PC 07-22-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMNIISSION
APPROVED MIIVUTES
6:45 P.M. JULY 22, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Gary Chao
APPROVAL OF MIlVUTE5:
Minutes of July 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Brophy, to approve the minutes of
the July 8, 2008 meeting as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director,
noted receipt of several items related to agenda items.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
1. SPA-2008-01 Heart of the City Specific plan amendments
City of Cupertino to achieve conformance with the General
Stevens Creek Blvd. between Plan. Continued
from June 10, 2008
Hwy. 85 and the Eastern city limit Planning Commission meeting; Postponed
to August 26, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting. Tentative City Council date: not
scheduled.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Rose, to postpone Application
SPA-2008-O1 to the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent).
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 22, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Matt Kamkar, Cupertino resident:
• Addressed the Planning Commission regarding floor area ratio (FAR) of second to first floor
discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting, and urged the Commission to
increase the allowable ratio of second floor to first floor. He stated that he owned two
properties in Cupertino; one in Rancho Rinconada where he did not do second floor because
of the current rules, resulting in a bigger roof, bigger foundation, smaller backyard;
everything opposite of the green building practices that one would like to see. On his Monta
Vista property, he said he would prefer to go to a second floor if the rules permitted.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Expressed concern that she felt the current Rl ordinance was being piecemealed into
something it was not intended to be, particulazly with the floor to area ratio potentially going
to 100% for the second story. She said it may be better to open the whole Rl ordinance.
• Some lots in Rancho Rinconada are 5,000 sq. ft. or under and there are other areas in the city
that have very small lots and doing anything more to increase the second story, sets up
dangers for the neighbors. It may be better to open the R1 from the hillside ordinance to
floor to area ratio rather than piecemealing this, working on it a little, and then winding up
with unpleasant things such as monster homes.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. R-2008-14, RM-200&16 Director's referral to the Planning Commission the
Chia-Ching Lin; 21947 approval of a Residential Design Review for a new
Lindy Lane -(Krishnapura & 4,491 sq. ft., two-story single family residence with a
Minasandram residence) basement and a Minor Residential Permit for a side
facing second story balcony on the new residence.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the Director's referral of architectural and site plans for a two-story 4,499 square
foot single-family residence on Lindy Lane, as outlined in the staff report.
~ He explained that the application was the first proposal under the new ordinance adopted in
November 2007, which is part of the R1 ordinance but applies specifically to the R1-20
zoned properties which are largely located north of Lindy Lane. In that area the City
adopted a set of hillside regulations.
• He reviewed an aerial view of the property, a three lot subdivision. He pointed out that
based on the R1-20 ordinance, given the size of the project, they did not meet the planning
threshold for a development application; they were not required to do a design review
permit, nor a permit for the second story balcony. Because of staff's concerns with the
architecture, the history of recent controversy in this neighborhood, staff felt it best to
conduct this review in a manner that was similar to what we normally do in a two-story
home in Rl zoned property. The applicant erected story poles and neighbors within a 300
foot radius were noticed, and provided them with plan sets. There were concerns from the
neighbors about the project as presented and redesigns of the project resulted in a much
better project than originally presented.
• He reviewed the elevations and noted that the applicant had made modifications to the
architecture of the project, creating a lighter, more compatible architectural form to the
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 July 22, 2008
existing homes and older homes in the neighborhood. Staff feels that from an architectural
standpoint, the proposed house is compatible with the residential neighborhood.
• He reviewed the neighbors' concerns and the applicant's responses and modifications made
to address the concerns, which are detailed in the staff report.
• Staff has not made a recommendation on the project, but if the City Council decides to
approve the site and architectural plan, staff recommends the two highlighted items which
are in the model resolution, the last two items in red aze additional items staff would like the
Planning Commission to consider and add to the model resolution, including replacement of
two mitigation Oaks that are on the property. The other condition is that the setback of the
easterly retaining wall currently is at 6 feet; they would like to increase it to 8 feet because
staff does not feel that the distance between the wall and drainage swale is wide enough to
accommodate the privacy landscaping that needs to be planted in that location.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked staff to explain the changes made to the zoning ordinance in November 2007.
Colin Jung:
• Said what was created was a hybrid of R1 zoning regulations and the hillside zoning
regulations. There is a requirement to screen retaining walls; some things are transferred over
like screening of retaining walls, the limitation on solid board fencing around a property;
requirement for open board fencing around the yards of property; there was some regulations
regarding the removal of trees, allowing up to two protected trees to be removed if they are
under 18 inches if it is within the housing pad; there were some protections put in that if it
was on steeper slopes greater than 30%, then a hillside exception would be required; but the
slope of this property is under that.
• Some of the more interesting aspects of the ordinance related to the fact that the second floor
of the residence was unlimited in terms of the square footage. There are limits to it, the FAR
limit but that is basically the same; it doesn't say that specifically but is the same principle that
is in the residential hillside ordinance. There are some certain thresholds about review having
to do with if it is on a flat pad and you go through one level of review and if it is not on it, you
can only build up to 4,500 before you come to the Planning Commission. The grading
quantity was the same, so it is similar but not exactly; if there is anything that comes up during
the hearing that you specifically want to stress, it would be easier to talk about specificity
rather than generality about the ordinance.
• Said that both of the homes were built not under the previous iteration, but the iteration before
that; that particular iteration limited the second story to 35% of the first story, which is the
biggest difference. The other difference with the previous iteration was that neither of those
two homes were required to go through any type of public hearing or design review and both
of them were allowed with building permits because that is what the ordinance allowed at the
time. A two-story home that was less than a 35% FAR was allowed with a building permit.
Com. Brophy:
• The question about the other retaining wall would destabilize the slopes supporting their home;
is there any response to that or is that something that would be taken care of in the
geotechnical study.
Colin Jung:
• Regardless if it is a new permit or a building permit, whenever there is development situations
in the hillside, all that must go to the city geologist; the applicant is required to hire a
geotechnical engineer and they are going to be looking at not only the retaining walls, they aze
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 22, 2008
• going to be looking at the basement walls; the grading; the drainage and look at all that stuff.
It has to be reviewed not only by the city geologist, but also by community development staff.
