PC 01-22-08CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JANUARY 22, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Lisa Giefer.
Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to elect Com. Miller as Chair of
the Planning Commission. (Vote: 2-0-1; Com. Miller abstained; Com. R-iee Rose
absent)
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Chair Miller, to nominate Com. Giefer as
Vice-Chair. (Vote: 2-0-1; Com. Giefer abstained; Com. Ripe Rose absent)
Chairperson Miller chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Design Review Committee Chair and Member:
As mandated by Code, the Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission is designated to serve
as the Chairperson of the DRC. Vice Chair Lisa Giefer will serve as the Chairperson of the DRC
for 2008.
Representation on the Environmental Review Committee, Housing Commission, Design Review
Committee, Economic Development Committee and Schedule for attendance at the Mayor's
Breakfast were tabled until a later meeting when all Commissioners are present.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
City Planner: Ciddy Wordell
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Assistant City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the December I1, 2007 Planning Commission meeting:
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 22, 2008
Corrections:
Motion No. 1: Correct motion to read that Vice Chair Miller was absent from the meeting
and the vote should read " 3-0-1; Com. Miller absent."
Page 7, Application M-2007-02: The vote should read " 3-0-0"
(Steve Piasecki noted that City Council was given the correct information in the verbal report at
the Council meeting).
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the
December 11, 2007 minutes as amended. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Riee Rose absent)
Minutes of the January 7, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the January 7, 2008
minutes as presented. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Rive Rose absent).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Debra Hill, Rainbow Drive:
• Discussed her concern for pedestrian safety at Torre Avenue and Stevens Creek where
motorists are not giving the right of way to pedestrians when the "walk" signal is on. She said
that motorists are speeding around corners to get onto Stevens Creek Boulevard, endangering
the pedestrians. She suggested that school crossings be used to ensure that the motorists stop.
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
• Said that Public Works is responsible for traffic enforcement and traffic operations, and
suggested that Ms. Hill contact Glen Goepfert to discuss her concerns.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Tree Replacements on Wildflower Way in front of Wildflower Village.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
• Said that Public Works was prepared to plant the Ash tree unless the Commission had a
different recommendation.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the Consent
Calendar. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Rive Rose absent).
PUBLIC HEARING
2. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04,
TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09,
(EA-2007-03)
Metropolitan Planning Group
1601 S. DeAnza Boulevard
Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new
six-unit single family residential Development.
Tentative Map for a new six-unit single-family
residential development. Tree Removal of up to 22
trees. Postponed from the January 7, 2008 meeting
Tentative City Council date: February S, 2008
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 22, 2008
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new six-unit
single family residential development, tentative map for anew six-unit single-family
residential development, and tree removal of up to 22 trees, as outlined in the attached staff
report.
• Illustrated the overall site plan to show the relationship of the parking lot that is proposed for
conversion of residential abutting the adjacent office building. The project is consistent with
the General Plan and the zoning and the project density on a gross acre basis is almost 6
dwelling units per acre. The site wide FAR which includes the open space but excludes the
driveway is at 60.37. This particular site plan will require certain circulation changes to
accommodate this plan; one is the realignment of the circulation driveway and in addition,
another idea is to open up the residential driveway to the commercial parking lot. The purpose
is to accommodate emergency vehicles that need a wider berth to turn around their vehicles.
• There are three plans presented: a prairie style, a cottage, and a craftsman style elevation.
There are two single family residential parking standards; one for small lot single family
residential which is 2.8 spaces per dwelling; one for Rl single family development, which is
the traditional four, two in a garage and two on a driveway apron and because this
development lacks street parking, the parking ordinance requires a minimum of two spaces.
• Using that parking ordinance calculation generates a requirement of 36 stalls; the applicant is
providing a total of 39 spaces, dedicating 24 and 15 for shared parking. This development
would remove a certain amount of office parking that they feel they do not need for the office
building. Current parking inventory list is in the staff report. He believes they could make up
the deficit of the 10 stalls by restriping portions of the lot. They could possibly restripe the
entire lot and bring it up to code; if they just wanted to achieve the 10 spaces they would not
have to do that.
• Said 285 parking spaces are based on the square footage of the commercial site; and the 15
shared spaces are included in the 275 parking spaces.
• It is not clear if there is going to be some retaining walls needed or not; those should be
identified. The sound walls, staff is recommending between Granite Rock and Kindercare and
the development.
• The trash enclosures were located on this space and will be moved somewhere on the property
and staff would like to see a covered enclosure for them. Proposed houses are indicated in the
staff report. Twenty three trees are proposed for removal, stated in the staff report. Staff does
not have a replacement plan as been proposed by the applicant, not yet. Staff has some
questions about whether the western landscape strip which is proposed to be protected by the
applicant, whether or not that goal is being achieved given the development footprints that
have been suggested by the applicant. That has to do with the encroachment of the house
footprints over the roots or beyond the curb line of the western landscape strip. The city
arborists said that if they were going to preserve both rows of Redwoods and Oaks, you can
not really encroach into the area with development. The other issue is that if you leave the
landscape berm as the rear yard of the single family residents, are you setting yourself up for a
situation where you create a non usable rear yard for these residents if you are not going to
allow them to cut the trees or other things to make the yards more usable.
• The applicant will provide a handout of their proposal relative to the green building standards
for the six homes.
• There are noise issues with the project, as stated in the staff report.
• Said the office building would be in deficit of parking spaces without the 15 parking spaces
from shared parking. He said he was not certain if re-striping of the entire lot would achieve
those additional parking spaces, but staff felt that a shared parking arrangement between an
office and a residential development is the best scenario and combination to achieve.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 22, 2008
Com. Giefer:
• Asked if a calculation was done on how many stalls they could achieve if they did re-stripe the
parking lot to the current code including bio-swales and similar things.
Colin Jung:
• Said they did not have any information, nor has staff asked the applicant to do that.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was interested in knowing if they could support their own parking without the shared
stalls.
