or daytime use only, it does not seem that the
parking as a result of that would be essential. If there are concerns about trucks parking there
overnight, signage and enforcement can be used.to keep trucks and other vehicles from parking
there overnight.
. Said he was aware of Public Works' position, and his assumption was that that if it was offsite,
the cost differential may be signifIcantly more than $500K. If the project is approved and
costed out at $1 million, he said they would not go forward with the project. He said they
assumed it was a relatively small cost.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Asked if the applicant understood that they would be responsible for the cost associated with
the request made by the San Jose Water Company.
John Moss:
. Said he was not clear on the request as the request from the San Jose Water Company was for
the referenced enclosure, which would go over the well site, and if it is a modest structure as
described, that language may get refIned between now and Council, because it is expected to
be modest; it is just an encapsulation of a well and should be very basic.
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
June 26, 2007
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said he disagreed, that if it was going to be in the middle of a park, it should be a structure that
fIts into the park and not just be a shack.
. Said John Moss had stated he did not agree with the $50K maintenance for the Stelling Bridge.
He said part of what they were trying to accomplish with the plan as eluded to by the Director
of Community Development is the greening of Stelling. He asked if Mr. Moss was interested
in putting any money into the frontage area of their property on Stelling, referring to the west
location, because there were no drawings or sketches of what that frontage may look like other
than the rendering that staff showed.
John Moss:
. Said it was his understanding they were re-Iandscaping the frontage as part of the proposed
landscape plan. Relative to the $50K associated with the Stelling bridge, he said he agreed that
any improvements to any public facility are always positive. The question is the nexus for
them building 100 units here and their utilization of those improvements relative to the rest of
the city, the community, and effectively the state. He said he did not feel it was equitable.
. Said the landscape plan would be reviewed with the architect; the sketch was not intended to
be the end result in detail.
Colin DIy, Gizardo Partnership, Landscape Architects:
. Said their drawings do not reflect the widening landscape strip for the road, but they would
consider a park strip.
John Moss:
. ClarifIed that if it was a private park, they would maintain that facility and would expect to
maintain it in their cost which would be relatively nominal because they already have a larger
landscaping contract. If a separate party comes out to do that maintenance, it may be excessive
in terms of costs to maintain.
. He said he would be receptive to discussing the city funding it, but his company providing the
maintenance.
Eileen Murray:
. Said she did not have a legal opinion on the issue as it would be negotiated with the City
Council.
. Said she understood John Moss's comments, and agreed that if it was a private park, he would
do all the maintenance. As far as it being a public park, the Council would make the fInal
determination. Said she did not consider it a legal issue.
. Said it could be a condition that if the applicant wanted it passed, they would have to maintain
the park.
. Said although it was not her decision, she would take exception to a public restroom in the
park.
Com. Kaneda:
. Relative to the green building practices statements which state meeting the minimum standards
of Title 24, he said he did not feel meeting the minimum standards were considered a green
building practice.
John Moss:
. ClarifIed that the evolution of the list was coming from the County of San Mateo which
created their standards for sustainable green building development. The County of San Mateo
Cupertino J;>lanning Commission
14
June 26, 2007
and City of Cupertino to date have not concluded the formal process of creating such a
document. He said he did not disagree with some of those items that are fairly straight forward
in nature, but it wasn't a list they created and said they would we fulfill everything.
Com. Kaneda:
. Asked the applicant if there were willing to go beyond the minimum standard.
John Moss:
. Said it would depend on the defmition of 'beyond' and what that involves. They would be
open to doing other things in the. area of sustainability beyond what is on the list.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Lowell Forte, Celeste Circle:
. Said the traffic study did not contain a report, and they would have to rely on what the
department indicated relative to traffic congestion potential and the peak hour impacts. The
drawing includes a new driveway contiguous to the proposed park and to the complex on
Franco Court that is not mentioned in the report. He said the driveway would serve the
increased traffic flow generated by part of the proposal that says they were going to combine
the two complexes. Consequently, there will likely be additional traffIc that is not considered
on the Franco Court from these two complexes.
. He said the parking study competently supports the lack of need for any on street parking; and
said that it would likely be the city's numbers that will keep Franco Court wide open.
. He pointed out the problems encountered when trying to get out of Franco Court when a truck
is trying to get onto Franco Court from Homestead, the motorist is forced to back up and move
8 feet away from the street and intersection or risk getting hit. The. narrowing of the street
would create a bigger problem with congestion.
. Hopefully the entitled initial study of the environmental evaluation checklist means something
more than details will be forthcoming. Eleven items have been indicated and marked as less
than signifIcant impact; this generates three questions; what is the distinction between less than
signifIcant; and potentially signifIcant; secondly who defInes these terms so the public can
assess and/or challenge the defmitions and applications.
. He noted that the positive and negative environmental impacts tend to be cumulative, and said
that common sense should be used.
. The developer seeks the city to rezone these complexes from an R3 to P which is Planned
Development zone, and to increase the allowable density to 20 to 35 dwelling units per gross
acre. This is an infIll project; the developer wants to cover green space, open space once
thought important by the city, with rental units. InfIll is one of the buzz words heard along with
smart growth and sustainable development; infIll is supposed to promote affordable housing,
provide housing closer to jobs, preserve open space, reduce traffIc congestion and improve the
environment. This proposal does none of these in a positive fashion according to the city's
own EIR report.
. He said the situation is merely spot zoning, by changing the impact of what the people are
doing, it is not making the place any greener.
. He suggested that they get rid of the park; he considered it a danger zone, with no traffIc
history yet related to accidents that will occur when there are family and children on a busy
intersection. If the park is given back, they will have more parking spaces, the frontage they
want on Homestead, and it can be greened up like the Crossings in Mountain View.
Steve Piasecki:
. Noted for the record that there was no rezoning request in conjunction with the application.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
June 26, 2007
Janet Takahashi, Celeste Circle:
· Expressed concern about the impact of traffic at the corner of Franco and Homestead Road;
Franco is a dead end street with excessive traffic already. It is the only access for the Cupertino
Storage and the 97 units on Celeste Circle, and the only way for the big rigs to come in for the
docking because they cannot go in through North DeAnza. In addition, Villa Serrais planning
on putting in an access road for their additional units and because the other two exits are quite
dangerous, there will be more traffic coming through that exit and probably more than double
what is already on the dead end street.
· Said that the signal light for making a left turn onto Homestead, allows only four cars, two if
there is a pedestrian crossing Homestead. Added to the traffIc trying to exit Franco lengthens
the exit which will then back up Homestead quite a big or keep it at a short cycle and the cars
will be queued up trying to make a left hand turn.