Steve Piasecki:
• Explained that active solar is photo voltaics, where the sun is required to light up the photo
voltaics and generate energy. Passive solar is the orientation of a house; it allows solar to gain
access to the floor, walls, windows, so that the home can receive the heating.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for the reason the 5,500 sq. ft. limited square footage covenant was put in place.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that when the three lot subdivision came before the Planning Commission, there were
concerns about house size and the applicant agreed to a restriction to the 5,500 square foot in
lieu of 45% on the 20,000 square foot lots.
• Staff answered Commissioners' questions about landscape mitigation for all three houses,
shared use of storm drains and said the applicant would be required to pay a security deposit or
hook into the private storm drain that is in the Lindy Lane driveway.
S. Krishnapura, Applicant:
• Thanked staff for their cooperation in working closely with them on the design.
• All recommendations and comments from Planning staff, and the public feedback which has
deemed to be the right feedback to address, have been fully addressed. Detailed landscape
plan addresses all neighbors' privacy; there are factual errors in the negative impact report
submitted by the 20949 Lindy Lane residents and we request upfront to have a separate time
for rebuttal of the factual errors in the report.
• He reported that all staff feedback was addressed including mass and bulk; changing the roof
to slate; use of mixed pavers in the driveway; reduction of retaining wall height; landscape and
privacy; reduction of the height of the house from 453 feet to 450 feet.
• The design meets the ordinance with no exceptions; comprehensive geotechnical review of the
lot finds proposed design and building construction suitable; tnass and bulk of the design is
lowest compared to east and west side neighbors; building location is at the lowest slope
portion of the lot limiting the cut and fill; applicants diligently worked with the senior planners
since Nov. 2007 to design the house.
~ All recommendations or comments from Planning staff covered public feedback or addressed
by amendments to the ordinance, the detailed landscape plan addresses all neighbors' privacy.
The neighbor in the front, the neighbor in the back and southwest direction, west north
direction, they all have sent emails to the Planning Dept. supporting the design.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked for a response to the staff suggestion that the setback for the east retaining wall be
increased from 6 to 8 feet in order to accommodate privacy landscaping; and the replacement
of two mitigation Oaks.
Applicant:
• Said he would be willing to increase the setback and replace the two mitigation Oaks as
suggested by staff.
• Said that the basement helps to hold the structure more geotechnically safe than the piers, and
the construction cost of the basement is similar in cost to the piers.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 July 22, 2008
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Hare, Attorney representing owners of 21949 Lindy Lane, Lot 1:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said they were present because of the change in the ordinance. The size and cubic feet and
measurements make for interesting map, but the real issue is when the ordinance was changed,
after the uphill owners built their house, the removal of the restrictions on the second story
allowed for the house on Lot 2 to have a much larger area which immediately affected the
view and blocking the solar access for the passive solar for the uphill property. Focus should
be that the uphill owner specifically went in, reviewed the ordinance, looked carefully at what
was being done, what the upstairs 35% restriction would do, and built the passive solar to take
maa~imum advantage of what would be in place. When the ordinance changed and allowed for
the larger unrestricted second story, this became apparent when the story poles went up.
• You are being asked to make a decision with the resolution presented and to make certain
findings without the benefit of a staff recommendation; staff calling this as a case of first
impression under the ordinance, but has not made any recommendations for environmental
review. Under CEQA, this is clearly an unusual circumstance, calling for at least some
environmental review to look at some of these impacts. The City has asked for further
geotechnical~ review because of the hillside. Whether or not the project conforms to the Rl and
RHS zoning is a matter of some dispute; in any respect we do see that it does have an issue
with respect to the need for environmental review.
• The impacts of the project are not just on the view and the passive solar; but as the design
change and configurations are going to go forward, there may be impacts on the hillside as
well. The placement of the retaining wall is just the surface part, but it has to cut into the
bedrock that underlies the uphill property. The uphill property owners are extremely
concerned with this.
• We are here not to object to the building of a house on the second lot, but simply looking at
what you have reaped what you have sown in the removal of a restriction that was put in place
for the very specific reason of protecting some of the beautiful views of the valley floor to
allow for some of these rather ahead of their time, the passive solar that the uphill property
owner designed into the property. We ask that you use your discretion to deny this and send it
back until you have had a chance to get the environmental review.
Steve Piasecki:
• Responded to the attorney's suggestion that more environmental review was needed before a
decision would be reached.
• Said the speaker did not refer to a section of CEQA that would be activated for environmental
review; our reading of the categorical exemptions is that building a single family house is
categorically exempt and does not require additional review.
Chair Miller:
~ The uphill neighbor is protected because the house cannot be built unless it passes all the
necessary requirements from the geotechnical standpoint.
Steve Piasecki:
~ Said the applicant is protected because they are building the house in conformance, as well as
the downhill; it is good common sense practice.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 22, 2008
Jeffrey Hare:
• Said he submitted a letter citing Section 1500.2 does address the issue of the use of the
categorical exemption; there is no mention in the staff report of any categorical exemption, but
the section also provides that an exception to the exemption under that provision if there is .
unusual circumstances which is our position here; which is cited in the letter submitted.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they have not found any unusual circumstances, but Section 1500.303 is new construction
or conversion of small structures, Class 3, specifically says "examples of this exemption
include but are not limited to one single family residence or a second dwelling unit of
residential zone".
Chair Miller:
~ Said that reference was made that it doesn't conform to the R1 and the RHS ordinance, but
that is not relevant here, so I am not sure what we do with that comment because there is a
special ordinance that applies just to 15 properties on this slope, and that is the ordinance we
are required to go by from the standpoint of what we are doing here tonight.
Jeffrey Hare:
• Deferred to the comments in the two letters he submitted to the findings that must be made and
the fact that you must find the level of compatibility with the adjoining properties, the lack of
any impacts on the adjoining properties which we have detailed and the fact that the project as
it is currently proposed, will have these impacts. You must make a finding that there are none
of these in order to find compatibility under those ordinances. I think that the findings that are
in the resolution before you, the evidence that will be presented and has been presented so far,
shows that there is these impacts. They can be mitigated; but have not been done so to the
degree that would satisfy us. I think that the finding of that, the evidence will show that a
finding of no impacts on the adjoining property, no impacts on the passive solar, or any
impacts of that nature, are not supported here. With all due respect, that is the finding. I
summarized that in my letter to you dated yesterday (July 21).