Colin Jung:
• Said the expectation would be that they not only restripe but incorporate to the best of their
ability bio-swales in their existing office parking lot.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she would expect them to meet the current code for parking. She said she was not
comfortable with the numbers shown today; the restriping may solve the problem.
• She asked what effect the removal of the trees at Kindercare would be as she expected an
increase in noise level. Did the acoustic engineer expect the levels to move up?
Jeff Pack, Project Acoustical Engineer:
• Responded that the trees have no effect on the noise environment on the site; they provide
nothing.
Chair Miller:
• Asked staff what types of applications they felt would be appropriate for that site if the
Kindercare site was to be redeveloped.
Steve Piasecki:
Said there are two separate property owners; the property is surplus property to the office site,
and there is no guarantee that the two property owners could reach an agreement to combine
the Kindercare lot with this parcel. It would be a larger parcel, and very deep sites, and could
function on its own. The challenge would that it would be bringing commercial right up to the
single family homes with all the accompanying problems. It could work either way.
Relative to safety issues with the back of the parking lot, he said one suggestion is to reduce
the size of the homes to protect the trees and provide more architectural variety. The bedroom
count would be reduced to reduce the number of children, and secondly look at protective
fencing that would keep children reasonably contained within that space and not be running
around the parking lot.
Whitney McNair, Metropolitan Planning Group:
• Said they have worked with city staff, ERC, and the neighbors for over a year to have a high
quality, environmentally and neighborhood sensitive project. The project falls within the
allowed mixed use zoning density perimeter and is a good example of green building. There
are 43 trees on the acre, and they have made a number of changes to the project to preserve
those trees.
• The project has been designed to shift the units to the east in order to retain the double row of
trees along the western property line. The units have been shifted away from the Granite Rock
site to the north to keep the trees that are along that property line. The trees near the
Cupertino Planning Commission
January 22, 2008
Kindercare are the largest of the trees and are proposed to be retained. The project began with
8 homes, the site was opened up to have more usable open space area and preserve the trees.
Brad Smith:
• Stated that he has met with Dave Dollinger, the Metropolitan Group and staff on several
occasions and attended two of the ERC meetings resulting in completely new designs for the
residences and this proposal, including a number of discussed changes with respect to
setbacks, changes to the elevation to add architectural interest and further changes to address
some of the concerns as it relates to the acoustical needs and noise impacts possibly from some
of the neighboring sites. Some of the design elements specifically along the Granite Rock
side, particularly on the upstairs; windows were eliminated from that; there is only one
window on the design of the upstairs which is in a closet.
• The project has been established as a build-a-green project and has conformed to 77 points on
the build-a-green schedule.
• He said in their meeting today with their structural engineer, and internally they determined
that there were options that can mitigate the foundation impact. The foundation could actually
be set where the curb line is, and the back of the homes could extend and be cantilevered two
feet past that. There would be minimal pruning along the line of redwoods. The setback is
about 18 feet from the back wall of those trees. In answer to a question about what enjoyment
can residents have in a shaded area under redwoods, he noted that they had built a project
about 14 years ago in Menlo Park with a similar situation and it was successful.
• Relative to concerns about the children's safety, he noted that he lives on a flag lot and feels
that the limited point of access provides the family comfort for the safety of the children.
While there is no perfect situation, the situation set off the street with one point of access is a
good situation for small children and safety.
Dave Dollinger, Dollinger Properties; owner of office building:
• Since purchasing the property three years ago, the building has been remodeled inside and out
and it has been leased out. There is an extra piece of land with extra parking; and there are
about 50 empty parking stalls each day, and the building is full. He said his biggest concern is
not the housing, but to maintain the office building. He would not be doing anything that
would infringe upon the parking that would hurt the office building.
• Said his goal was to have a quality project; it was a vacant piece of land and has taken almost a
year to get to this point; they have addressed every issue that staff has come up with. They
hope that the few remaining items that need to be adjusted can be worked out with staff before
it goes to City Council.
Whitney McNair:
• Said they felt it was a good example of green development on an under-utilized site that has
existing zoning for housing. The future residents can enjoy easy walking to many different
services, there are no sound impacts which cannot be mitigated; there would be minimal
generation of school age children, and no traffic impacts. The entire development team is
present to answer questions.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked what the landscape plan was for the houses on the eastern side of the development, as
the proposal was to remove many trees.
Whitney McNair:
• Presently the overall landscape plan is under design, with a plan to mitigate those trees with a
2:1 replacement. They are discussing the replacement trees with staff, and would first
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 22, 2008
consider planting those in the park area and any place where there may be additional trees
needed to screen Granite Rock and/or Kindercare.
Eric Peterson, Project Architect:
• Reviewed the list of the green points they have done or are planning, such as use of re-
engineered lumber, energy star appliances, and dealing with a radiant barrier in the roof to help
prevent heat gain within the building. One of the other requirements is to make sure that the
Title 24 energy calculations are over 15% of the state mandated requirement. Others include
use of low water use plant materials in landscaping, structural system using re-engineered
materials; plumbing materials such as low flow toilets; insulating water pipes; using high
efficiency heating ventilation air conditioning; interior finishes such as using special paints to
help indoor air quality, as well as using green products in flooring and carpets.
Chair Miller:
Directed his comments to Mr. Dollinger, stating that when there are two different property uses
that generally are not compatible, such as residential and office or commercial, there tends to
be issues. The proposal to put housing in the middle of the parking lots of his building and
behind the other building creates potential issues for the future, where either his office building
or the one next door, comes up for redevelopment. He said it was a major concern for him.
This is primarily a commercial area and it is introducing an element which in the future could
cause major issues.
Dave Dollinger:
• Said there was residential behind it already, and it is an extension of that residential area. He
said he felt they created it so it is separate from the office building. If the office building was
redeveloped in the future, it is going to be a long time in the future and it would probably
become a mixed use development with office and residential combined. He said with the
driveway and the park, they would separate the residential from their office building so it is not
in the middle of the parking lot. They purposely left a wide area so that when you are in your
office and look out, you don't see the houses.
