PC 08-26-08CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. AUGUST 26, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM 100
The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in Conference Room 100, Former City Council Chambers, by Chairperson Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of July 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Rose, to approve the minutes of
the July 22, 2008 meeting as i~resented. (Vote: 4-0-1; Vice Chair Giefer
abstained)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director,
noted receipt of items related to agenda items.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Commended staff for their efforts in setting up the former Council Chambers for the
Planning Commission meeting because of a scheduling conflict with the regular meeting
room for the Planning Commission meeting, and asked that the changing of meeting rooms
be limited.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DIR-2008-19 Director's Minor Modification to request for aone-year extension
John Dozier of a tentative parcel map (TM-2005-03) that expires on July 26, 2008.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 26, 2008
21925 Lindy Lane The Tentative Map subdivided an approximately 1.0 acre site into two
pazcels of about 20,000 squaze feet each in an R1-20 zoning.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Cam. Brophy, to remove Application
DI-2008-19 from the Consent Calen~Iar for discussion. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the request for aone-year extension of a tentative pazcel map
which expired on July 26, 2008; to subdivide aone-acre site into two parcels, in an R1-20
zoning district.
• He reviewed Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the approval attached to the tentative map,
pertaining to the street improvements: Limiting the size of the building footprint and
prohibiting retaining walls over four feet tall; Recording a slope easement on the lower slope
to preserve Oak trees and existing land forms and maintain the semi-rural appearance. There
was no permission granted to remove trees and there was a requirement to record a covenant
to protect the specimen sized trees. There vas a condition to limit vehicular access to Lot 2
from the westerly ingress/egress easement.
• Staff feels since the tentative map is expirin€; and if the Planning Commission is interested in
preserving the preservation conditions in that approval, it should extend the tentative map for
at least another year to July 26, 2009; and it would include a condition in that approval to
direct the property owner to apply for a modified street improvement. The street
improvement must be authorized by the adj~icent property owners that would be affected by
the length of street improvement and the applicant has not been successful in obtaining those
signatures. With the proper education staff feels it is possible and thinks the applicant
should have another year to obtain those sil~atures to get the modified street improvement
to give the city flexibility with the type of sb•eet improvements on this street, and provide the
necessary protection the Commission is interested in the development and subdivision of this
property.
Chair Miller:
• Asked Colin Jung to review their earlier discu~;sion about issues.
Colin Jung:
• He said that the property had a history; a few :years back, a contractor for an adjacent property
owner did not like the view from the property he was selling and he took it upon himself to cut
down some trees on the property. He was rep~7manded and the owner of the property (Kropp)
applied for a retroactive tree removal permit for the removed trees and those replacement trees
were subsequently planted.
• Another issue related to whether there was a sepazate geotechnical report done for this
property and the question was asked whether there was any type of boring or soil samples
taken to characterize the nature of the soils to see if it was fit for subdivision. The report was
prepared by the consultant who also did the soils report for the Moxley property which was the
property next door. They did not take any soil samples on this property but they referenced
two other reports, one for the Moxley property and another geotechnical report done for the
Sun property where core samples were taken. Based on the characterization of the soils in
those reports and additional work that the geotechnical engineer did on the subdivision, the
city geologist felt comfortable in determining that the subdivision was geotechnically feasible
without the core samples, but with the added provision that at the design stage of the house,
the applicant provide a design level geotechnical report for a proposed house on Lot 2.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 26, 2008
• An issue related to the driveway easement; in order to subdivide the property, there has to be
at least a net of 20,000 square feet after the street dedication, and the applicant has this if the
lot were divided in half.
• Staff took exception with the subdivision design, it doesn't match any of the patterns in the
neighborhood now, and they were concerned that subdividing it in this way would not be in
the best interest in protecting the trees that were located on the toe of the slope. They
recommended to the applicant that instead of cutting the lot one way, he cut the lot in the up
and down diretion; the technical problem with that and it is in our ordinance, is that this
driveway now rests in Lot 2, but serves Lot 1, and they need to put an easement on that
driveway for the benefit of Lot 1. Driveway easements, travel ways, are normally deducted
from the net lot area; if you were to deduct this area from this 20,000 square foot lot you
would not have the ability to subdivide the property. They put a condition in the tentative map
that designing the subdivision the way they wanted it, they were given the ability to get a
credit for this area (here); that we would cour.~t this driveway easement as part of their net lot
area.