• We would ask that you consider this because I think there is a solution here; we think that the
original ordinance was designed to limit the upper story on these hillside areas for good
reason; and we would like to see the opportunity for this to work out for everyone's benefit, to
allow them to have a beautiful home on Lot 2 and to not create a situation with the larger
upper story that creates a blockage of passive solar and the views.
S. Raghvendra, Cupertino resident:
• In support of the project.
• Said that staff has held the applicants to a higher standard than required by the City laws; and
made them go above and beyond by erecting the story poles, by having them take down a
number of elements the architect suggested. The applicants did so because they wanted to
make it a smooth process in meeting the rules of the city. This should give them a green light
on the topic.
• Summarized that the applicant has followed all the rules set forth by the City and should be
given ascent without further delay.
Tej ~Kohli, Cupertino resident:
~ Opposed to the project.
• Said they were a neighborhood, but he felt that it was presently just the `hood'; taking the
`neighbor' out, which he felt is wrong. Mitigations exist to the problem, the Planning
Commission and Mayor's office is both the executive and the legislature; we don't want to
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 July 22, 2008
bring in the judiciary, we want to fix it as neighbors.
• The City being the executive and legislator, should be responsible for responsible zoning.
Why would 15 residents of Cupertino that aze hillside get a special zone? It is a separate issue;
but the attorney brought up the point that if it changed midstream, it is an issue.
• Why do we call them hillsides? The reason we call them hillsides is that the law of gravity
does not change; that's what makes it a hillside and if the law of gravity doesn't change, how
can zoning change if gravity hasn't changed? It is on a 29% slope; to the common eye, it
looks unbuildable, and if you carve that much of a hill out, 2500 cubic yards. In comparison,
the potting soil bags from the Home Depot, that is one cubic foot, some bags have two cubic
feet, and we are talking 58,000 cubic feet that are going to be taken out of the hill to make
room for the house.
• The house has a 2,000 square foot basement, 2,000 square foot first floor and 2,000 squaze
foot second floor; it is not a house, it is a box. That is where the R1 upper story going to 35%
is important, because you don't want the houses to be towers. A walk up that slope and look at
the property is very important before any decision is made, and would request that the
Planning Commission at least do that before making a decision.
• Said he would vote to put sunshine back in this neighborhood.
Sarvesh Mahesh, 21949 Lindy Lane:
• Opposes the project.
• Said they moved into their home one year ago, and when they designed and built their home,
the lot neat door was an RHS property and the maximum allowable upstairs was 1,100 square
feet. Since then the law changed and the special 15 houses have the privilege of designing
under a different consideration that the fee used for designing their house. While it increases
the value of the other 14 homes, it seriously jeopardizes our safety and quality of living. The
negative geological impacts; there is loss of privacy; views; quality of life; passive solaz and
property value.
• The massive scale isn't compatible; the current design creates a big hole next to our house;
five feet from our property line, it creates a two story deep basement; and it requires an 80 foot
retaining wall which is between 10 and 12 feet high at different points. All of this is 1,000 feet
away from the Monta Vista fault at a very steep 29% grade, which creates a high risk for
landslides and earthquakes. Who indemnifies that risk? Between the two houses, if the
second house was built the way it is proposed, there is going to be a thin sliver off the hill
there; if there were rains, we might be neighbors too close for comfort. Who says we cannot
move mountains? We defmitely tried to move a hill here. It is 75 truckloads that we are going
to be taking away from a little hillside, and hopefully will put it somewhere where somebody
has some use for it. Relative to the mass and scale of the upper story. The privacy; our living
room is going to be looking into one of the bedrooms of the proposed house.
Seema Raghvendra:
• Said as an architect she has learned there always lies a good solution with any problem; the
best way to look at it is there are many options they can make to the adjustments to the design
to mitigate their concerns. She referred to the upper story mass of the current home and said
some of the things they could do is to reduce grading to reduce the height of retaining walls to
center the house more parallel to the contours which is very fundamental hillside design; rotate
it at first; now it is parallel to the contours and it is moved away from their property line; the
big huge retaining wall has now moved away and there is the opportunity to split it into two
separate walls which may be 4 feet and 4 feet.
• There is so much excessive grading in the front; to set back the home, I know it is a great idea
but we could possibly move it forward and reduce a significant amount of grading (included in
her report) and also at the back of the properiy where the house is extending and where the
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 July 22, 2008
yard is, it is steep. It would be good to protect that part and have the backyard pulled forward.
These are comparative slides, ways to adjust the fa~ade.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked if she had conversations with the owners of Lot 2 during the process.
Seema Raghvendra:
• Said she initially met with the owners of Lot 2 in 2005; there was an approved design on that
lot for a bigger home; they contacted her and asked if she was willing to take the design and
make some changes for them and submit it by the first March 2005 deadline which was before
the hillside overlay would come into play.
• Two of the items they wanted to change was to push the building back as in the current design;
and they wanted to have really steep roofs. She brought to their attention not to make the roofs
any steeper because the whole house was designed where they could see over it. They backed
out from the deal, and decided to withdraw because she did not have time to change the design
in 2 weeks. She recommended they return to the original architect and have him make the
modifications, but they were aware that they were so sensitive about their views.
• They met again on the lot before the May 29`~, and she submitted her objections because it was
official.
There was a discussion about passive solar in relation to the applicant's home.
Matangi Darjamani, Cupertino resident:
• Said she believed everyone had the right to build their dream home, especially when a house is
built in the hills of Cupertino, the responsibility that comes with that right, is building
responsibly on the hillside and with concern for the existing homes. The Mittal's home is a
green home, with solar panels, concrete floors with radiant heating and it has the strategically
placed windows to garner the power of the sun and wind. The family room kitchen is a
complete wall of windows which illuminates and warms the home. In front of the beautiful
walls of windows are the walls where the new home is going to come up. If the plans are
approved, the Mittals will lose the view they cherish. The new home is probably designed to
take in the views also because that is there right; however, is it not their responsibility to share
that right with their neighbors, the ones who have been enjoying the view all along. Now
when they take away the Mittals access to the sun, there goes their passive solar dream home. I
feel that a city that touts green building and claims that it is one of their priorities should
protect homeowners who have taken their advice. It is the right of the City to encourage the
residents to build green and along with that right, I think the City has the responsibility to
protect those homeowners who have done what the City wants them to do. I think this is
especially important in a case such as this where access to sunlight is the key part of the design
of the existing home.