Chair Miller:
• Said he was more concerned with the future residents having an issue with the office buildings.
Dave Dollinger:
• He said he could understand it if it was an active retail center, but it is an office building and
people are in the office building and he did not feel there is any conflict with the design.
Com. Giefer:
• Asked staff to provide the details on Kindercare's lease and who owns the land.
Colin Jung:
• Said that Kindercare has a lease and they have been notified of the hearing and the
neighborhood meetings; staff has not received anything from corporate or the property owner
or outside manager expressing concerns. He noted a prior similar situation with a small lot
single family development proposed near a daycare center, and said they would expect that
there would be the same protections instituted.
Com. Miller opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 22, 2008
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that Cupertino has always shown great respect, care and love of their oak trees, and she
was hopeful that this site will allow the retention of all the oaks on the property because in the
past there had been removal of oak trees on the property. As mitigation there were oaks
planted as part of an approved historic landscape plan to replace the previous oak trees.
• She expressed concern that there was a 22 inch oak tree that was going to be cut down. She
said it was a very old tree and valued close to $ l OK and everything should be done to save it.
• Said she was also concerned about how far back the rear of the homes are; and said in her
opinion it would be difficult to have a back yard in the foundation of oak trees and redwood
trees. They would provide a lot of shade, but there needs to be enough room for the trees
particularly if they are historic.
• She also expressed concern that the property is currently zoned as 7 lots; and if it is to be
developed in the future, perhaps it should be master planned to avoid having a piecemeal
development on the property. There should be a master plan if there is going to be mixed
commercial and housing in the future.
• Said she was also concerned about the access into Kindercare; they have no access to Highway
9, and she felt it was important to look at how they share their driveway.
John Wang, Jamestown Drive:
• Resides west of the current development.
• Said that in the 80s when a developer removed all the trees from the orchard and built an office
building; at the time they promised the neighbors that there would be trees planted along the
westward boundary. The neighbors are now concerned about removal of the trees. Said they
were grateful to staff and the developer that they will reserve all those trees.
• Pointed out that the headlights of the trash trucks and delivery trucks would shine in their back
yards; if the Planning Commission approves the project, make certain there is a light barrier.
Bill Cooper, Owner of Granite Rock property and Summerwinds property:
• Said he had concerns about putting an island in the middle of commercial properties already
there. He said Granite Rock has tried to work with the property owners in the back quite a bit,
they use forklifts, and garbage trucks come early in the morning daily to commercial property
creating a lot of noise.
• As a property owner he said he was concerned that when the neighbors move in and
experience the noise, they will call the city, meet with the Council and complain about
problems. The city will then be sympathetic with the property owners and the commercial
owner will be labeled as the blame and restrictions will be put on them.
• He said he is a long term property owner with no plans to sell the property, but in the event
Granite Rock leaves, he would like to lease to another commercial owner. If restrictions are
put on the commercial owners, it will affect him and the rent he can get.
• He recommended that if the project is approved, there be some type of document recorded
stating that the buyers of the homes are fully aware and held accountable that if they ever do
complain in the future, there are some reference points where it is stated they knew that this
kind of thing was going on next to their property. He said he was a property owner also and
would appreciate the Planning Commission's assistance.
Chris Mann, Director of Real Estate Services, Granite Rock:
• Read comment into the record: "Thank you for including Granite Rock in the recent meetings
regarding the proposed residential development at 1601 So. DeAnza Boulevard in Cupertino.
As you are aware, Granite Rock operates a natural stone and design center at 1505 So. DeAnza
Boulevard directly adjacent to the proposed project. We oppose the project on the basis that it
is an incompatible land use for their operations. Placing more residential homes so close to
Cupertino Planning Commission
January 22, 2008
our boundary invites inevitable additional conflicts with new neighbors as we endeavor to
successfully operate our business. We have invested substantial resources in our location and
new business. The location was found after an exhaustive search of likely locations
throughout the area. In working with your very helpful city staff, we were assured that (a) our
use was allowed; and (b) that the city wanted us to be there and be successful. Based on that
sincere expression of support in our allowed use, we commenced our investment. We continue
to appreciate the support the city has shown us since our opening and look forward to
expanding our business in the city. While we certainly recognize the need in California for
housing, we oppose this intensification so close to our operations. We have already willingly
modified our operations in order to work cooperatively with existing adjacent neighbors; we
assert that adding more residential units next to us, even with commonly practiced deed
disclosures and sound mitigations, invites future conflict and will make it more difficult for us
to succeed. Through planning choices, the city of Cupertino can advance business success, job
growth, and tax based increases an encourage housing. For this to happen, the two uses need
to be kept distinct in location. We respectfully request that the city of Cupertino consider our
position on this important matter. Thank you very much for your time."
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked the acoustics consultant what the acoustics issues were on the Granite Rock side of the
property and how they may or may not be mitigated. Was there anything that could be done
from a design standpoint to mitigate the noise from Granite Rock, other than for them to keep
the windows closed because of the noise.
Acoustics Consultant:
Clarified that there was only a one decibel noise excess at the second floors of the homes at the
original setback from the plan evaluated. Said he was not aware that they moved the buildings
further back, thus it could be correct about the limit of the standards at 60 decibels for exterior
noise. With standard construction and no additional sound mitigation incorporated into the
building shelf, when there is 60 decibels on the outside, there is automatically 45 decibels on
the inside; those are the two city standards. He said he took the sound measurements by
placing a microphone in a tree right at the property boundary above the sound wall, and
calculated what it would be at the building setback and on the sides of the homes behind the
wall. He recommended the windows be kept shut to keep the sound up. Increasing that setback
by 5 feet probably has a very negligible effect on that sound level other than reducing it by a
very fraction of decibel amount, therefore, mitigation is still appropriate.