• It was made a condition of approval for subdivision; some might say that it should have been
made a separate entitlement; or made a development exception to the rules stated in the zoning
code; but that was something that was done: to facilitate what was thought to be a more
practical subdivision of the property.
• Relative to noticing, typically for time exten,~ions, in particular conditional use permits and
design reviews, if you have an existing appro~ral the extension of time for a maximum of one
year is usually considered an administrative issue even though there is hearing before a public
decision making body. We do not do an ordinance basically says you do not need to do a
public hearing notice for those types of approvals. Relative to extension of subdivisions,
unfortunately it does not say anything about noticing of extensions of tentative maps; and we
took the language used for use permits and other entitlements and architectural site approvals
and we did not do a letter noticing 300 feet, 500 feet of this particular extension.
• Relative to decision making tonight, there are various options. (1) to approve the extension;
(2) not approve the extension; (3) continue the extension for 30 days and then do a noticing of
the extension. He said they were also able to amend the conditions of approval.
John Dozier, applicant:
• Provided background on the neighbors' dissatisfaction on how things have transpired in the
past. It began with the original rep of the applicant, Mr. Moxley, who was retained to act as
the primary spokesman for the Knopps to proceed with the map subdivision since he had the
expertise from doing so with his home. As winter approached, there was considerable amount
of erosion that occurred on the properties near. door which were still going through their final
approvals. Those lots were subsequently sold to three separate individuals; there was
construction that occurred on Lot 3, the lower lot; there were trees illegally removed by the
new owner, not Mr. Moxley; subsequently Lot 1 was also constructed and there was one very
large prominent Oak tree on that property illegally removed by the new owner, not Mr.
Moxley. The middle lot, No. 2 was also sold, but that one is in the poling stage, and the plan
is in the approval process, but hasn't been built yet. The neighborhood has been quiet since
the only home that was built there and is not associated with the Moxley property, was Mark
Santoro's home which created a lot of visibility; it is larger than anything else in the
immediate neighborhood; and there was a l~~t of construction activity, trucks, heavy duty
machinery, etc., involved in that construction beyond two years. The neighbors are not happy
and I think that they want to do everything they can to prevent Mr. Knopp from being able to
develop his property.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 26, 2008
Said there were no city installed sidewalks passed Terrabella. He said he originally
volunteered to circulate the petition; most peoi~le were baffled by it as it was very complicated
and was met with suspicion. Glenn Goepfert from Public Works put together something
clearer and easily understandable and he received 8 Yes responses to approve the semi rural
designation, short of 8. We may be succes~;ful in getting that; it will require considerable
education campaign to the neighbors.
He said it was not a north side divide in terms of support. There was general support at the last
Council meeting. John James who lives directly across from the Knopp property, who was
vehemently opposed to this, indicated he way; in support of the semi rural and would do his
best to see if he could get the required number of signatures.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said it was clear in the public hearing process when we went through the subdivision, that the
two things that the Lindy Lane residents did not want to see happen was elimination of any
Oaks along Lindy Lane, nor did they want to :see anymore monolithic retaining walls vis a vis
what is in front of the Sun property today, and the conditions put on the subdivision which are
not being asked to change other than the extension, it is just counter intuitive to me that the
residents of upper Lindy would not want to sign up for a rural street designation because that is
giving them exactly what they asked for when we were having the public hearing.
John Dozier:
Said there has been an outspoken contingency; it goes back to Moxley, and there are some
issues with the private driveway, not the public right of way, involving probably 6 to 8 owners,
that want some type of retribution and they feel this is the opportunity to get it. Moxley has
nothing to do with this any longer, so they are punishing the Knopps which is unfortunate.
He said he felt the extra year extension would make a difference, as Glen Goepfert provided
education to the neighbors through a helpful meeting.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Barry Pangrle, Lindy Lane:
• Opposed to application.