~ The Rl ordinance states that its purpose is to ensure the provision of light, air and a reasonable
level of privacy to individual residential parcels. Though the proposed home not only
mitigates the air and the light, it will be built with windows that will look directly into the
family room and the family room is the heart of the home. Traditionally what the City does is
they ask that you plant trees and privacy screening; these are tall homes, and is it fair to ask the
Mittals to wait 10 years for privacy or is it more reasonable to ask that some design changes be
made so that it is truly in compliance, not only with the quantitative aspects of the Rl, but also
with the qualitative aspects of R1, specifically with respect to light, air and privacy.
• Encouraged the new owners to work with their neighbors to reach a compromise where
everyone can enjoy the homes of their dreams.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 July 22, 2008
Nitu Kohli, Cupertino resident:
• Said she wanted to voice her opinion on the impact the project is going to have on the future of
Cupertino hills and the way that premium properties will be sold in the future in Cupertino.
• Said she was familiar with the two lots; and recalled when the applicants were looking for
property in the hills with views and the correct orientation so they could build their green
home. They also wanted to be part of the neighborhood and the prestigious community with
excellent schools. They looked at all available buildable lots with views in the area; and even
looked at the lot in question, Lot 2; but they decided to pay more for their lot which had a
naturally existing pad; the second lot does not have a naturally building pad. After consulting
with experts, it was concluded that the lot is a beautiful one-half acre lot, with very steep
slopes and lacks any natural buildable pad. It can always be engineered with extensive
retaining walls which would be extremely costly. She said she was taken aback by what the
story poles show; and has since looked at the plans and she concluded that the story poles
don't tell half the story.
• Due to the change in zoning, there is going to be a huge house built on this lot; Mahesh and the
Mittals stand to lose their views; the story poles are for neighbors to voice their reactions but
the city has to enforce some rules to safeguazd the privacy and views of the existing
homeowners. I have not seen a precedent like this in any of our neighboring cities like
Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, etc. and my colleagues feel the same way. People buy homes not
only for schools, but for locations, views, orientations and sunlight.
• The city has a responsibility to be green and to protect these via the zoning code. If this
project is approved as indicated by the story poles, she said she would feel obligated to advise
potential buyers that the City of Cupertino really does not care about adverse impacts on
adjoining properties and the quality of their properties will never be secure. They are losing a
view lot.
• Requested the Planning Commissioners walk up the hill to look at what is going on there; they
have a beautiful house and have a right to build, but it should comply with the rules, and yet
they should come to a mutual agreement on that.
Kevin Lee, friend of a Cupertino resident:
• Opposes the project.
• Express personal view, not professional.
• Questioned why the proposed home had to be built directly in front of the existing home
where it blocks all its views, where if the land is lazge enough it could be moved somewhere
else. They could enjoy the view of the hillside, yet not destroy someone else's view at the
same time.
~ Said he has spent time at the existing home and enjoyed the view of the hills, and if the
proposed home is built, they will not have the same enjoyment. It is an important part of their
social life, and is important to understand people's personal views and perspective on life.
Ankur Mahesh, Son of Seema Raghvendra:
• Said that his favorite place in his home is the family room where he enjoys the view which
will have lost its charm if the proposed home is built as shown by the story poles. Their home
is a green home with solar panels that keep the home wann in the winter and cool in the
summer. If the panels are blocked the heater and air conditioner will have to be utilized and
will bring dust into the home, causing allergies. He said his school teaches saving energy
because of the global energy crisis; but if the proposed house is built as shown, they will not
be able to even store energy during the winter. There is another way to build a house so
everyone is happy; I am sure of it because it is such a big home.
• He urged the neighbors and Planning Commission to consider his concerns and find a good
effective answer for all.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 July 22, 2008
Anu Varshneya, Cupertina resident:
~ 8~' grade student, friend of Ankur Mahesh, said she visits the home of her friend frequently
and is interested in how the home is designed so that it is green and conserves energy.
• Said she aspired to be an architect and have homes that are good for the community and the
environment.
• She said she knew that the Planning Commission would make the decision on the fate of her
friend's home and said she hoped it did not have to lose any of its special and unique features.
Matt Kamkar, (Not present/written comments read):
• Supported the project.
• The applicant did not change the rules (zoning rules); he is just abiding by them.
~ He has compromised in that he did not push his plans to the limits, even though he could have.
He is considerate of his n~ighbors.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked if the comment made was correct that according to the previous ordinance, the second
floor of this would have had to be 1,100 square feet.
Steve Piasecki:
• The revised ordinance was a result of a very extensive process working with the
neighborhood; many of the ideas came out of the neighborhood; one of those was that if we
are going to treat this like a hillside area, perhaps we should give them the same flexibility that
other hillside homes have in the RHS district where they are not restricted by the 45%; they
are allowed to have a larger second floor with the rationale that you have a smaller footprint of
the building overall. You don't force the first floor to get bigger than it may need to be
otherwise. That was a conscious decision that grew out of the neighborhood process; it was
very extensive and took a long time. Typically even in the valley floor, you are allowed to
have 45% second floor to first floor ratio; even that is being discussed as was brought up under
Oral Communications.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked how consistent the City has been in the past regarding blocking views of existing
homes, which is the fundamental issue.