Said removing windows is a good thing for sound control because the windows are the weak
link in the building shelf so the less exposure to the source, the better. That is the only thing
you can do for the interior of the homes; as for the exterior, the sound wall is already there and
the sound level is down in the mid SOs for the sides of those homes; there is no need to do
anything on top of that.
Said all windows were removed except the one window in the closet. He explained the effect
the removal of the windows had on the noise calculations. The exterior wall of the home, if it
is a three coat stucco exterior, you will have a sound reduction rating a STC rating of 48 to 50
or as a standard dual pane window, typically rated around 28, is getting about 28 decibels of
sound reduction. There is about a 20 decibel difference between a room that has a window that
is exposed to the source, and a room that has no window exposed to the source.
Com. Giefer:
• Some of the questions asked earlier with regards to lease arrangements with Kindercare, the
trees, a number of the questions I asked earlier, specifically were pertaining to noise reduction
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 22, 2008
and how we are going to cocoon these houses from the two commercial uses to the right of it
and then the office plaza to the left of it and Kindercare in front of it.
• Said she was concerned that projects similar to this are islands of residential; they are not
integrated into any neighborhood. They are back fenced; the westerly neighbor is residential,
but there is no connectivity into that neighborhood. If the children want to play at Hoover
Park, they have to drive around a couple of miles, but if there was connectivity, they could
walk there.
• Said she did not see it as a safe family residential environment; the houses are too large; they
are going to have a yield of school children into the schools which is acceptable; but the real
issue is that the project does not make sense in this particular location. She said she shared her
comments with the ERC.
• She said it was expressed very well by the property owner, who owns the Granite Rock
property and Summerwinds property, and she concurred that they may be setting themselves
up for future failure. Owners of the houses will be annoyed about the trash pickup at 6:30 in
the morning, there will be complaints about the skip loaders and tractors at Granite Rock with
their backup sounds. The residents of the area will be back in five years complaining about
their commercial neighbors regardless of what is put in the deeds and covenants.
• Said she would prefer to have the project come back when the entire site is considered for
redevelopment in 10, 15 or 20 years because a single family residential project does not makes
sense in this area. She would prefer denial of the project and not continue it because it does
not make sense in this location. It is a good looking project, it is headed in the right direction
design-wise, but too many trees will have to be eliminated as part of the project and she does
not support touching the western landscape area.
Colin Jung:
• Provided the background on the historic oak trees mentioned by speaker Jennifer Griffin. In
1984 the site was redeveloped as a two story office building that is there now. A number of
trees were required to be protected; however, many trees mysteriously were removed. The
developer or other persons were accused of removing the trees, and they pleaded ignorance. A
mitigation plan was required for all the trees that were removed; however, the details are
sketchy in the development files. It is likely that many of the trees now on the site were
mitigations for the trees that were removed in 1984. It is difficult to ascertain which ones were
required for the ones that were removed. It simply stated "you shall replace two for one".
• He said there were no "heritage" trees on the property.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said his feelings were similar to Com. Giefer's. He said he was also concerned about the
interface between residents and other uses. Many cases that come before the Planning
Commission with similar conflict are those types of cases where the residents are complaining
about something commercial. He said he would have to think about whether he would vote to
deny at this point but saw a potential for problems.
Chair Miller:
• Said he had similar concerns; and felt the development would limit flexibility in terms of
future commercial development on the two sites affected. It is apparent from the speakers that
neighboring commercial property is concerned; which is always an issue with development. It
is one thing to go ahead with development on your site but if that development is materially
impacting your neighbors site, it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
• Said there were continuing issues between residents and commercial and/or office buildings; it
tends to be more intense when it is a retail commercial site rather than an office building.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 22, 2008
However, Apple Computer continuingly complains about the complaints they get from
neighbors. It happens on office sites as well.
Said he had serious reservations about approving this application at this point in time.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to deny Applications
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Riee
Rose absent)
Colin Jung:
• Said the mitigations were that there be a replanting plan presented to mitigate the loss of the
trees proposed for removal and a modification. Staff recommended a wall and the ERC
recommended a fence between Kindercare and the development.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to not recommend
approval of EA-2007-03 (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. lie-Rose absent)
3. INT-2007-01 Interpretation that a proposed car washing facility is consistent
Greg Malley with the Planned Development Recreation/Entertaining
20990 Homestead Rd. Zoning District. Postponed from the January 7, 2008 meeting.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the Request for Interpretation that a proposed car washing facility is consistent with
the Planned development Recreation/Entertaining Zoning District, as outlined in the staff
report.
• The intent was to create a entertainment, recreation "center" at that location. That zoning on
those two lots, the McDonalds and the bowling has not changed since 1974. The other two
properties were recently approved by the City Council and rezoned to general commercial after
extensive cosmetic improvements were required on both properties.
• The application does not address any site development issues; any site related issues relative to
noise, parking, circulation, would be up to a future use permit application if the Commission's
interpretation is approved for this particular use. The consistency finding relates to the
recreation/entertainment uses as well as the character of the neighborhood. On the surface,
staff cannot make a direct finding that the car wash is consistent with the
recreation/entertainment uses. It is staff's viewpoint that the car wash facility is a small and
incidental use to allow recreational/entertainment uses, and in addition at the proposed facility
is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Staff can make that finding because there
are three drive-through uses on the commercial corners of Homestead and Stelling, one of
which is an automotive lubrication center.
• Staff recommends a finding of zoning consistency for this application and they are not
addressing development issues at this time.
Colin Jung:
• Said they have reciprocal parking in the entire plaza or strip mall.
Com. Giefer:
• Asked if the entire center will be deficit in parking or will they be able to meet the parking
demands.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 January 22, 2008
Colin Jung:
• Said the center parking lot and entire site has some unusual easements placed on them that go
beyond the standard shared parking easements. They are development easements that dictate
where the buildings are and where the parking should be. The city attorney did a review and
felt that because the interpretation itself did not constitute an entitlement of the use, he felt it
was acceptable for the Planning Commission to move forward with an assessment of that; but
when it came down to if you were to approve the interpretation and the applicant moved
forward with an application for development, he had some serious reservations about whether
the city should act on a development permit for that site given the nature of the easement itself.