• Referred to a drawing and illustrated where the slope is greater than 50%; there have been
people when putting in an addition to a C ranch in a courtyard, had to drill core samples to do
it. If the city requires that for a simple additiion on existing structure on flat land, why were
core samples not drilled where they got 50% slope and engineering fill. He said he felt it was
being misconstrued that it is not so much that 'the residents of Lindy Lane want a rural look, as
they want to preserve the trees. Some staff ha~re related that rural or semi rural means the trees
are safe; which is not necessarily the case.
• It is so steep, there is no chance to share a driveway; there is going to have to be another
driveway coming in which has already been addressed by staff. What you will hear from
neighbors on the south side of Lindy Lane as ~,vell, is that you are not going to be able to put a
house in here without damaging those trees anal as Mr. Dozier also pointed out on the Moxley
property. There are agreements in place to save the trees, and as soon as the lot is sold,
somebody comes in and cuts all the trees dov~m. That is what people are concerned about, is
that these trees are not going to be preserved.
• The other part of this is that there is not enough land to do this. If you go to the title report and
look at it, from what Nelson Engineering re-ported and what the title report says, there is
another 896 square feet that are additional on the Nelson report that magically appeared, so it
could be even more than this. The other part is there is 2648 dedication which is called out,
marked 10 feet dedication, it looks like the lot line actually started out 12 feet instead of 20
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 26, 2008
feet and if that is the case, there is another 80'% which means there may be another additional
2,000 square feet being added on that shouldn't be counted. It could be that these two lots
combined together could be 5,000 sq. ft. short of making the subdivision. If there is anything
criminal here, it is the fact that all this hasn't been taken into account and properly weighed in
doing this. If the neighbors could see a way that a house could go in here, I think most of the
neighbors thought that the better place to put. the house would be down here and you could
have run the driveway through parallel like the one above it and maybe that would go. I don't
think the neighbors are necessarily against it, lout we want to see the rules followed. If there is
enough room to do the subdivision, I think 1:he neighbors will get behind it. What we are
seeing is that there are constraints of 4 foot retaining walls; we don't see with 50% slope, you
would get away with only 4 foot retaining walls. It doesn't look like there is enough land to
do this and you can't meet the constraints of meeting the Rl designation of 40 foot street
without taking out the trees, and part of the designation was the original application was that
there would be no trees removed. This cannot be met without removing trees, there isn't
enough area; this violates Section 1908.030. 'T'here is no soil samples taken on this; you have
serious slope on this property with non engineE;red fill. It is not appropriate.
Eva Wong, Lindy Lane:
• Opposed to application.
• Said the more the neighbors understand the issue, the more problem they have with the
subdivision. There is not enough land to subdivide and staff made an exception to that, which
was not known until now; and there was no geological report done on that particular lot; it was
borrowed from adjacent subdivision. When Dr. Sun subdivided his lot adjacent to Mr.
Moxley's lot, he was required to do his own geological report; he did not get an exception. If
the lot was divided in a way other than staff suggested, the Oak trees would have to be
removed. The neighbors are very concerned.
John James, Lindy Lane:
• Said his original home was demolished by a mudslide and was rebuilt.
• If Knopp wants to use Dr. Sun's report, they acre about 500 to 800 feet apart from each other; it
is beyond belief that they would be allowed t.o build a house without a complete soil report.
He said he would get the appropriate signatures to do what is right.
• Relative to street improvements and subdivision, he said he did not want anything done; it
should stay as is. He said he would consider a compromise on the 36 foot wide street with a
curb and gutter, no sidewalk.
Simon Ko, Lindy Lane:
• Opposed to application.
• Said it was eye opening that there were so many exceptions in the application. He questioned
if he could apply for his subdivision now although he had only a 10,000 square foot lot, but
with enough exceptions, he may be able to subdivide also.
• Another concern is that he heard that they don't need a geotechnical report; when he was
doing remodeling on his house, he was required to do five reports, paid $6,000 and said he was
very close to the other side, closer than Knopp's property. He said it was very disturbing
because he thought he was doing what he had ~:o do.