Colin Jung:
• The city has decided not to get involved in this on the basis of this one example, that the city
has written in its own ordinances that we aze not responsible for the views from properties. I
want to caution you about this; but I think it would set a bad precedent if you grant a property
owner a right to have a view through someone else's property; unless there was a view
easement through that property that would allow them to have that. It is not to say that the
City hasn't had developments, where it was a Planned Development zoning where all the
homes were built at the same time where the grading and the home construction was done to
make sure that each home had its own view, but it wasn't three different homeowners building
homes based on a different set of regulations, based on a difFerent timeframe, but was done all
at the same time with that specific aspect kept in mind.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 22, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Relative to grading, going back a number of years, before anything was done with that hillside,
it was just one steep slope from top to bottom, and one of the speakers mentioned that there
was a natural pad at the top. It may have been graded at some point; either just prior to the
subdivision or immediately afterwards. Is there any recollection of that?
Colin Jung:
• Said that the area was developed in the County many years ago; and one of the things that we
learn each time lots get subdivided or homes get built up there, there is a lot of unengineered
fill on a lot of those properties. People have pushing dirt around there for decades; those pads
were set at some point, probably without the proper permitting authority.
Chair Miller (to applicant):
• Said that the uphill neighbor suggested rotating your house and sliding it forward; have you
considered that as an alternative?
Applicant:
• Moving the house is going to have a much more deeper towering effect on my lowest side of
the house; moving the house forward is going to move more dirt out of the particular lot, it will
not help in any way. The third point is that the second floor view of the upper neighbor is not
at all affected in any way because the top of the roof is at 450; the finished floor of the second
floor is at 453 of the upper neighbor, so its about 3 feet above the roofline. It would not affect
the view from the existing house.
Com. Kaneda:
• The big issue is the views, and as we have heard, the City doesn't protect views. The height of
this building compared to the other buildings and what it blocks; if you look at the one section
that shows the three homes; the home furthest down the slope blocks the ground floor view of
this home; this home will block the ground floor view of the home above. The home that is
furthest down the slope does not block the second floor view of the home above.
• He said the unfortunate problem is that the home at the top of the slope is designed to take
advantage of the views from the ground floor, and he felt that is where the problem is.
• Relative to solar access, he suggested rotating it slightly, but push it north, not south. The
further north you get the building, the better winter solar access you will give the other house;
it gets steeper to the north and is problematic to do that.
• The home could be much bigger; it is 1,000 square feet smaller than it could be. He said he
was concerned about the depth of the cut into the hill for the basement.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he was concerned about the height of the building, and was open to being convinced. The
applicant has attempted to deal with the objections of the neighbors; he said he was presently
inclined to support approval with the additional clauses that staff recommended at the
beginning of the meeting.
Com. Rose:
• Said that everyone was feeling some of the struggles on both sides of the property line; on one
hand it is a wonderful experience to have found a lot to be able to build such a big house on;
on the other hand, she felt for the e~usting neighbor who also just finished doing the same
thing. She said she was optimistic that the applicant would have some good ideas on how to
make it work out after hearing the honest input from the speakers. The house conforms to the
ordinance as it stands today; there doesn't appear to be any place that allows them to change or
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 22, 2008
mandate any change to the proposed structure, other than reducing the height slightly, but she
did not see any way to make that happen.
• Said she agreed with Coms. Kaneda and Brophy; but was not knowledgeable enough about the
grading process and would rely on the city's geologist report and assumed that the information
from that would be considered as they decide to move forward. Her wish was that it could
work out for everybody, as they both have the right to have their dream homes.
Chair Miller:
• The issues go back further than just what is happening tonight; when the subdivision was done
it was probably too aggressive a subdivision and perhaps two houses might have fit better on
this property than three. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of doing that now, there are
three lots, each one of these owners has the right to develop their property and when we look
at the ordinance, if it was under the Rl or under the RHS, we might be coming up with a
different result, but it's not under either one of those ardinances; it has its own special
ordinance.
• Some people feel unfairly put upon because of the current ordinance; however, that ordinance
was put in place because other people felt unfairly put upon and that was a compromise with a
larger group of neighbors; it is difficult to make everyone feel comfortable and reach some
compromise that works for everyone, and we wish we could. In this case, it hasn't happened;
those 15 neighbors in general were unhappy with that ordinance that governs their
development there, and they fought against it. Some speakers said they got the benefits from
that ordinance, but in fact, they didn't feel that way, and they opposed it and they lost out at
the City Council level. Here at the Planning Commission level, we did not support the current
ordinance that governs those 15 lots; we opposed it; but the City Council chose to take a
different direction and they approved what is in place now and at this level our job is to adhere
to the rules and to the ordinance. As everyone has said, the current proposal meets in every
way the ordinance that is in place now and in a number of ways, is unlike some applications
that we see, is actually coming in less than the m~imum requirements and the big one is the
5,500 square foot above ground requirement, which this applicant is coming in at only 4,500
square feet and the other two neighbors are already 5,500, which puts their mass at a higher
level than this house.
• Relative to grading, it is hard to see that it's one slope, that this house is taking out more dirt
than the others did; in fact the others probably took out at some time more dirt just because
they have a larger footprint on the first floor.
• Said he was sensitive about the solaz issue; however, it does seem like the neighbor with his
expertise, has done an excellent job in designing a house that requires minimal energy. The
wall discussed is mostly the eastern wall and his understanding of solar is the southern
exposure is the most important one; the western is the second most important one; and the
easterly is the least important; the north does not count at all. It doesn't seem like the solar, if
there was any blockage at all to the solar aspects of it; it will be minimal in terms of the energy
savings that the neighbor is going to benefit from. The house does not have the overhang that
protects the windowed azea when the sun is high in the sky during summer; it seems for a
number of reasons that the passive solar issues that were raised here tonight, don't seem to be
as important as some of the other issues.
• As the other Commissioners stated, the most important issue to the uphill neighbars is the
view, and Cupertino does not have a position on views and does not protect views and it would
be a mistake for us to set a precedent to do so here tonight.
• For those reasons I support the application with the provisos that the screening of privacy of
the two adjoining neighbors is done appropriately.
• The other issue is water runoff both from the top lot and middle lot to make sure they both tie
into the storm drain system, so we don't exacerbate the situation in terms of runoff.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 July 22, 2008
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the draft
resolution, adding to it Clause 5: the replacement of the two mitigation Oaks, and
Clause 6: to increase the setback of the east retaining wall from 6 to 8 feet in
order to accommodate a suitable privacy landscape screening. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com.
Giefer absent)
Chair Miller declared a recess.