. She said that having the park on the corner would create more congestion and present a
potential safety risk to children because of the heavy traffIc, people trying to make turns and
using the bike lane for turning. She reiterated that having the park on the corner was not a
good idea for safety reasons.
Suresh Penikalapati, Cele$te Circle: .
. Expressed concern that creating a public park in a heavy traffIc zone was potentially a safety
hazard. He said he did not feel the need for a public park and it would open an entrance that
will create more traffIc. In the event of earthquake or any public catastrophe the only exit is
that and traffic coming from the new proposed entrance will be blocked.
Kerry Cai, Celeste Circle:
· Said she was concerned about the safety factor and that the project would create a dangerous
zones around the area because you would create a four way drive on a busy road without a
traffIc light.
Xuan Yu, Celeste Circle:
. Asked what the main purpose was for the proposed daytime parking on Franco Court and what
occurs at night. Did it mean that people need to park in the shopping mall or sneak to the
Celeste residents' public parking area? The majority of the residents work during the day
which would decrease the need for parking during the day.
· Relative to the complexity of the traffic by adding the new entries on the Franco Court, adding
the additional exit on Franco would open six new driving directions; in order to avoid any
traffIc or accident, a four way stop sign would be needed.
. She questioned if the four way stop sign was not being installed, would the city put in new
traffIc lights on the new exit from Villa Serra exit. If traffIc lights are installed, what is the cost
and who will cover the costs for the city?
. By adding additional apartments will it increase the. need for water supply; how will the city
accommodate the additional water needs?
Suresh Subramanian, Cupertino resident:
. Said a concern is family safety; Celeste Circle has only one entrance and exit and will be an
issue in the event of a major disaster. When a truck comes into Franco Court, it is diffIcult
when parked at the signal and you have to back up.
. She said an environmental issue is that the amount of noise level within Celeste Circle today is
high because of the PW Market next to the compound. She said she heard that there would be
a lot of tree removal.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
June 26, 2007
. The residents have a vested interest and want to live in a neighborhood where the property
values are not negatively impacted due to something that is happening in the neighborhood.
. Said she did not understand the motivation of the promoters in building additional units in a
complex where the occupancy rate. was less than 50%, based on information from a recent
Prometheus meeting.
. She expressed concern about the possibility of the units being converted into condos in the
future which affects the school redistricting if condo units get preference over an apartment
complex. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the big impact it would have on
property prices.
VasundaraPothagantlu-Sivaraman, Celeste Circle:
. Said she was concerned that the Villa Serra project would negatively impact the value of the
Celeste Circle properties.
. Since the occupancy rate of Villa Serra is about 50%, she said she was also concerned about
the likelihood that the units would be converted to condos which would affect the school
district numbers and negatively impact the property prices.
. When Prometheus adds the public park which they don't have to maintain, they have the
advantage of access to Villa Serra on Franco Court. Also, it is the only entrance to Celeste
Circle and appears to be a safety hazard. She asked that the Planning Commission take into
consideration the cutting down. of the trees, the noise and additional traffic on Franco Court as
well as the factors she previously discussed.
John Moss:
. ClarifIed that the occupancy rate was about 95%; the statement made earlier in the meeting
with the homeowners association, was that the average apartment project in the Bay Area and
US has an average turnover of 50% annually.
Nina Darawella, Celeste Circle:
. Said she did not understand why the city would allow lot line adjustments to be made and give
away city owned street or land for private development.
. Expressed concern about the safety issue on Franco Court; she does not want to see any extra
pedestrian access from the middle of Franco Court, nor a driveway there. Said that the park at
the corner would be unsafe because it was open to traffic with no fence.
. Said that visualizing a 40 foot container truck turning into the street, she did not support an 8
foot reduction of the street.
. Daytime parking sounds pointless because most people who are there would be driving to
work daytime which is more dangerous because of the trucks going in, cars being parked, kids
coming from between parked cars to cross the street once again.
. The general consensus is that the patch of park is really needed over there; there is one less
than a mile away at Serra Park which everyone goes to now.
. In response to Com. Kaneda's question, she said trucks do park and stop, even currently, in
spite of comments made as to why there were No Parking At Any Time signs along the street
on the right hand side. The signs exist an do not control the parking or the stopping of trucks or
trailers there.
. She summarized her recommendations that there be no opening for cars or pedestrians on
Franco Court for the Villa Serra project; no narrowing of the street; the fence to remain the
way it is up high right from Homestead Corner down to the storage because currently the 40
foot trucks turn and shave off the trees to turn into the last driveway behind PW Market; keep
it as is on Franco Court.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
June 26, 2007
Ming Shao, Celeste Circle:
· Expressed concern about the safety issue of children riding bikes to school, biking on Franco
where there is no bike lane. She said she was also concerned with. traffIc safety and
commented that when driving her son to school a three minute trip on Homestead becomes a
15 minute trip because of traffIc jams.
· She said that she felt the questions being asked were not being clarifIed by the applicant; and
she urged the Commissioners to consider the neighbors' opposition to the project.
Ben Leung, Celeste Circle:
· Expressed concern about the traffIc traveling eastbound of Homestead to make a right turn
onto Franco Court, because many motorists drive too far and overshoot into the left turn lane;'
causing accidents.
. Said he was not opposed to the green proposal, but felt the location of the park was
questionable.
. Said that when trucks are turning from Homestead into Franco Court, if you are sitting waiting
for your turns, sometimes the truck requires you to back up to give them more room, which
creates a lot of hassle for the motorists.
. Said he felt the parking did not make sense and suggested that the Sheriff's Department park
there and monitor the area. She asked that her suggestion be forwarded to the Sheriff s
Department.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said a major issue with the project is the overall density of apartments being considered. It
seems staggering to have that much buildup on that project, particularly when the apartment
complex is an older complex, with adequate parking and attractive vegetation.
· Said there would be additional traffIc problems on Stelling; there is presently a great deal of
road work being done there in preparation for the project.
· Said she understood the responsibility of the developer when new housing was built in the city,
either providing in-lieu fees for green space or building parks; but was uncertain of the
developer's responsibility with apartment units. She said with more units, there should be
more open space, and the proposed project is too much density in a small space.
. There are multiple entrances and exits from the shopping mall onto Franco Court; having
additional entrances and exits from Franco Court plus the trucks is setting up dangers for that
area.
. Said that if they do need to have a park, pull it in more to the central part of the complex where
the residents can enjoy it. It is too dense in too tight an area.