• He said although it says it is a private driveway, each rainy season, he and Mr. James shovel
the dirt gravel on one side, and try to clean up the mess. Why aren't they hooked up to the city
drainage? It is not done, and the others are stuck with it as long as they live there. Without the
sidewalk, fine, what about a curb with a drain like Mr. James proposed. Don't narrow the
street; it is too dangerous as is; people try to swerve around because of the deer; someone will
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 26, 2008
• get killed. He said it was okay with no sidewalk, but at least put a curb similaz to the other
side. You don't have to kill the trees; go around the trees. He said he wanted to do something,
• at least with a curb, no sidewalk. I think enough has been done so far to the neighborhood;
perhaps this subdivision has too many excepti~~ns. Perhaps they should reconsider if it should
be subdivided?
Chair Miller closed the public heazing.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said there were a number of remarks regazdin, how this could be done wiithout requiring soil
samples and a geotechnical report. If som~;body is going to build there, they would be
required to do a geotechnical report.
Colin Jung:
• Clazified that the project would require two ge:otechnical reports; one is here, I want everyone
to see it because everyone is saying it is not here. In order to develop Lot 2, they aze going to
have to do a separate report just for that one, and that one is going to require the core
sampling. If there are problems with the soil, the project would not be allowed to proceed.
• There was discussion about don't make the strE;et any narrower; the current street.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said that what they aze being asked to decide t~~night is very simple issue; should they extend a
subdivision by one year to help resolve the neighborhood issue of should there be sidewalks or
not. It has been interesting to see how opinions have changed over time. I think that we have
to keep in mind what we aze actually being asked to decipher tonight; not being asked to
resolve the sidewalk or retaining wall issue; we aze being asked to determine if it makes sense
to extend the subdivision map act for an additional yeaz. I think it does; if they aze 8
signatures away from resolving the issue, I v~~ould like to give them that time to resolve the
issue. We aze not being asked should the lot be subdividable or not; we made that decision
about one yeaz ago; and Council Member Wong was the Chairman at the time and it was a
unanimous decision.
• I support the extension of the subdivision.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he had concerns about the original decision to approve the subdivision, but felt as Vice
Chair Giefer stated, that it is probably too late to reopen that azea; they should focus on the
question of one more year time extension. 7'he one concern, looking at report from Public
Works that went to City Council on August ] 9~', and the proposed model resolution is that it
seems like we are being pushed into encouraging the City Council to unilaterally overrule the
current process for rural or semi rural street improvements to be approved. It is obvious to
everybody that the issues on Lindy Lane are partly technical, but in lazge part a question of
inter-personal dynamics that have made it very difficult to resolve what is a two-unit
subdivision.
• He suggested removing Clause 2 because of the protection of trees, the land form that is
already covered in the original resolution three yeazs ago, and it be reduced to a two clause
resolution that says they have one more yeaz. The Knopps had the chance to try and get their
final 8 or 9 votes; if they can get it that is fine; if not, they will have to make another decision
as to what to do with the property.
• Clause 2, Street Improvement Standard states "The applicant owner shall obtain city approval
of a modified street improvement. In the package that Public Works sent to City Council for
the August 19`~ meeting, they were cleazly asking the City Council to overrule the inability of
Cupertino Planning Commission
August 26, 2008
the applicant to get 2/3 of the signatures. It is difficult to believe that the City Council would
be willing to go through the process of passing; an ordinance to resolve the matter of a two-unit
subdivision. The logical solution is for Mr. Dozier and Mr. and Mrs. Knopp to make their
presentations to the 25 neighbors and to see if they can get 2/3 of those who are most affected
by this proposal to sign up for it. If they can, €~eat; if not, the subdivision map would expire in
another year.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it appears that the tension is rising between the existing trees and trying to keep the
existing trees on the property under control acid the requirements of the ordinance to put in a
40 foot wide street. He said a sidewalk makes sense to him.
• There were only a couple of neighbors speak: on this but it sounds like the neighbors don't
really want a sidewalk, a 40 foot wide street which is what in theory the owner is required to
put in, hence extending it another year and allowing the neighbors to talk this out to try to
come to some conclusion would be beneficial.
Com. Rose:
• Everyone has stated similar opinions to mine already, and I think again in looking at the
pictures of the street and the trees and hearing what the neighbors have said about feeling that
the trees are very valuable to their living surroundings, if we are to move forward and approve
this we will be protecting the existing conditions which protect the existing trees. I think that
is an important move at this time.