He felt uncomfortable acting on a development application unless the property owner had the
mutual consent of the adjacent property owners who are the holders of those easements.
• Explained that they were asking for an interpretation rather than an exception because the car
washing facility is not an articulated use in the zoning district. It is not among the allowed
land uses and the only way that it can be construed as being a land use is if the Planning
Commission makes that interpretation.
• Said that the Economic Development Manager has spoken with the owner about upgrading to
the center, more than just the car wash, and it is his contention that he needs some additional
use or development to the property itself to generate the revenue stream that will allow him to
make improvements to his portion of the center. Since he is held to the whim of the adjacent
property owners he felt that any other type of redevelopment that was construed to compete
with the existing uses out there would likely be vetoed by the adjacent owners.
Greg Malley, Applicant:
• Assured the Planning Commission and staff that his objective was the improvements to the
exterior and interior of the center. He said he would have liked to participate when the other
tenants made modifications to the site, he bought the center one year ago. The cost of
resurfacing the parking lot, was an expense they did not have revenue for and there are
complete upgrades that need to be done to the exterior and the interior. The center has not had
any significant modifications since it was built. They know that there are modifications to be
done but at this time there are falling revenues and they are currently in a difficult situation.
• He said the new bowling center two miles away was eating into into their revenue that they
would normally have, and the proposal was an attempt to solve the dilemma. He saw it as a
way to create a community benefit while solving his problem and also benefit other members
of the center. The facility is placed in the far corner of the center and the idea was to have a
facility that would not require parking, would be out of the way of the other businesses but
would bring in revenue into the center. He discussed with other members of the center,
bringing new customers into the center could be nothing but a good thing. Many of the
businesses of the center are not that visible.
• He met with another owner in the center to discuss parking. He said they anticipate losing 14
spaces; there are currently 11 planter box spaces that could be made into full parking spaces;
another three spaces are where the trash enclosure is. With the reconfiguration they would not
lose any parking spaces and the trash enclosure could be moved to the back where it should be.
Greg Malley:
• Said that the car wash was adrive-through with an automated drying system, not the type of
car wash where the cars were hand wiped dry. He said that he planned to own and operate the
car wash.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 22, 2008
Michael Cheng, representing Bay 18LOC, owner of Parcel No. 3:
• He said he disagreed with staff that the project is consistent with the neighborhood because
there are three drive-through facilities and a auto lubrication center. The other three drive-
through facilities are sit down restaurants with adrive-through window, and he felt a car wash
could not be related to adrive-through restaurant. The presence of one auto Tube center does
not make the character of the neighborhood an auto based area; there are no gas stations
around there and nothing else that relates to a car wash or auto services.
• He recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that the addition of a car
wash is not consistent with the list of uses of Resolution 1315 and is not constituent with the
character of the neighborhood.
Chair Miller:
• Asked Mr. Cheng what Bay 18LOC owns; what their objection to the car wash was; and how
he felt it would negatively impact his business?
Michael Cheng:
• Said the main issue was parking; customers are saying there is not enough parking and the
addition of a car wash would take away another 14 spaces. Other issues include traffic and
noise pollution, and hazardous waste inherent in a car wash. When there is already limited
parking and a car wash is added, it will affect their ability to attract future tenants.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• There were a lot of hearings about the rezoning from entertainment district to general retail and
one of the big questions was where was the former Brunswick property. The property is
owned by different people and they have not heard from the McDonald's owners either.
• She recalled that in the past there were issues of concern about possible competition with two
bowling alleys located in Cupertino. She noted they were at opposite ends of the city.
• Said the city stated there may be future plans for this property and it may be mixed retail,
possibly residential. She said she was concerned with that because there is a massive
apartment complex expansion behind this property, and there are still issues on Stelling that
have not been resolved.
• Another issue is that if the car wash does go in there are they thinking of splitting the lot and
selling it to another property owner? Perhaps the city needs to master plan the whole area
since there has been a lot of rezoning down there.
Rod Baeta, resident:
• Disagreed with Mr. Cheng. Said he has resided in Cupertino since 1962, and bowls at the
bowling alley and has never experienced a parking problem there.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he did not see the relationship between the car wash and the planned development,
recreation entertainment zoning district.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she could not make the finding that it is an inconsistent use with what is listed, so she
would find it as consistent and could make the interpretation as staff recommends. Said it was
remarkable that an adjacent property owner who came in and made the argument a year ago
that he could not lease out his spaces unless granted a zoning change, is now saying it does not
make sense for the center for various reasons.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 January 22, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed that it is reasonable to make the interpretation and they want to try and help
their commercial residents in town. The concerns raised are more appropriately raised at the
time an actual application is brought and they will all have to be addressed at that specific
time. Said he had no issue with going ahead and making the interpretation that staff suggested.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Chair Miller, to approve Application
INT-2007-01. (Vote: 2-1-0; Com. Kaneda No; Com. Rice absent)
4. M-2007-03, ASA-2007-18 Modification to a Use Permit to construct a new
Union Church of Cupertino 5,000 square foot building. Architectural Site
20900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Approval for a new 5,000 square foot
building. Postponed from January 7, 2008 meeting.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
• Reviewed the application for modification to a previously approved Use Permit to construct a
new 5,000 square foot building and architectural and site approval for a new 5,000 square foot
building, as outlined in the staff report.
• She reviewed the project description, site layout, architectural design, parking, neighborhood
meeting held, streetscape, driveway access, landscaping and tree removal/replacement as
detailed in the staff report.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to the use permit
and ASA per the model resolutions.
Mark Brady, Applicant, Pastor of Union Church:
• They had meetings with the neighbors and there are still some things in process. The neighbors
raised questions about the drainage on the site and where it would drain. The architect stated
that it was the requirement of the building plan that all the drainage go towards Stevens Creek.