Darrel Lum, So. Stelling Road:
. Said the area had not changed in over 30 years and it would be a good opportunity for the city
to encourage the development of the area, especially the landscaping
. Suggested that in order to improve the area, to consider using the North DeAnza Boulevard
Conceptual Plan or parts of the Heart of the City which have extensive use of grass, bushes,
trees, meandering sidewalks and setbacks to provide an attractive entrance to the city.
. As far as the landscaping along Homestead Road, I think it could lead to the park if that is
going to be developed. Whether the park should be developed, I think I would defer to the
residents in that area; I think one consideration on the TOC, it sounds like you plan to move it
twice. If you are going to move it twice, there is no guarantee that you will do it the second
time; hence the public benefIt or the park in consideration of this project should only be based
on the fIrst move.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
June 26, 2007
. Asked if the Villa Serra group had completed their student generation study which they
indicated in April they were going to do.
. Said he was opposed to parking on Stelling Road or Homestead Road and on Franco Court.
. Prometheus did a good job at the Biltmore complex, but that was only an increase of 15 units;
here on Villa Sera it is going to 30% increase.
Daniel Yeung, resident:
. Said he was opposed to adding 117 units since there was not enough parking space. Based on
research on regional transportation indicator from the Bay Area 1998, the average vehicle per
household is 1.82 in 1998; presently the builder is proposing 1.78. After 9 years it is still
below the standard. Based on that, if the household income is higher, the vehicle per
household will be higher, where did the numbers come from?
. What is the reason there is no parking on Franco Court? Based on my observation, the major
reason is use for the trucks to get in and out from the mall; there is no way the trucks can get
into the mall from the DeAnza Boulevard and Homestead.
. Said he estimated the property values would drop in value by $50K if the school district
boundaries changed.
. He asked the Commission to consider the potential problems and protect their properties.
Tai Mei Yeh, Celeste Circle:
. Expressed concern about the opening on Franco Court for Villa Serra; people walking to
Public Works Market not using the pedestrian walkway. There is a lot of traffic jam on
Homestead turning to the Stelling and it will create more traffIc.
. Another concern is the noise and the dust which is harmful to their health.
Nancy Kum, Celeste Circle:
. Said that for the residents of Celeste Circle, there is only one entrance to go in and out and
questioned what the plans were for the construction period, relative to parking, demolition, and
the debris removal and storage. She said it would create a hazard and danger to the residents
of the area.
. She questioned who would enforce the parking on Franco Court after the construction. She
expressed concern particularly with parking during the weekend.
Chair Giefer asked staff to address questions raised during public testimony:
. If we did have limited daylight parking on Franco Court, what purpose would it serve?
Glen Goepfert:
. Said he did not see that the parking would be a positive in terms of weighing it against the
function of the road and traffIc; did not see an overriding need for parking on Franco Court and
recommended against putting parking on Franco Court.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said one concept the Planning Commission may want to consider is if they eliminate the
parking, they could consider medians that would direct trucks and cars into lanes and left turn
movements and beautify the street, which may accomplish greater safety and provide
pedestrian refuge.
. Said they were not considering adding any more stop signs or signals onto Franco Court.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
June 26, 2007
Aki Snelling:
· lllustrated the applicant's drawing showing the park widened out so that the street is narrowed
from a 40 foot curb-to-curb to a 32 foot curb-to-curb; the park would envelope the area where
the proposed street parking was. The trucks can maneuver into that street and into the
driveways to the commercial parking areas along with the proposed parking they have on the
south side of Franco Court below the driveway.
· Relative to construction traffIc parking, she said there would be a condition that they will be
required to submit at construction management plan.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said it could be specifIed they not use Franco for construction through a construction
management plan, specifying that all activity must come in and out from Homestead and
Stelling.
Aki Snelling:
· The traffIc study said 854 net new daily trips would be generated from this project; the project
itself would be less than signifIcant in terms of the traffIc impacts on the surrounding streets
and they did include a study of Franco Court and Homestead intersection and that was not
found to be a problem.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said that people should understand when they do traffIc studies, they do assignments based on
essentially what is the gravity model; they look at where are people going in this area to and
from during the day, and most people would be going north to jobs and coming back south to
their homes. It gets disbursed over the many streets traveled on, whether they are going to
schools, running errands, so that the dispersion is what tends to take the average daily trips and
then focus on the peak hours which get disbursed. It is unusual that a project of roughly 100
units in this case would create a tremendous impact, but they focus on it, study it and take it
seriously.
· Reiterated that is why it continues to work.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said concern was expressed about the connection between Villa Serra and Franco Court; and
asked if there was a possibility of not having that connection or would that not work.
Glen Goepfert:
· Said that not much was said about that connection in the traffic study; they looked at the
existing connections and saw what the movements there were. There were no problems; with
the new driveway it appears what the residents had been talking about was the possibility of
cut through traffic.
· He added that whether or not there would be sufficient circulation on the site was not
considered by the traffic study. He said it would have to be considered specifIcally if there
was no access from that side.
Com. Miller:
· Asked staff to comment on concerns that the park could create a safety issue if it was actively
used by children as they might go out onto Homestead or Franco Court and it also provides a
cut through to the shopping center.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
June 26, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
· Said it was not uncommon to have public facilities on major streets, and is something to look
at in conjunction with the design of the park. In some cases, the desire may be to have
decorative fencing, want it to be more .passive, have some mounding or tree rows to design it
in a way that the active spaces for children are pulled back from the major street and that the
less active, more visual spaces are pulled up toward the major streets. It may be taken into
consideration with the design but it is not an uncommon characteristic to have open space; as a
community you want to be able to drive down major streets and the city appear to be in the
middle of a. park. He said they have heard about the greenscapes along the major streets,
which is a part of the desired design for Cupertino as a city and a park.
· Said they considered putting the park in another location, but there weren't many good options,
other than having a long, bowling alley shaped park.
Com. Miller:
· If you had more of a linear park, you could either put it along Homestead or you could put it
along Stelling, or you could locate it, not so much a public park, but there are some spaces
within the complex where you could locate a more private park, which would be less
accessible to the public. On the other hand, what we have heard here is that most of the usage
would be by the Villa Serra residents. I am not sure of the advantages of putting it on that
corner vs. in some other place within the complex itself.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said if there was a linear park pushed up against Homestead or Stelling, the issue of lack of
depth would become a serious question; there would just be a wide landscape strip. This part
provides depth away from Homestead and gives you the opportunity to design it in a way that
makes it entirely safe. The other thing you are doing is implementing the General Plan policy
with this part; if it is converted into private space and it becomes the domain only of Villa
Serra, it doesn't implement your General Plan policy for 3 acres of park per 1,000 population;
that is something we have been following diligently for many years, and that is the reason our
park acreage is as high as it is and we continue to look at that. If you didn't have a public park,
you would have to seriously look at reducing the number of units in the project.