Upon reconvening the meeting, the agenda was moved to Item 4, New Business.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Briefing on Housing Element update process and selection of a Planning Commission
member to attend stakeholder meetings.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that the Housing Element update process had been kicked off and Bay Area Economics
held 24 interviews with potential interested stakeholders.
Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics (BAE):
• Provided an overview of what the housing element process entailed. Asked one commissioner
to attend three focus group sessions conducted over the next two to three months.
• The housing element is one of seven General Plan elements required by the State; a primary
document used by local jurisdictions to identify housing needs and to ascertain where new
housing should go. It tends to be updated every 5 to 7 years by law, although in California it is
on a 7 to 9 year cycle. The current housing element planning period is from 2007 to 2014; the
State does not require the housing elements to be approved and submitted until June 2009.
The housing element contains a needs assessment, constraints analysis, goals and policies and
an inventory of sites for new development. It also includes a plan to accommodate new
housing. The essential process is that BAE goes through a process of identifying sites where
new residential development could take place; identifying the housing needs; whether or not
they are significant rehabilitation needs; are there needs for senior housing, for emancipated
foster youth, people with disabilities; laying out a program of actions that form the plan. It is
presented to the Planning Commission for approval and to the City Council. When it is
approved, it is presented to the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for certification. If certified, it certifies that it is in compliance with State law; when
done, it removes the city from any risk of being sued by an outside party that may want to
pursue some development proposal or have some other advocacy agenda in mind. Having a
certified housing element, beyond allowing you the opportunity of having a frank discussion
of what your housing needs are, is a way for the you to position the city to compete for certain
types of housing and transportation infrastructure funds and also it avoids the potential of
future litigation. There is no automatic regulatory process at the State level where HCD is
going to come in and force you to have a certified housing element; they can only deny you
certification based on their reading of the law and thus expose the city to a certain minimal
threat of litigation.
~ Given that we know there are a lot of concerns about development in Cupertino, and in
particular there are concerns about maintaining the city's quality of life about schools, parks,
open space, the impact of new housing developments could have for good or bad of the city's
future, what we are doing with this time around with the housing element update process, is a
very inclusive and very transparent public participation process. As mentioned, they kicked it
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 July 22, 2008
off with a full day of stakeholder interviews, interviewing abut 24 stakeholders from different
organizations, representing different segments of the Cupertino community, employers,
neighborhood groups, advocacy organizations, to get their feedback about housing issues in
Cupertino. They are still open to talking to anyone at any point during the course of the next 6
to 9 months of update of the housing element, who wants to talk about these issues. Our goal is
to have whatever we get at the end of the day in terms of the final approved housing element, a
very honest and open conversation. There will be three focus sessions, including an August 21
key stakeholder focus group session on housing needs in Cupertino; September will have a
focus group session on housing impacts, school impacts, open space impacts, park impacts,
etc.; and in October a focus group on design and development issues. We will then move
forwazd to Planning Commission and City Council and regular process. All sessions will be
recorded and made available online via the internet; we aze open to discussions and
interactions with different members of the community interested in housing issues.
• The heart of the housing element is to identify where Cupertino can accommodate the certain
new increment of residential development during the housing element planning period 2007-
2014. During the planning period, as determined by ABAG, Cupertino needs to identify
residential sites zoned at adequate densities to accommodate approximately 1,100 new homes
and apartments. Within the overall number of new homes and apartments, there needs to be a
certain amount of housing available to low, very low, and moderate income households. The
task is to identify where the housing can go in Cupertino, what it should look like, who it
should serve, and what the neighbors' concerns in all of the different neighborhoods in the
community might be about new housing development.
• He reviewed the schedule which included the three focus groups through October, a
community wide focus group in November, a draft element to the Council in
November/December, and a draft to the HCD by the end of the year for comment. Completion
must be by May/June 2009.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked if the process required that the City provide the funds for the needed housing units
indicated. Does the housing element have to address the question of where the funds would
come from to allow the units to be constructed?
Paul Penninger:
• Said that the housing element is designed to ensure that if there is a viable proposal for a
housing development to serve one of the populations, there is the land to accommodate that
proposal; that the zoning is in place; the infrastructure is in place and the city has put in the
ability to accommodate that the proposal. If you are a jurisdiction that does not have the
funds to subsidize a particular type of development, there is nothing in the housing element
law that requires you to prove through the housing element process, that you have that level
of funding. You do have to document what funding sources are available but it is essentially
a land use planning exercise; the housing element needs to be consistent with the land use
element which in turn needs to be consistent with the zoning code. It is meant to be
consistent with all the different parts of the General Plan and when it comes down to it, it is
about land, land use designations, zoning, and making sure that the sites are developable if
there is a viable proposal.
• Said there were a number of municipalities within Califomia that do not have conforming
housing elements, they may not have gone through the full housing element update process or
got certification of the housing element they submitted to the State. In some cases those
jurisdictions have been sued by outside legal advocacy organizations. It is good practice from
a planning perspective to have a certified housing element and to mitigate the risk in that way.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 July 22, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Recommended that the school districts be invited to the workshops to discuss their levels of
expected enrollments and their plans for expansion of their facilities; in particular the high
school district has come into some money and is planning to do some substantial expansion of
Cupertino High School.
Paul Penninger:
• Said that their firm was selected as the consultant as they were economists as well as housing
planners with an expertise of fiscal impact analysis, and it would be a very important part of
what they do. One stakeholder focus session will be dedicated to that and we think that
understanding the potential impacts on schools is crucial. We have to present objective,
realistic data that everyone can agree is at a standard that can be accepted as reliable and that is
their aim. They have already discussed many of the issues with school district reps and going
forwazd will continue to make it a very important part of their scope of work.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked what the larger impacts were regionally and environmentally if Cupertino and similar
cities do not meet their goals.
Paul Penninger:
• Suggested that someone from ABAG conduct a presentation for the Commission and
community on that topic. The idea behind some of what has been discussed regionally is that
if we don't plan for growth in already urbanized azeas that will continue to sprawl outward,
people will continually need to drive longer distances to get from their homes to work; there
will be more greenhouse gas emissions due to greater vehicle miles traveled and increasing
impacts both on the environment and quality of life. The movement regionally and across the
country in regional planning has been more towards looking at opportunities for infill
development, developing existing sites in urbanized areas.