They also raised the question about building use, and what the proposed uses would be. The
church came up with the idea of the building when Crystal Choir approached us, asking if
there was some way to have a permanent home at Union Church. They have been at Union
Church for twelve years and .run their program out of four additional sites in the Bay Area.
They would like to have a home base and office in Cupertino, but will have to leave the area if
they could not come up with a plan to provide them with non-shared work space. The space
would be used on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays; it would not be shared space with
other community groups, and would be Union Church space the remainder of the week.
• The neighbors asked the church to limit the new additional parking to 12 spaces adjacent to the
new building and remove the 12 spaces adjacent to their backyards. It would give more green
space and more of a buffer and would limit the parents dropping off children in that area
adjacent to the backyards. They met with Crystal Choir, and the church and choir were
agreeable. The architect did not think they would need those 12 spaces to meet the parking
space requirement; they talked with the neighbors and said they could agree to going forward.
• The neighbors requested a wall buffer between the church boundary and their backyards
similar to the wall between the church and Fontana's and are willing to work with the
neighbors on it going forward.
Pastor Mark Brady:
• Said they discussed the concept of putting the building closer to the property line and putting
the parking in between the existing building and the new building, and having the front door in
the interior of the property site as opposed to where it is currently. However, the Director of
Cupertino Planning Commission 14
January 22, 2008
the Crystal Choir had the feasibility response to that and there was some reason for the Crystal
Choir that they wanted it situated the way it is designed.
Also said that the trustees of the church have discussed the possibility of eliminating the third
driveway. They contacted one of the city engineers in the last year for some input of what they
can do to the frontage of the church to allow easier access because many people miss the first
driveway, and by the time they get to the second, it is exit only. Could they widen the first
driveway to give them options to get into the property. That has been an ongoing discussion at
the church for the last two years.
Aki Honda:
• Did not believe there was an issue with reducing the parking because the most they need is 105
parking spaces for their busiest day and they are proposing 137 parking spaces.
Chair Miller:
• He asked about missing the first driveway. Would it be better to eliminate the one on the
western side and widen the one in the middle. Is there a way to have better identification of
that first entrance?
Alci Honda:
• Staff has not spoken to Public Works in detail about how that would be done; they came up
with the idea conceptually to widen that driveway. She said she is not sure how that would
affect the configuration of the parking lot.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jay Hwang, resident:
• Resides on the south side of the church next to the empty site.
• Said the church representatives at the meetings did not completely address all the neighbors'
concerns, and asked that the Planning Commission consider two major concerns before
granting the permits. The first is that the noise will increase from the traffic coming into and
out of the church and the parents dropping off the children year round. The other concern is
safety and privacy. The church has no security control, and the neighbors would like a
concrete wall built.
Mayshine Hwang:
• Said she resided near the church, and the broken fence is in her backyard. Her major concern
is she would like to extend the stone brick fence all the way down the street to help reduce the
noise and for security purposes. The trash is a concern as well; sometimes with the church
fund raiser, there is trash by her backyard. Also, sometimes there are homeless people in the
parking lot and the stone brick wall would help with security.
Gordon Lu, resident:
Presented photos of the back of the building to show the landscaping and stone wall. He
suggested that the stone wall be extended with landscaping to buffer the noise and security.
Rod Baeta, resident:
Said the fence fell down during the recent storm. The church has agreed to pay for half; they
assumed it was on the joint property line and told the neighbors they would pay for half the
fence repair. He questioned the recommendations regarding tearing up the sidewalk and use
pavers. Do they have to put pavers from the sidewalk to the front of the church entrance? It is
approximately 55-60 feet.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 January 22, 2008
Aki Honda:
• Said it is along the streetscape.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• She asked that they do everything possible to save the large tree in the front of the property;
there are not many other large Oak trees close to Stevens Creek and she would like to see it
retained. She also asked that they retain the lawn along the setbacks along Stevens Creek.
Ben Liao, speaking as a Board Member of the Crystal Children Choir:
• The choir has been in Cupertino since 1994 and feels it is very important to stay in Cupertino.
The staff has built a world renowned children's choir that has performed in several different
countries and Carnegie Hall. They are also involved in the local community. The choir is a
non-profit organization and has grown and they need a larger office and area to practice.
• He attended the last neighborhood meeting and the church and choir stressed the importance of
not disturbing the neighbors and limiting the usage of the building before 9 p.m.
• They took away a row of the parking lot. He said the choir and the church remain committed
to keeping the good relationship with the neighborhood. Crystal Children Choir is helping the
children, the schools and the city and it is important for them to stay in Cupertino.
• He urged the Planning Commission to approve the construction of the new building.
Com. Kaneda:
• He asked the applicant about flipping the parking lot and the building.
Pastor Mark Brady:
• In the initial planning meetings it was advantageous for the church to have the building flipped
the other way because the other classrooms are similarly placed, and it is closer to the offices.
It is advantageous to the choir; it was felt strongly that it remain as designed in terms of the
entrance.
Chair Miller:
• Commented that if it was flipped around, there would be no objections. Cars would not be
next to the fence and there would be no need for a fence barrier.
Pastor Mark Brady:
• He was concerned that the building itself would then be closer to the neighbors property line;
and he felt it was better suited to be constructed with the buffer between the rooms and the
homes.
• Said the building was air conditioned.
• He said if it was conditioned to put a wall in, he would prefer having the wall rather than
flipping the building, because they have had discussions over a period of time and the design
of the building was what they need. Relative to the cost of the wall, he said he felt it would be
awash if you do not pay for 12 parking spaces; and the parking lot is a wash in terms of the
overall cost.
Ciddy Wordell:
• Said the cost of a wall or fence would be the burden of the applicant since they are proposing
something that has impacts on the neighbors, and it would be their responsibility to mitigate
those impacts.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 January 22, 2008
• She said that allowing a wood fence and then requiring in the future that they put in a masonry
wall, would run the risk of double expenses and a risk to them. She said she felt the masonry
wall would be more effective.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that noise concerns are the main issue that the neighbors have and she would support
adding a masonry wall along the rear fence line no higher than eight feet tall.