· We are not interested in just infIlling development; we want it to be an asset to the community
and integrate well and connect well and green up the cOlIlIllunity so that it becomes the high
end community that everyone deserves. That is the rationale for it. I don't think it would be as
optimal as what you have in terms of this particular location.
· Said there was a park defIciency in the Homestead area.
· Relative to park space required for the project, he said that for the additional units, they are
providing about 2/3 acre; for all the existing population in that area, they would need 20 to 30
acres. There is a lot of underserved population now, Serra Park in Sunnyvale is able to satisfy
some of that. The proposed park should remain a passive park.
· Said there was no requirement in the park policy for the population to include restroom
facilities in the parks. Although larger parks should have them; it is not essential to have one
in the proposed park.
Com. Wong:
· Relative to Franco Court, he said he was not changing from his previous position, that that
there should be no parking on Franco Court and that the street should be status quo based on
the Public Works suggestion.
· He said he understood Community Development's position, but would rather have the street
remain status quo. He said he was aware of the safety concerns with trucks driving in and out.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
June 26, 2007
. He said he did not support 8 feet going into the street, resulting in the park being smaller. The
street will remain 40 feet if there are other Commissioners who support that.
. Said he, did not see the nexus on the Stelling Bridge; he felt it was a good idea to beautiful the
bridge, but not at the expense of the private property owners.
. He expressed concern regarding moving the TOC, but if the applicant feels comfortable paying
for it and if it is within reason and Public Works feels comfortable with moving it, it was
acceptable to him.
. Relative to the impact on schools, he suggested rather than saying the residents have to go to
the school district, the city should work harder to have better communication with the school
district and also inform the residents that there are consequences with increases in students as a
result of more housing. He said he understood the residents' frustrations regarding the
boundary lines for the schools. ,
. He agreed with speaker Darrel Lum's suggestion about a double row of Ash trees as one enters
the City of Cupertino which would be an inviting image.
. Regarding the parking, said he felt strongly that they should adhere to the ordinance which
says two parking spaces per unit, even though the traffic parking report says it can be as low as
1.3 or 1.4, even if it means reducing the number of units.
. Supported the 20 foot setback variance for the south side. He said they should encourage rental
housing units in Cupertino as many people desire to live in Cupertino and could move up from
rental units to home ownership.
. Said he supported some things in the project and opposed others.
. Also on the parking maintenance, I do not see the nexus where the applicant would have to pay
for it. I do not want to set that precedent tonight, so I would like feedback from other
commissioners.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said that they are being asked to weigh in on a property right issue. Private property owners
have rights to develop their property, which is the overriding principle when we look at these
types of applications. However, the applicant is asking for exceptions, variances and that is
why the city has flexibility to weigh in on some of these issues and we use our best judgment
to make decisions in the best interests of everyone.
. With regard to the specifIcs, last time I was concerned about the relocation of the TOC; I don't
believe in giving up public facilities for private developers, as I wouldn't give up a firehouse
for a private developer. However, this time it appears Public Works has worked out the
situation where the developer has agreed to fully fund a relocation for the TOC. As long as we
can maintain that continuity and service to our community, I am comfortable with that.
. Said it since the property was located at the edge of the city, it was important that it has an
extremely attractive frontage, for those entering the city and for the personal interest of the
developer as well as the residents who live there. It is important to have the DRC review the
frontages along Homestead Road and Stelling Road as those will be the main frontages people
see as they come into Cupertino.
. Said it was important that the Parks and Rec Commission have a chance to review the design
of the park. He said while he shared the safety concerns, he believes and echoes staff s
comments that they can get sophisticated with designs of parks and can design them in such a
way to minimize and remove the danger that having a park in close proximity to a major
intersection would present.
. He said he was comfortable having that park there, and any time they can get a bigger park for
their residents, the city is always interested in doing that because parks add value to property
and it is a self-interest thing and a good thing for all property owners. He recommended that
the Parks and Rec Commission should look at the park before it is fmalized.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
June 26, 2007
· Relative to the park. maintenance issue, it is important to address how the parks will be
maintained, specifIcally who is goipg to fund the maintenance of the parks. There have been
cases where developers have continued to fund public parks because the park is on their
property, adjacent to their property, or used by their tenants and customers, and they are not
interested in seeing the city maintain their park, because they have a different standard for
maintaining the park. He said there is a self interest with the developer to consider weighing in
on the funding for maintaining the park and asked that the other Commissioners consider that,
because he felt the city should not bear the entire burden.
· Said he was not hung up on the issue of improvement of the bridge, and asked for colleagues'
input.
· Said he did not feel there should be parking on Franco Court because of Public Works
recommendation.
· Relative to narrowing the neck of Franco Court at Homestead, he said he was supportive of
giving back to public property; however, there are traffic concerns with having to back up
many times as large trucks come in; and he did have concerns about narrowing that road.
· Relative to parking, he said he was comfortable with adhering to the ordinance of two spaces
per unit.
Com. Wong:
· Said he supported closing the opening on the east side of Franco Court per the neighborhood
concerns.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said he supported the project and the park. He said he felt they needed to increase the amount
of high density housing in Cupertino, and he was surprised that many of the residents of
Celeste Court didn't seem to want a public park nearby.
· Said he preferred that the street be taken back to its original width because of the concerns
about the truck traffIc and potential problems. He said he did not support parking on the street
for the same reason.
· Said he was pleased they managed to get the layout of the new units in compliance to avoid
asking for variances on either Homestead or Stelling.
· Suggested the apartments be Energy Star CertifIed, solar heating on the pools and a 100%
photovoltaic solution on the common areas. He said he was willing to add a proviso if it is
less than a 10 year simple payback, taking into account the state renewable energy incentives,
federal tax credit and accelerated depreciation, when rolled in would come in under 10 years.
· Recommended that clothes washers be added to the Energy Star appliance list.
Com. Miller:
· Said he supported the project; rental units are needed in the city; it has been a long time since
someone has proposed a new rental development. More often than not, there are conversions
from rental to condos and as a city, concerns are expressed about that trend and it is good to
see the trend reversed.
· In terms of the density of the project, this site and area of town is in the General Plan and is
allowed more density than this developer is proposing. They are proposing a fairly light
increase in density compared to what they would be permitted to propose; there is no issue
with the density of the project.