• Recommended that the Planning Commission think about their inclusionary requirements and
the housing element separately. The State in many ways wants us to analyze inclusionary
requirements as a potential government constraint on development and/or understand it
potentially as an affordable housing program, but not as the essence of what the housing
element process is about, which is identifying land for housing. You are not being asked to
plan for 5,300 units; but to show where in the city you can accommodate 1,100 units. The
jurisdictions that are leaning on their inclusionary requirements to satisfy the housing element
law will find that they are not met favorably at a review level with HCD.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that part of the problem that HCD has observed in many cities is that a low income
housing developer will come into the city and say they want to build affordable housing; and
the city says there is nothing available. The affordable housing developers can't even get
access to available land.
Paul Penninger:
• Said that was correct, and perhaps they haven't ever been able to get access in that community,
which is the real issue. There has never been a place in some of the communities where even
developers with funding in place with State funding, federal funding, or grants, etc. and the
talent to do the development, has not necessarily had in some of these places the ability to do
that because of the land constraints.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 July 22, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Said as pointed out it was a regional issue; and his concern is from a city standpoint, that they
are being asked to do almost the impossible and that if we were addressing it at a regional
level as opposed to a city level, we could have a more productive discussion and perhaps a
better result.
Paul Penninger:
• Said that he did not disagree; what San Mateo County has done by forming a sub-region to
look at a single planning number for San Mateo County in this period, is a step in the right
direction and hopefully across the Bay Area or State of California, more regions will follow
that example. In San Mateo County the leadership came from the Director of the County HCD
who was a former elected leadership who demonstrated a great deal of leadership in reaching
out to his counterparts in the other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to say they could do it
better, and it wasn't realistic to expect that each jurisdiction should take it on separately. The
leadership can come from the grass roots, the elected or appointed officials or it can come
from top level departrnent heads.
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed with the comments; however, it has to come from above, because each
jurisdiction as the City level has their own set of priorities and objectives, and without
cooperation from the other similar jurisdictions, it doesn't go anywhere.
• He said he attended the Silicon Valley Leadership Group meetings where they discussed the
need for affordable housing as an information exchange, but nothing came out of it saying
grab it and work together to resolve it.
Com. Kaneda:
• Volunteered to serve as a representative of the Planning Commission to attend the future focus
sessions.
Motion: Chair Miller moved to nominate Com. Kaneda to serve as the Planning
Commission representative to attend the future focus sessions. Com. Brophy
seconded the motion. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Kaneda abstained; Com. Giefer
absent).
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Expressed concern about the high amount of surplus housing available in cities and cautioned
about looking at housing nine or ten years in the future for cities like Cupertino. Cupertino has
finite resources, finite schools; when you bring in more housing, you need more parks; when
you put in more high density housing, you need to increase land available so that the families
don't have to play in the streets and there are parks available for the children.
• Make sure there is adequate park space for the children. Proceed cautiously; keep it down;
keep it reasonable.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
• The public has always been interested in the quality of life. When doing planning for more
housing, keep in mind that the future weather may have a long way to go before we know what
we are doing.
• We have been involved in the building process for quite some time, especially starting in
2002; and when we were talking about the ABAG numbers, some erroneous figures were
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 July 22, 2008
presented by another independent study group, which said that in 2002, 2003 or 2004 that the
high school numbers at that time were 8,400 in population and they predicted in 2007/2008
they would diminish. Today the high school population is 11,000; a contradiction of what we
have been trying to say all along, that primarily people move here because of the schools.
• The other thing is we are surrounded by other communities; and I have said this repeatedly,
but it is coming true with San Jose adding 84 houses; those 84 houses where the Race Street
was and other places along DeAnza Boulevard and Hwy. 85, are going to negatively impact
Kennedy and Monta Vista High School which are already overcrowded schools.
• San Mateo has Caltrans, Highway 101, Highway 280, but they have infrastructure in place;
they had Bay Meadows which they got rid of and could add housing; we don't have those
facilities in the area available for us.
• Please plan appropriately, but consider the quality of life in the city of Cupertino.
Keith Murphy, E. Estates Drive:
• Said he sent an email earlier which covered the general issues of the meeting agenda; and he
looked forward to the upcoming public meetings held by BAE and city officials.
• Said he was concerned that the city has a consultant who will guide the city officials how to
interact with residents, and the issue will be over where housing is going to be placed in our
city, which means we are talking about rezoning issues. That needs to be foremost in
discussion with the community so that we can as a community resolve issues like avoiding
referendums and getting the kind of community development that our residents would like to
see and keep our city beautiful; keep the schools unimpacted and still a Class A rating.
• Relative to spheres of influence, it would be helpful if these kinds of consulting events had
some background where they could go to spheres of influence groups around Cupertino and
see if they could be pulled in earlier. If that cannot be done now, it is unfortunate, but perhaps
that is still something that could be discussed, and if discussed now, in the next round, it could
be implemented, rather than just be brought up cold. Perhaps that needs to be worked out at
this early level also.
Chair Miller:
• I think what we are looking at now is a modest increase in the General Plan housing element;
we all agreed that 250 is a fairly modest increase. Looking forward, a number of people in
town have said while they don't want housing, they want to see more jobs, they want to see
tech come back. Tech coming back means more office buildings, more people working here
and the issue for me is that it is an equation; jobs equals housing, and I know that ABAG and
the State see it that way. As our gas prices continue to rise, more and more people are going to
seriously want to live close to their employment and that is going to be paramount in where
housing gets put. As a community I think we need to decide if we don't want more housing,
then we really don't want more jobs, either because that equation needs to be balanced, and
more and more the State is going to come down on us if it doesn't.
The agenda was moved back to Item 3.
OLD BUSINESS
3. MCA-2008-02 Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 17 allowing temporary
City of Cupertino outdoor signs or displays. Continued
from the July 8, 2008
Citywide locaHon Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date:
August S, 2008
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 July 22, 2008
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Said that outreach efforts for the process included creation of an informational web page on
the internet including sections of the ordinances and links to the city channel. Advertisements
in the newspaper were placed, and notifications were sent to the business community soliciting
input and comments; no input has been received to date.