Chair Miller:
• Said there were two germane issues. The first one related to the pulling of core samples, and it
was not appreciated at that time that core samples were not pulled. This is a two lot
subdivision, roughly an acre parcel that is being subdivided into two half acres. He said he has
owned property that has been an acre parcel .and found in his particular case he purchased a
piece of property that was sitting in a neighborhood with other one-acre lots and all those other
one-acre lots were fine; but when he did the geological report and pulled core samples, under
his lot there was a slide area and he then had to go back and negotiate. There was a problem
because he was sold the lot which essentially vras extremely difficult to build on.
• Said he was concerned about the issue in this I~articular neighborhood and the fact that the core
samples were not pulled; without pulling core samples they don't know what the situation of
the soil is and how difficult or easy it is to bl~ild on this property. That issue alone says that
they should be re-evaluating this and at a minimum have the applicant go back and pull core
samples and then come back.
• The second issue which was not clear when the property was evaluated the first time around,
was that the driveway easement would be subtracted from the property; and if the driveway
easement is subtracted from the property, there is not sufficient area to do a subdivision under
the rules in Cupertino, and it would have required an exception in order to make this work.
• That was not done the first time around; it v~~as not given an exception and there is another
issue that was not properly vetted. He said for those reasons he was concerned about moving
ahead on this.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second b;y Vice Chair Giefer, to approve Application
DR-2008-19 as written, with the delf~tion of Para. 2 under Section 3.
Com. Kaneda:
• Recommended adding the requirement for core samples to take place. He said Chair Miller
had a good point, especially in view of the fact that there was a mudslide sometime in the past.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 26, 2008
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said her recollection was different from Chair Miller's on the discussions at that time
regarding core samples. Staff can clarify at what point core samples would need to be taken
prior to development of these parcels.
Colin Jung:
• Said the original report referenced the twc other reports for both the Moxley and Sun
properties. The city geologist looked at the data from the core samples and asked themselves
if it was reasonable to extrapolate it to this log: based on all the other geotechnical information
provided in the report.
• In his opinion, he felt it was acceptable and said that the subdivision lot is geotechnically
feasible but a design level will have to be clone. It was the recommendation of a private
engineering geologist, to have to do a design level geotechnical report that would include the
core samples when it came time to propose a house on Lot 2.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Relative to Com. Kaneda's point, is it necess~uy to add that specifically to the motion, or is it
already covered on that point.
Colin Jung:
• Said they were covered on that point when there is not going to be a house built on either lot
without the core sampling; that is covered in tl~e conditions.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that it was appropriate if the Commission feels they would be more comfortable with
requiring it prior to the recording of a fmal rriap, demonstrating to the satisfaction of the city
geologist that this is a buildable site.
Com. Brophy:
• Said his concern as a buyer, as stated by Chav~ Miller, even if the city requires at the time you
pull a permit if somebody has already turned over the money to the seller for the lot and then
they fmd out there is a problem. Is there a wavy to put a clause as staff suggests, that protects a
would-be buyer in the future.
Steve Piaseclu:
• Said it could be handled by adding a condition to the extension that says that the applicant
shall retain a geologist to complete core samples demonstrating that the buildable area on the
second lot is free of any significant obstructions subject to the review of the city geologist,
prior to the recordation of the final map.
Chair Miller:
• No one else is concerned about the fact that we implicitly are giving an exception to the
ordinance instead of explicitly doing it.
Com. Brophy:
• Said his feeling was that they should have crossed that bridge three years ago; currently they
are trying to deal with it the way they are now. He said he was concerned about the issues but
felt it was not the right time.
Cupertino Planning Commission
August 26, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• There are two parts to this; the one part is the driveway and the other part is that if you put a
sidewalk in, it appears that there was some misunderstanding that if you develop this property
according to the R1 standards, the trees you w~;re trying to protect, you couldn't protect.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he understood from the City Council meeting that there is no way a standard section can
be put in that would meet the conditions set for the tentative map; so that if the applicant came
in with a 40 foot standard section, the Public Works Director and the Community
Development Director couldn't sign it because it would violate the rules. It states that the
applicant has one year to have a section designed that is acceptable to two-thirds of the
neighbors.