· Said he did not see an issue with loss of housing value on Celeste Circle; the units will not be
low income rental units, but market rate units and will not depreciate the area; they are more
inclined to help the area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
June 26, 2007
· In terms of the major issues discussed, said he supported eliminating the parking on Franco
Court; does not support widening the park onto Franco, but leaving Franco at the original
width in accordance with the residents' wishes and not having parking there.
· Said he would support a widening of the radius on the western corner of Homestead and
Franco so that it would make it easier for trucks to go in there without impacting residents who
are trying to exit.
· Said he did not support creating a driveway opening onto Franco, and was sensitive to the
residents' concern that there is enough traffic there and that is their only means of exit and
entry. It doesn't make sense to impact that further given that there are multiple exits and entry
points into the Villa Serra complex.
· Said he also did not see a nexus with the Stelling Bridge or fairness in asking the developer to
build and maintain a restroom. There should be more equitable sharing of the maintenance
fees between the city and the developer; that mayor may not include an agreement for the.city
to contract with the developer to maintain the parks, since the developer stated he could
maintain it for less than the city because he has onsite facilities to do the rest of the complex.
· Said there was opportunity for some cost savings, and there should also be sharing since the
park is a public park, and it is not fair to fully burden the developer. He said he felt 50/50 was
a reasonable sharing for the maintenance costs.
· Supports the setback variance and the parking exception.
Chair Giefer:
· Said she supported the project; it is a project that meets the General Plan requirements, and
comes in at a lower density for the area.
· Said the park beautifIes the entrance into Franco Court; the residents of Celeste Circle can
think of this as the beginning of beautifIcation that would lead into their complex which would
make it look less industrial.
· Relative to traffIc issues, said she supported leaving the neck of Franco Court as is and was
uncertain if they needed to fIx the curb circumferences or look at other ways to assist trucks in
turning better.
· Said she supported the idea of improving the Stelling Bridge, but did not think there was
consensus to support those improvements.
· Relative to parking, said she accepted the applicant's parking study with the ratio of 1.76; there
are a majority of single bedroom units and there will be many single people who live there or
couples with one or two cars but she was willing to accept the applicant's parking study on that
and their expertise.
· Said the south variance was acceptable; park maintenance of 50/50 acceptable, and would like
to see the Franco access kept into the plan for several reasons. It is signalized and allows
greater access for the residents of the complex to gain access out to other points, make left
turns; it seems to be safer for them as well. It will also serve as access for pedestrians who
want to access the center; they won't have to walk to Homestead and make a right.
. Suggested the following changes to Exhibit A:
o Page 2-25, No. 1 states they will provide public amenities such as open space including a
swim pool, spas, outdoor kitchen, etc. She said she did not think the pool would be a public
pool, and suggested striking No.1 because they are more internalized amenities for the
residents.
o No. 29, Clarify the use of solar systems, specifIcally that they are using the solar water
systems for the swim pool and photovoltaic to provide part or all power, stating "if it
provides 100% of the power for those public facilities within the apartment complex,
provided that the payback is 10 years or less." If a study shows that you can provide 100%
of your power with all of the reimbursements and tax credits you get within a 10 year
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
June 26, 2007
period, go for 100%; if you cannot, she said she supported having it slide down to whatever
the 10 year payback period is.
· Said she supported adding Energy Star clothes washers and dryers on the list, (Point 22).
Vice Chair Chien:
· Relative to Com. Wong's comment, said he did not oppose the entrance being on that side
since they were addressing the issue of traffIc, by bringing the road back to its original width
and also the potential suggestion to widen the turn in on the west side of Franco and
Homestead. He said residents of the complex need to be able to exit somewhere other than the
two entrances.
Com. Kaneda:
. Relative to the access to Franco Court, said he could support removing the connection to
Franco Court as it was heavily congested.
Vice Chair Chien:
· Reiterated that he felt it was important to have the project frontages look spectacular as it is a
gateway property into the city; specifIcally Stelling Road should be an extremely articulate
looking walking area. He said that it also included the bridge, and he supported the bridge
improvements. The conditions state up to $50K, not necessarily at $50K.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said they started looking at a much more elaborate concept of removing the guard rails and
replacing them with new attractive wrought iron facilities, lighting, and repainting. After
realizing that it would. be diffIcult to deal with Caltrans, they minimized it to lights and
repainting, which is what the $50K is intended to do.
Chair Giefer:
· Said that the other application being considered tonight has the same stipulation in it; and it is
a good way to complete the look and feel of that area and make it an entry way into the city of
Cupertino.
. Said she would support the bridge or park maintenance, but not both.
Com. Miller:
· Said he did not see the nexus as theissue. The bridge is used by more than the residents of 117
units and the residents of the other 20 units. It is used by all the surrounding neighborhoods
but these two projects are being asked to foot the entire bill and that presents an issue in terms
of fairness. He said perhaps the city should contribute some of the money for this, given it is
more of a citywide project than just for these two, this addition to this project and the small
project coming up next.
Com. Wong:
. Said he supported 50/50 for the park maintenance and 50/50 for the bridge as well.
Steve Piasecki:
. Relative to pedestrian scaled lights on the bridge, he said only three may be possible since they
may have to put them on the outside and replace the existing cobrahead lights with one of the
pedestrian scaled and two on the other side. The City Council will make the decision whether
or not they want to allocate the funds; the Planning Commission can make a recommendation
to that effect.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
June 26, 2007
Com. Wong:
· Asked if Commissioners would support a double row of Ash trees on Stelling Road.
Vice Chair Chien:
· Suggested that the streetscape on Stelling Road be referred to the DRC for review.
· Said they should give the applicant an opportunity to design their own streetscape.
Chair Giefer:
· Suggested the use of large native trees as opposed to Ash, because of disease problems with
the Ash currently on Wolfe Road.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said if the numbers don't pencil out in 10 years, to release the applicant from the condition.