• She suggested posting signs to remind people to be courteous to the neighbors over the fence.
She also suggested modifying one of the conditions if the other commissioners agree with
regard to widening the driveway, specifically adding that either the west or the more eastern
middle driveway be widened and one of them closed provided that no damage be done to the
Oak tree; otherwise leave as is. (Section 3 of the resolution, No. 8 regarding driveways).
• Said she would support the project with the above-stated modifications. If the driveways
cannot be widened without damaging the Oak tree, then no modifications to the driveways take
place.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed with Com. Giefer.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt it was important to support education; and he supports the project.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Applications
M-2007-03 and ASA-2007-18 with the following modifications: a masonry wall
maximum 8 feet high to be added along the rear adjacent perimeter to the homes;
signs be posted along that wall reminding users of the church facility to respect
the neighbors, be quiet and not toss trash over the fences; Section 3, No. 8,
regarding the driveway and ASA No. 8, be modified to reflect that if either
driveway may be widened and the other closed provided no harm or damage
occurs to the existing Oak tree between the two driveways, otherwise no driveway
be widened or closed and the 13 parking spaces along the residential wall be
eliminated from the plan. (Vote: 3-0-0, Com. Kiee Rose absent)
5. ASA-2007-16 Architectural Site Approval for facade, landscaping
Mahesh Patel (Cupertino and parking lot modifications for an existing commercial
Business Plaza) building. Planning Commission decision final unless
19875 Stevens Creek Blvd appealed.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the architectural site approval for facade, landscaping and parking lot modifications
for an existing commercial building located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Portal Avenue. The site plan illustrates that site plan improvements most significantly will be
the back of the lot. The main change will be some entrances instead of windows in front. It
does trigger some major changes to the interior which is the main reason some of these issues
are being raised. Currently there is an entrance in the front and to the right. There would be 8
entrances in the front, two openings in the back and five are proposed. The entrances to the
front will all be from the front except you can access them from the back as well. The
entrances from the back are doubled up so when there is an entrance the tenant spaces, a
couple of them can take them off that single entrance. Some of the widths are very narrow, 17
feet, several 20's, two 33's in front and fairly narrow tenant spaces at the back. The kinds of
tenants that can use these spaces are not typical of the successful commercial centers that are in
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 January 22, 2008
that area and are capable of being in that area. It limits the type of tenants that will be attracted
to the space because they do not have visibility and they do not have many options on how
they can use that space.
Staff feels that it would be a better use of visible property and more consistent with the
General Plan that calls for more active, vibrant, vital uses along Stevens Creek Blvd. to attract
larger tenants. The preference would be to have one tenant or two maximum. Kelly Kline, the
Economic Development Manager is present to answer questions if more information is needed
in regards to the retail attractiveness. Noted on the landscape plan, is they feel the planters in
front could be wider, the parking spaces could be reduced in size to unisize and they could get
wider planters that would provide more protection for the trees
The recommendation is to approve the application with some amendment with the condition
that the tenants in the front not exceed six and that four of them would be at least 30 feet wide.
They are also recommending two changes to the existing conditions. One would be to
Condition 5, the intent of the condition being that they repair the wall at the back. The
wording in the model resolution relative to conforming to Heart of the City should state that it
needs to be repaired. The last amendment is to Condition 8, which would be to provide
reciprocal access in both directions (east and west).
Kelly Kline, Economic Development Manager, City of Cupertino:
• Said the small spaces would attract tenants for coffee shops, small food uses, or boutiques.
The concern with the width is that the standard work letter for any credit tenant is they have
minimum frontage requirements and the smallest they have seen is 30 feet. Of the uses that
you could consider, the pool would become a lot smaller with frontages that are so narrow.
Chair Miller:
• Asked for clarification on how many tenants they are willing to have. At first staff wanted to
limit it to one or two tenants, and then concluded that staff would be willing to accept six
tenants on front and did not know how much in back.
Ciddy Wordell:
• Said that staff did not address the back of it. The only reference was to the maximum staff
recommended for the front. The less it is divided up, the better.
• Other issues covered in the staff report included a tree removal on the east side of the property
that was shown to accommodate the new opening. One of the conditions is that the tree
remains and no trees be removed from the site and that the opening could be narrowed to
protect the tree.
Kelly Kline:
• Said that from an economic development prospective, sites this size are rare especially in
Cupertino. Some of the stated needs by the community and also voids analysis of commercial
retail in Cupertino showed that things like sporting goods, office supplies, bookstores, some of
the things they would most like to see, require more than 1,000-3,000 square feet. She said it
was more feasible to have more than 10,000 square feet to work with. Having a small amount
of square footage and then carving it up into small spaces from staff's perspective is not the
highest and best use. She said she was certain it could be leased, and there would be a long list
of people willing to come but it would not necessarily be the best tenant mix that they could
hope for and what the community needs are for this location.
Mahesh Patel, Patel Structural Engineers, Applicant:
• Said they would prefer to have fewer tenants but would also like to see maximum flexibility
for the property owners. The original facade approval in 1999 was done with the thought that
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 January 22, 2008
all the store front windows could be substituted with a pair of double doors; the floor plans
shows the entrance doors fit in the original store front. Tenants such as Quiznos, Peets Coffee
could fit into the small spaces.
Said that he would like to have bigger tenants occupy the place but if you do not have the
convenience for someone to grab food at lunch time they are going to have to bring their lunch
or have no time to eat. For the convenience standpoint, he does not object to staff
recommending 30 feet minimum; he said he felt there should be allowance for two or three
smaller spaces in front because there is always a need for smaller operations. Things start
small and get larger.
Said that although they have not added square footage to the building, they have provided so
much improvement. The back of the parking lot was completely striped parking lot. At one
time the entire back was all asphalt. They are still doing the landscaping which meets and
exceeds the city requirement of 10% landscaping. The parking stall in the front is providing
the island and the city standard is four feet and that is provided.