Com. Kaneda:
• I presume when this came up originally, thE;re wasn't that understanding that there was a
conflict between the trees and what the requirement was. Is that correct?
Colin Jung:
• Said they did not have that level of engineering; data when the subdivision map was approved.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they didn't assume at the time that they would be doing a 40 foot street. A 40-foot street
are two 12 foot travel lanes which is a freew~iy wide lane, two 8 foot parking lanes on either
side of that -and sidewalks behind that. Most valley floor subdivisions are actually 36 feet,
curb to curb, as another standard; and that works just as well. It is not an exception; the
Council can approve that based on the neighborhood coming together and saying this one
works for them, whatever it ends up being.
Chair Miller:
• Said that the last issue is that the application was not noticed to the neighborhood; can they go
back and change some of the conditions of apf~roval without the proper noticing?
Steve Piasecki
• The ordinance doesn't specifically require it; if you are uncomfortable with it, you could
continue it for 30 days; we could do a notice acid you could take it up again.
Chair Miller:
• Reiterated that the issue was not the extension, but that they are changing the conditions of
approval without noticing.
Amendment Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to accept Com.
To Motion: Kaneda's comment about requirement for core samples to take place.
(Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Miller No'I
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. SPA-2008-01 (EA-2008-02)
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Blvd. between
Hwy. 85 and the Eastern city limit
Heart of the City Specific plan amendments
to achieve conformance with the General
Pla~i. Postponed from July 22, 2008
Planning Commission meeting; Tentative
Cit)~ Council date: September 2, 2008
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 26, 2008
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reported that the application addresses the Heart of the City Specific Plan update which is part
of the 2008/2009 work program approved by the Council and also reflects the changes in the
2005 General Plan update.
• She reviewed the changes incorporated into the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan
including deleted language, consolidated language, added language and retained language
which are outlined in detail in the table on Page 2-3 of the staff report.
• At the June 10~ Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested clarification on
providing some examples of Heart of thE; City streetscape standards that have been
implemented; discuss whether or not bike racks or parking requirements should be
incorporated into the Plan; and to discuss whether or not the prescriptive side yard setback
requirements should be eliminated in the Plan .as well.
• She provided examples of Heart of the City Streetscapes as outlined in the staff report,
including the Metropolitan development and V~/hole Foods development.
• Relative to bike racks, staff has reviewed tree Commission's question whether or not they
should be included in the Specific Plan. All tl~e developments are subject to the city's parking
regulations and in the parking regulation requirements, there is a requirement for a bike racks
therefore staff believes it is not necessary to incorporate those additional references in the
Specific Plan. However, if the Commission desires to do so, it can be done.
• Relative to prescriptive side yard setback requirements the Commission also commented that
eliminating the prescriptive setbacks could create some confusion because developers would
not know what kind of requirement they would be held to. Staff recommends eliminating the
setback requirements so that the Planning Commission and City Council can review
development projects on a case-by-case basis, particularly with developments which have odd
shaped or narrow lots; and also because eliminating the setback requirements would
emphasize allowing the city to look at relationships on adjacent buildings and lot widths to
development sites and also to help create better. connected pedestrian oriented streetscapes.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft document, which has been
done in its finished design layout for review. Staff also recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council review and approve the updated Heart of the
City Specific Plan.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he felt there were a substantial number of items that are not minor cleanup items, but
rather constitute radical change to how future development will occur compared to what past
development has been. He said some of the major areas encourage and practically require
development that is aesthetically and economically substandard; that the proposed changes are
not a mattei of bicycle racks, street furniture and side setbacks, but a fundamental question of
how the core street in Cupertino should be developed. He said he felt they should not be
voting on the item tonight and if so, will speak strongly against it. The changes are such that it
is not a matter of cleaning up two or three sectiions.
• What has happened in a suburban community with little to moderate density areas that has this
kind of housing, is that you end up with inferior commercial space; driving down Stevens
Creek one can see most of the commercial space that has been built, has either been vacant
years after its completion or is occupied by marginal uses.