Relative to language for the model resolution on Exhibit A, he suggested a photovoltaic system
sized to carry 100% of the electrical load for the common area building, clubhouse, fItness
center, theater, leasing center; with the proviso that the cost of the system is paid back from the
energy savings and tax credit; state renewable energy incentive, federal tax credit and the
federal accelerated depreciation.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said if the condition is referred back to DRC to evaluate, it would be another way of
scrutinizing it one last time with specifIcs instead of generalities.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve EA-2007-02,
TR-2007-02 and V-2007-02. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve ASA-2007-03 with the
following conditions:
o Stelling Road will have a double row of large canopy trees to be reviewed at
DRC;
o There will be a widening of the radius on Homestead Road where the park is
going to be;
o Franco Court shall remain at 40 feet; there will be no parking on Franco
Court; the driveway on Franco Court will be removed;
o No restroom is required; The city and the applicant will share 50/50 for the
Stelling Road Bridge; the park maintenance will also be 50/50 between the
applicant and the city;
o Exhibit A, Page 2-25 and 2-26, strike No. 1 since it implies it is a public pool; it
is not necessary.
o No. 22: Add Energy Star washers and dryers.
o No. 29: Chair Giefer deferred to what Com. Kaneda previously said.
Vice Chair Chien:
· With regards to Condition 1 made by the motioner, the wording was that a double row of
large canopy trees be requested and reviewed at the DRC; DRC would review Stelling
Road and Homestead Road in terms of the streetscape, not just the double row of trees.
(amendment to motion accepted by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller)
Friendly amendment to motion by Com. Kaneda, accepted by Com. Miller to add Energy
Star Apartments.
Cupertino Planning Conunission
26
June 26,2007
John Moss:
· Relative to the rating system on the units, he reiterated that they were not familiar with what
15% or 25% above the Title 24 requirements were in terms of their obligation. He said he felt
they would be agreeing to something without any knowledge of any of the impacts and was not
clear if the city is knowledgeable about what those impacts are. He said he was not
comfortable with having an undefIned requirement with unknown consequences.
· Said that relative to the TOC, it was understood they could relocate any existing equipment on
the site; however, the requirement of building new storage buildings which could cost several
hundred thousand dollars, was not equitable. He said they were willing to relocate to their site
which would meet the intent of the requirement.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said the applicant will as part of the building permit pr~ess have to comply with Title 24;
they have not done it yet.
Chair Giefer:
· Said she understood the possible trepidation on the applicant's part relative to updating the
property to the new Title 24 requirements as there was opportunity for energy savings in the
update. She suggested saying that the applicant will attempt to achieve Energy Star rating
which would give them the opportunity to learn more about it, see what their Title 24 ratings
are and move forward.
Com. Miller:
· Said that the word "attempt" was saying they don't have to do it, and he felt they should study
it or get someone else; before it is imposed on applicants it should be fully understood by the
Commission. He said he did not feel it was reasonable at this point.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said that he would rescind his requirement as he did not want the application continued again.
Friendly Amendment to Motion:
· Com. Miller suggested a friendly amendment to change the wording with respect. to the
cargo container that the applicant and staff will work out some different wording that
might be more amenable to both the city and the applicant. Com. Wong accepted
amendment.
Vice Chair Chien:
· Said it was critically important that this facility, if the city is going to ask it to be replaced, it
not only be replaced, but replaced and working in better condition, since it is a critical city
facility that operates the stop lights. It is not acceptable to say only that they will work
something out; and it is supported by the fact that the Director of Public Works took the time
to write a memo stating clearly that this facility needs to be replaced in whole fully funded.
He said he would support that.
Com. Miller:
· Said Vice Chair Chien's comments were consistent with his friendly amendment.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
June 26, 2007
Vice Chair Chien:
· Said he supported the current wording, but did not support the friendly amendment. The
applicant has a different expectation than what is written and it is very clear on what needs to
be fully funded.
Com. Wong:
· Said he agreed with Com. Miller that it was the best compromise.
Steve Piasecki :
· The commission could take that issue up separately, and then take the broader motion.
Vice Chair Chien:
· Said he supported taking on the issue separately.
Chair Giefer:
· Suggested that the Commission reconsider the access onto Franco Court. She said she felt that
having people feed out into a signalized intersection was much safer than pulling across two to
three lanes of traffic plus the center lane on Homestead or Stelling, which is the amount of
traffIc they have to feed past today.
· She said there are hundreds of residents on Celeste Court, and thousands of residents who are
accessing Homestead and Stelling, and although she agreed there will be congestion points in
the morning during the high commute periods, she felt it was a 'safer way to go overall. The
real issue is the truck traffIc; the residents are always going to be there, and it is safer to go out
to the signalized approach to a major intersection than to dash across two lanes of traffIc, a
turning lane and whatever additional lanes you need to be in for your turn.
Com. Wong:
· Said that after two hours of testimony heard tonight, the residents have to take into
consideration they have to live next to Villa Serra that will have an addition of 116 rental units,
which is prescriptive. He said that one of the reasons of a democracy is having a public
hearing, listening to the residents tonight and giving feedback and suggesting mitigating
measures: This is only a recommendation; the residents have to come back to the City Council
and make sure that the City Council hears the concerns, the Planning Commission has to come
back to the City Council to make sure that their suggestions about Franco Court stay in place.
. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Vote was taken on large trees, framing, Stelling Road will be referred to the DRC;
keeping Franco wide and the opening needs to be improved for large trucks moving in
and out of there; Franco Court will remain 40 feet; there will be no parking on Franco
Road; driveway will be removed; no restroom in the park; the cost for maintaining the
park will be SO/50; cost of improvements to Stelling Road Bridge will be SO/50;
improvements to Exhibit A, proposed green building policy be reviewed
Chair Giefer:
· Said if it goes forward to City Council that she would like them to keep Franco Road drive
open.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Chair Giefer, to approve EXC-2007-06
(Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Wong voted No)
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
June 26, 2007
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to change the wording with
respect to the cargo container that the city and the applicant work out
appropriate language that is equitable to both sides.
Friendly amendment by Chair Giefer: To address Vice Chair Chien's concern, add language
''which will make the city whole on the move."
Vice Chair Chien:
· Said that wording that leaves it up to staff and the applicant to discuss, is really not doing their
job, which is to make clear recommendations on what is expected of them. He said it was a
city owned facility, and as the Public Works Director stated, is a critical city facility, and if it is
going to be moved, they should make them whole, if not better. He said he would support
language outlined in 22A, which is not what the motioner suggested.
(Vote: Motion failed 2-3-0; Chair Giefer, Vice Chair Chien, Com. Kaneda voted No;
Corns. Miller and Wong voted Yes.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the condition
relative to the TOC as worded in 22A of staff's conditions.
Friendly amendment: Chair Giefer recommended it be more clear in good faith with the
applicant that every attempt will be made to successfully move the existing
storage container so there is no additional expense incurred; if it is listed and
moved and falls apart, some repair or replacement would need to occur. She
said she felt it just indicated they would get a new storage building.