Said the small rear spaces not visible from Stevens Creek could be utilized by retail businesses
such as a travel agent or a computer service store.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt it was serious under-utilization of the site, and felt the city would welcome a more
intensive use than proposed. He asked the applicant if he had considered doing something
more substantial there.
Mahesh Patel:
• He said he had considered something more substantial
• He said they have spent more than two years on the project and gone through tremendous
expense and difficulty, designing six different projects for the site. Grubb and Ellis have now
been hired to lease the facility for the group.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Tom Huginin, resident:
• Said he has resided in the neighborhood since 1969; and he had no indication earlier that
anything was happening with the property, no community meeting has been held.
• He expressed concern about the lighting and increased noise; there is no sound wall design in
the plans. The neighbors would like the restrictions of sweeping and garbage pick up after 8
a.m., similar to the restrictions at Market Place; and the lights turned off about 10 p.m.
• The adjoining property does not have lighting next to the adjoining sound wall and they feel
that would be appropriate. He presented a lighting proposal.
• He said they would prefer to have an eight foot wall to conform to the Heart of the City. The
Portal Avenue ingress is also a concern because there is going to be traffic coming from Portal
Avenue into the lot.
Louise Huginin, resident:
• Said the main concern is the sound wall is which is not in keeping with the corresponding
walls in that area. She also expressed concern about the trash and traffic behind their house.
She said they have no privacy.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that there has been a furniture store at that site for many years, with confusing entrances
and exits to the area. It is an odd site with limited parking. She feels that it would be a better
use to have five or six spaces in the front.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 January 22, 2008
• Said she felt it would be more appropriate that it be set up similar to a small mall area, entering
one way in the front and spread out. Also, a few larger tenants would be better for the
neighborhoods.
Cindy Chang, Property Owner:
• Said they have spent over a million dollars on the project over the past 2-1/2 years, trying to
make the site into a mixed use with residents in the back and commercial in the front. They
made the staff suggested changes and when they brought it back staff changed their minds.
Six months ago she decided that she would keep the building the way it is and make
modifications within. She said she is not making any changes but wants to develop the plan.
• She hired Mary Chucke as a leasing agent two months ago, and they are trying to put big
tenants in the building but would like the maximum flexibility. She has a preschool tenant
with a letter of intent for about 12,000 square feet. They like it in the back because they do not
have exposure in the front.
Ciddy Wordell:
• Provided a brief history of the site. One of the reasons it was a residential project was that it
was horizontal behind the commercial building in the front. There were efforts to get the
residential more interactive with the surrounding area in the street rather than just being fixed
behind a commercial plan. The current General Plan addresses residential being appropriate
if it drives the retail, but not the reason for the residential development. She said the versions
she saw were the opposite, the retail was incidental and did not interface well with the
surrounding area.
Kelly Kline:
• The more recent iteration of it was a project proposing retail condominiums. It is not
something that staff considered before and did not know the ins and outs going down that path;
once the city has approved a retail condo project, it opens the door for more. It is a
controversial topic in the retail industry whether this works or not. That was not something that
staff could support.
Com. Kanada:
• Asked if there were any discussions about what the potentials were for this site.
Kelly Kline:
• The challenge for the property owner is that making the bigger play is a longer term leasing
effort; landing a bigger tenant will not happen overnight. The benefit is that in the long term
there would be a stable tenant that will be there for twenty years. It is a more lucrative
proposition to do the multi-tenant scenario. The issue is the quality of the tenant mix and the
quality of the retail space that is being created for the future.
Ciddy Wordell:
• Relative to meeting all the requirements of the zoning for the property, she said there is
nothing that is inconsistent with the zoning.
• She said that staff did not specifically require they build an eight foot masonry wall. One of
the reasons is that the changes they are making to the building are fairly minor, and although
they felt that it was going to lock in the use for a long time, that was the reason they wanted the
parking lot and other improvements to be made. The extra mile would be to do the masonry
wall and that is why they said to just repair what they have. If you wanted to push the
envelope then you could do the masonry wall.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 January 22, 2008
• She said that the owner is asking for their maximum spaces; although they may not use it, they
want the flexibility and must get approved for the maximum flexibility whether they use it or
not. If they change the outside they are going to have to get some kind of approval. If they
were coming in with one new door it probably would have been a director's minor
modification but this was a very different way of using the building.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that as Planning Commissioners, they have tried to keep in mind what the city's vision is
and what does the General Plan dictate, and are the uses that come before the Commission
compatible with the vision that city has. She said she did not feel that subdividing and
allowing as many tenants as the owner wants is appropriate. She would like to see a larger
national chain tenant go in there, and did not support subdividing the space.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he understood the applicant's frustration. And also the city's side of it. He said he could
support some subdivision but not the small sizes shown on the plans. If they presented a larger
subdivision, he would support it.
Chair Miller:
• Said he would be able to support the project if some of the outstanding issues were taken care
of, such as the food issue. He said it its current status, the application is not working.
• He also asked staff if they worked with the applicant to help define the spaces.
Mahesh Patel:
• Said he would prefer to move the application forward
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Chair Miller, to approve Application
ASA-2007-16 with the following conditions: That the applicant be required to
construct and/or increase the height of the existing masonry wall to 8 feet;
lighting to be turned off after business hours; if there is restaurant use,
appropriate control for vector control and odors; bioswales be designed so they
operate properly; trash pickup and sweeping occur after 8 a.m.; and have
reciprocal access on both east and west driveways. (Yotz-3-0-f Vote: 2-1-0;
Com. Giefer No; Com. Kiee Rose absent)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No Report.
Housing Commission: No Report
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: No Report
Economic Development Committee: No Report
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 January 22, 2008
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for February 12, 2008 at 6:45 p.m.
~~~~
~..../ ~
Respectfully Submitted: .~
Elizabeth E is Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: February 12, 2008