• The City Council directed the Planning Commission as part of this year's work program to
look at the existing sign ordinance to focus on making the ordinance more business friendly.
The scope of review for the meeting will focus on temporary outdoor displays and signs and
the allowable time for temporary banners. He added that staff will look at the ordinance
comprehensively to determine if there aze other areas of the sign ordinance as a whole that
need to be enhanced; however, he said he felt that the agendized issues deserve more urgent
attention because concerns have been expressed from the business community about
deficiencies and visible problems with A-frame signs.
• He reviewed the guidelines for temporary signs as outlined in the stafFreport.
• Staff has surveyed adjacent cities with successful business districts and cities that do not have
codified guidelines for A-frames, but allow them; and also cities that have guidelines for
temporary displays. Staff feels that there is a solution to enhance the ordinance by inserting
objectives to promote or enhance pedestrian experience, activities and convenience and also to
maintain the stability of the city's economy and also to provide opportunities to attract and
provide effective visible signage for individual businesses.
• All objectives are to encourage creative and attractive signage. Staff also recommends placing
a set of design criteria in the ardinance to ensure high level and high quality creative signs.
With the proposed ordinance amendment, staff also is suggesting that the Planning
Commission allow revocable permits in exchange for higher quality designed signs with the
property owner assuming liability, in the event the design criteria provisions or liability
provisions are not met, that the city can take revocation action and remove their rights.
• Summarized suggestions in terms of applicability of the ordinance:
• That it applies not only to portable displays or typical A-frames, but also should be
flexible to allow flowering pots, statues, similar devices. Showed photos of examples of
specialty shops displayed in other cities.
• Relative to permitted locations, the temporary displays be allowed on private property or
institutional zones not in the public right-of-way. Revocable unless expiration date is
specified or revoked by the Planning Deparhnent. The signs must be brought in after
business hours.
• The most important part of the amendment proposal, staff is suggesting a key design
criteria be implemented in that the signs be creative; the colors must be vibrant and
weather resistant and complementary to the building architecture and operation of the
business and to help enhance the overall appeazance and texture of the shopping district.
• The Planning Commission consider changing the language of the 120 days allowance
for banners in a calendar year to be allowed up to a maximum of 120 days within a
period of 360 days.
• Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment MCA-2008-02 and the wording
change as referenced in the model resolution.
Com. Brophy:
• Questioned if the banner signs on some aparhnent complexes about units for rent are included
in the sign ordinance.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that such banners are covered in the temporary sign ordinance and should be limited to
the 120 days, and they may be exceeding the limit. It is problematic and difficult to enforce.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 July 22, 2008
Com. Brophy:
• Said that he understood the intent of the ordinance; some of the signs shown in the photos of
other cities, may not work for businesses along So. DeAnza Boulevard, and he was unsure
whether or not they had a realistic approach for what the problem is.
• Relative to the revocation process, would it be fair to say that what most likely would trigger
that is one or more complaints about a sign.
Gary Chao:
• Said that fundamentally people are putting out A-frames regardless; the tendency of people
wanting to have longer time and banner time, or in this case a temporary sign time, the
ordinance has been a deterrent for people to come in to ask for permission because they can
only have the sign for 120 days in a year. As a result, they just do it on the weekends or after
hours. Hopefully the idea also indirectly is to allow people to have a longer time period. In
this case it would be revocable; hopefully people would take that as a key and come in and get
something permanent so the city can have some say in terms of location and design. They are
trying to address that concern.
• If a complaint is received about a sign, the Code Enforcement would go to the Planning
Department file and look to see if there is a permit on file. If the ordinance is approved, a
requirement may be that the businesses would come in and submit a site plan delineating the
location of the signage and elevation so we would have some basis to refer to if there is a
problem in the future.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they feel the ordinance has potential to be more liberal for the business owners and
, easier from the city standpoint, if you invest in an attractive sign; it can be up 365 days a year
anytime; you just agree where it is going to be placed, and it goes on record and if we look
out there and see an unattractive A-frame we will know that we have not approved it.
Com. Brophy:
• Said his concern is that the kind of businesses that are most reliant on this form of
advertisement are not going to be the Sears or Targets in the city., but rather the small
businesses, and asking them to come in with a design plan seems to create more of a burden
on them than the benefit might be.
• If going this route, they need to clarify that they do not need to go out and hire a designer to
bring in a set of plans. They could bring in the proposed sign.
Steve Piasecki:
• It seems to have worked in similar situations in other cities; the Los Altos example, small
businesses in downtown San Jose, Los Gatos to some degree.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that A-frame signs can be well designed; they make the city walkable, pleasant and adds
surprise to the area. It is fair to ask the businesses in the city to advertise their products to the
highest standard.
Jackie Streeter, Owner of Coffee Society:
• Said she supported the sign ordinance amendments, especially the 120 days on the A-frame.
She said that the A-frame placard was useful in her location by the library since many people
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 July 22, 2008
are not aware that the business, city center and library are located there.
• She said that the timeframe for the A-frame sign was detrimental to her business and securing
new customers. She said she would prefer that the sign be allowed all year long as they were
open 7 days per week with the exception of some holidays.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that the A-frame signs did not have a time limitation for display. Unless an
expiration date is specified in the permit, the display days are not limited. The banner time
period is 120 days.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Asked why they were not looking at a broader change to the sign ordinance, such as bigger
signs. ~
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they would be; but they felt that addressing the temporary signs was an immediate need.
They planned to address the sign ordinance, making it more business friendly in a more
generic sense.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Rose, to approve MCA-2008-02.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Miller reported that at the last meeting there was a
discussion about a hillside exception for a two-story, 3,300 square foot, single family residence on
a slope greater than 30%.
Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported that BAE gave a similar presentation on the
housing element.
Mavor's Monthlv Meeting with Commissioners: No July meeting.
Economic Develoament Committee: No meeting held.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Steve Piasecki reported that the formal application for the Main Street Cupertino project (Sandhill
Development on the So. Vallco site) was received.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for August 26, 2008 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: • ~
Elizab , c r Se
Approved as presented: August 2, 2008