Glen Goepfert:
· ClarifIed that he was concerned with the existing shed itself, relative to its.remaining intact and
being moved. The storage container may not be a legitimate use and may have to be replaced.
It is a non-conforming use and it is not known whether it is legal or not.
· He suggested adding language that they will work it out, keeping in mind that they are trying
to achieve the goal of keeping themselves whole.
Vice Chair Chien:
· Suggest that it be amended to state the applicant shall fully fund relocation and be certain that
the center continues to operate as it did before.
Com. Wong:
· Expressed concern that if the suggestion was made, it may result in losing 116 rental units.
· Asked John Moss how concerned he was regarding the issue.
John Moss:
· In terms of the relocation, we are fme with going ahead and relocating everything on the site; I
am still at a loss as to why it would be just carte blanche; I assumed we would have to rebuild
a structure. If there is anything that is non-conforming, it is non-conforming on the existing
site, it would be non-conforming 180 feet down the road. I think we are mincing words in
terms of looking for a developer to go ahead and fund a new structure to be constructed on our
property. If it is operable and functional and reasonably accepted the way it is now, we can
agree to go ahead and move all the equipment, buildings, onto this property. If they fall apart,
there is no question we will repair them and bring them back up to their existing condition, hut
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
June 26, 2007
to carte blanche require replacement without even knowing whether or not you need to replace
something doesn't seem consistent with what the intent of the condition.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said the reason for the condition is that it states "replace" with a new storage building since the
city is no longer going to continue the practice of having cargo containers and has come up
with the alternative which is the building.
John Moss:
. Said they assumed they could relocate the structure without any cost other than the moving
cost; if there is damage, they would repair the damage. Said they were confIdent it would be a
small cost of relocation and would deal with it.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said Com. Wong's suggestion of leaving the TOC where it is and have the park north on both
ends of it, was not feasible, as they do not build disjointed parks; they need to be co-terminus
and attractive.
Vote: Motion failed; Corns. Kameda and Chien voted Yes; Chair Giefer abstained; Corns.
Miller and Wong voted No. (2-2-1)
Chair Giefer declared a recess.
3. U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22,
TM-2007-02, Z-2006-05
(EA-2006-18) Lawrence
Guy, 10955 No. Stelling Rd.
Use Permit and an Architectural Site Review to construct
13 attached and 8 detached single-family residential units
on a 1. I-acre site (northwest corner of Stelling Road and
1-280) Tentative Map to subdivide a 1. I-acre parcel
into 21 parcels and one common parcel. Rezoning of a
1. I-acre parcel from BQ (Quasi-Public) to P-Res
(Planned Residential) Postponed from May 22, 2007
Planning Commission meeting;- Tentative City Council
date: July 17,2007.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for rezoning to change the existing of the property from (Quasi-
Public) BQ to P-Residential (Planned Residential), tentative map to subdivide the existing 1.1
acre parcel into 21 lots as outlined in the staff report.
. The proposed project consists of 20 single-family residential units (10 detached small lot
single family and 10 attached town homes) ranging from 1300 to 1800 square feet.
. He noted that currently there is a home on the property built in the 1800s or early 1900s by
Enoch Perrish, an early designer and builder. The home is in failing condition and both the
applicant's architect and the City's consulting architect confmned that there is not any
signifIcant architectural value that warrants its preservation or relocation. The proposed
project will mimic some of the architectural style of the existing residence to honor Enoch
Perrish, the builder of the home. Staff suggested that a memorial plaque be erected in the
common plaza area, as well as use elements from the existing home to construct a trellis or
gazebo structure at the common plaza area, and the applicant will be required to work with a
professional building salvage company to salvage and reuse as much of the existing home as
possible.
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
June 26, 2007
. Staff recommends that the fInal building colors and materials be reviewed and approved by the
DRC, that additional screen trees along the southerly property be considered and introduced to
buffer the units from Highway 280; that pedestrian connection be provided between the project
to the church property adjacent; and introduce trellis and arbor features to decorate and
emphasize common pedestrian areas; use of pedestrian scale lighting; add bio swales to
maximum extent possible; plant vines on an through the sound wall 10 prevent graffiti from
happening and to enhaIice the look of the sound walls; conserve specimen trees on the site, the
applicant shall preserve and that we should take a preservation bond of $10,000 apiece for the
trees; realign the curb along North Stelling to provide a detached sidewalk and additional
landscaping opportunities.
. He reviewed the parking requirements, traffic and circulation, noise consultant's comments,
student generation, environmental review, green building design, affordable housing, and tree
removal as outlined in the staff report.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the zoning, tentative map, use
permit, architectural site approval subject to the staff recommended changes in the model
resolutions.
. He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project.
Larry Guy, applicant:
. Provided a brief history of his association with the City of Cupertino, including working in the
Public Works Department and prior building projects in Cupertino, as well as other cities in
Santa Clara County.
. Reviewed the 20 unit project, of which 3 units will be BMR units; said he was agreeable to the
terms staff has suggested. He. expressed concern about the $50K fee for the Stelling Bridge
since their project was much smaller than the project across the street, and suggested they be
given some consideration on a pro rata basis.
. He said it was unfortunate that the Perrish house on the property was not salvageable, but he
was willing to reuse some of the materials on the project.
. He said it was possible to have two more parking spaces which would be taken from open
space, they have .8 parking stalls, there are 17 guest parking spaces; they aren't additional
parking for residents; they will be restricted in the CC&Rs that you have to move within 24
hours or be towed away. He said he felt there would be plenty of guest parking.
Glen Simmons, Dahlen Group:
. Reviewed previous projects by the applicant and the Dahlen Group.
. Outlined the project including the proposed tree removal and replanting; and architectural style
of the residences.
. Answered Commissioners' questions relating to the project.
Com. Miner:
. Expressed concern about the proportion of the buildings, and suggested shifting four of the
units down a couple of feet and widen the space between the six here and get a better
proportionality between height and separation between the units.
Glen Simmons:
. Said they had shifted four of the units more towards 1-280 because of the Oak trees they were
trying to preserve at the end.
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
June 26, 2007
Com. Miller:
. Said that because of the height of the buildings and the width of the separation on the side
yards, it appeared to be tight. He referred to the Murano project and commented that visually
it was unattractive because the buildings were too close together.
Com. Wong:
. Concurred with Com. Miller, that because of the height, it creates a tunnel vision. He asked
what outreach was done to the church, and their opinion on the project.
Applicant:
. Said that members of the Valley Church were supportive of the project, and were permitting
openings in their property. He said that the openings satisfy Council Member Sandoval's
requirement; as people can go back and forth from the units to the church.
Chair Giefer opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she misunderstood that Cupertino had a historic house ordinance, and was shocked that a
115 year-old house would be demolished without opposition from anyone in the city.
. Said she had contacted the Cupertino Historical Society about prior unsuccessful attempts to
have the house considered a historical landmark, and the home will not be preserved because
Cupertino does not have a historic house ordinance.
. She recommended leaving the property as a historic site or having the owner donate it to the
city. She commented that if Cupertino cannot preserve a 1892 Victorian, they should not
preserve the Stocklemeier property.
Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident:
. Acknowledged that Mr. Guy has been forthcoming about communicating the project to the
neighbors. Said that his previous comments regarding the streetscape on Stelling also applied
to this project, and he hoped that the DRC is a part of that process.
. Said he was opposed to parking on Stelling.
. Said he had concerns about the Las Palmas Development; one being the loss of usable public
zoned land. He said that recent studies reported that children who live near freeways tend to
have more health problems.
Com. Wong:
. Asked staff how feasible it was to move the house to McClellan Ranch or the Stocklemeier
property?
Gary Chao:
. Said the applicant's architect inspected the home and could provide comment. He described
the house as being in failing condition and not movable; a large part of the house does not sit
on any foundation and is not structurally sound.
Com. Wong:
. Recalled discussions on the Stocklemeir house and other historical buildings that city staff said
were not salvageable, and said ity Council directed staff to address ways of salvaging them.
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
June 26, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
. Said it would normally be done for a structure that had not only architectural history, but also
some cultural history although it is extremely diffIcult and expensive to do. He said that even
with a historical ordinance that the house would be extremely diffIcult to relocate.
Architect:
. Explained that the front porch was roped off because it was unsafe to go through the front
door; the back porch was dilapidated and provided ,the only other entry into the house. There
were also many sagging walls. He said that in all likelihood, the house would break up if
attempts were made to move it.
. Said he understood that the building was cut into two and moved to its present location; the
back was actually added on and all the architectural detail is on the front side of the house. He
said it was merely half a building and very degraded.
Gary Chao:
. Said that the city's architect noted there were a lot of architectural features, but not a coherent
flow of architecture that would be true to that time period. He determined there was not
architectural value to warrant preservation or the house.
Com. Kaneda:
. Asked staff to clarify the reason for the memorial plaque and the measures that the city was
taking.
Gary Chao:
. Explained that when staff contacted the Historical Society they felt there was historical
signifIcance because of the builder of the home, and a memorial plaque would honor the
builder. He acknowledged that the home was in failing condition.
Com. Miller:
. Expressed concern with the side setbacks between the six buildings he pointed out. If it is a
choice between saving an Oak tree and making those wider, he would favor the Oak tree.
There might be a possibility for the middle units to widen the set between those; not much can
be done with the front two. He said aside from those comments, he supported the project.
Com. Wong:
. Said he still had concerns regarding the zoning, and felt they had to preserve the zoning
ordinance for quasi-public areas. He said if it went through, he would like to make some
suggestions, such as making Stelling smaller and moving the two parking spaces inside the
project.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said he supports the project. He suggested a cost-sharing agreement for the costs associated
with improving the Stelling bridge. Perhaps that money could be pulled with the money from
Villa Serra to have a overall remodeling of Stelling bridge.
Com. Kaneda:
. Concurred with Vice Chair Chien's comments about the cost-sharing agreement for the bridge,
and said he liked what the architect did with the landscaping.
. He asked staff if there was a mechanism in place so they can be proactive on the issue of
preservation of old buildings, rather than waiting until someone is ready demolish the building.
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
June 26, 2007
. Said he did not feel the need for a memorial plaque for a building that was built by a builder
and then relocated to another site. If there were historical pieces of the building, he supported
trying to save them.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said a historical preservation ordinance is on the work program for preservation of old
buildings.
Chair Giefer:
. Supports the project in general because she feels it is smarter to do a more dense infIlI project.
. She agreed that the side setback specifIcally with the front two buildings are concerns. She
directed staff to work with applicant to join the two front buildings.
. Supports having the two parking spaces on the street, and does not have a problem with that as
long as they are inset and it does not compete with the bicycle pathway.
Com. Kaneda:
. He suggested that they come in at 80% minimum efficiency on furnaces.
Com. Wong:
. Agreed that they should join the two buildings in the front, which would create two parking
spaces on the side.
Chair Giefer:
. Suggested moving the building away from the freeway and not closer to it.
. Also suggested benchmarking the heaters at 80% effIciency.
Larry Guy:
. Asked if he could separate the two buildings by two more feet of separation.
. Said he would agree to join the two buildings.
Commissioners discussed the two parking stalls on Stelling.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Supports the onsite parking.
. Said that since a parking variance was given to Villa Serra, the project should be given a
parking variance.
Com. Miller:
. Said that he felt the 8 feet was acceptable, but they wotild not get the on site parking.
. Supports a parking variance.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she preferred the street parking so they could have more open space within the
development and better drainage within the proposed development.
. Said they should re-advertise.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Supports parking on Stelling.
Cupertino Planning Commission
34
June 26, 2007
Com. Kaneda:
. Said he was still undecided.
· Asked if there was air conditioning in the building or just heating.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve Applications
U-2006-13, TM-2007-02, and Z-2006-05. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Wong voted No due
to the zoning).
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve ASA-2006-22,
not including the parking and with the two buildings currently on Stelling that
are separate units to become townhouses attached; and use the same formula of
SO/50 for Stelling bridge.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Suggested an amendment that the streetscape on Stelling be referred to the DRC for
review.
Chair Giefer suggested two amendments to the motion:
. A tree bond for $10,000 per tree, totaling $30,000 for the Oaks.
. That the applicant be required to use formaldehyde-free insulation which has no cost
difference; 80% or equivalent on the furnace requirement.
(Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Wong voted No.)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
5. Consideration of canceling a summer Planning Commission meeting, e.g., August 24,
2007.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller,.to cancel the last Planning
Commission meeting in July. (Vote: 5-0-0)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Giefer reporteds that the last item discussed in the
ERC was heard.
Housme: Commission: Com. Kaneda reported there was a discussion on mitigation fees.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetine: With Commissioner: Com. Kaneda said he would provide a report
at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Economic Develooment Meetine:: Report will be given at the next meeting.
Reoort of the Community Develooment Director: Steve Piasecki reported the tree ordinance
was fInalized. He also reported that Gary Chao was promoted to Senior Planner and. will be
assisting the Economic Development efforts of the new Economic Development Director.