• Some of the proposals for the Crossroads area where we acre talking about changing the
relationship between buildings and parking try to create a more urban setting. Said he was
skeptical that the concepts proposed there will work for the kind of urban development we
have. They may well and we may well agree that they should; but this is dealing with
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 26, 2008
• fundamental issues that need to be carefully analyzed and not be taken in what has otherwise
been described as technical amendments and updating.
• The concept of parking arrangements on Crossroads is a major issue; the idea of doing
pedestrian oriented activity at the Crossroads is one of those terms that sounds great, but
requires some major discussion of what is pedestrian activity on a street that is 6 lane highway
with highway commercial uses such as a TargE;t and Whole Foods.
• The limiting of uses on Stevens Creek would no longer be necessarily followed with that
already in the zoning ordinance for CG but: has additional locational restrictions; we can
discuss that, but I think that is a major issue that needs to be analyzed. The idea of requiring
again on Stevens Creek the passive recreational use in office buildings and restaurants is a
major issue that needs to be discussed.
• The key point is we are talking about issuesthat are fundamental as to how we are going to
design the central road that runs through the Heart of the City and these are not questions that I
think are covered within the summary we received to review. There needs to be a process to
discuss them, hear views from the community because many of these issues are ones that have
come up during the course of the contentious referendums of the last couple of years.
• People come here and are unhappy about proposed developments and fmd out that they have
already been approved in General or Specific Plans and we as Planning Commissioners feel
like we have no choice but to accept projects that we are not really happy with, and that the
neighbors are not happy with because we ;previously approved General or Specific Plan
clauses. That is something we should try to avoid.
Steve Piasecki:
Said the basis of the staff report to you was b~ised on the direction from the City Council, that
is make this Plan consistent with the Genera] Plan, so you need to separate of all the issues
which of those are General Plan related issues that would require amendment of the General
Plan versus those that are floating issues in t}ie Specific Plan that you can deal with. If you
wanted to postpone this, we could try to distinguish those and give you the background
documentation on that. The other part of the direction was to make it consistent with the
General Plan, but don't go in and change ever;~thing. Some of the comments are related to the
old Heart of the City Plan that Com. Brophy is pointing out that he does not like. We feel like
Council has directed that we keep it focused just on the General Plan; we could try to
distinguish what those are as well. It would t;ilce some time to do that; we have not done that
to this point, because we have been following very limited parameters in terms of what we are
reviewing and suggesting to you.
Chair Miller:
• Said it appeared that staff was reducing the density for mixed use from 35 to 25 units per acre.
There are potential changes to the side setbacks.
Steve Piasecki
• Correct, Aki Honda explained that we don't think that is productive; it seems to be counter
intuitive that it would provide gaps and breaks where you want to have continuous activity and
walkability.
• Staff said they were reflecting the General Pla~i.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• She recalled that as part of the General Plan T;~sk Force and the Planning Commission who sat
and adopted that, they did not want to have allocations in Specific Plan because with those
allocations such as commercial or residential ~~hange, they would have to go back and modify
the Plan; hence they were going by referen~~e to those items. She said they were in the
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 August 26, 2008
Specific Plan; and for consistency she suggested they remove the specific allocations in this
Plan commercial.
• In the General Plan we talk a lot about trying to have a vibrant streetscape and promote
walkability, but yet we are removing street fiu~niture from the Plan, which is in conflict with
the intent and specificity of the General Plan. If we want people to walk down and have a
coffee, we need to give the people a place to sit; I feel that needs to go back in.
• Relative to HVAC units on top of buildings, change to effective screening of HVAC systems
on top of buildings on Pages 2-68.
• For consistency with the General Plan, we talk about consistent landscape palettes but not
about using native plants or drought tolerant species which is consistent with the General Plan.
I would like to put those specific references intro the Specific Plan as well for compatibility.
• We talk about having a less vehicle centric s~reetscape, but we are not saying that you can't
have a drive through on Stevens Creek; If In-N-Out Burger wanted to come to Cupertino, I
wouldn't want to see them go in the Heart oi' the City; nor would I want Wells Fargo Bank
drive through to go in the Heart of the Cit}~. I would like to disallow any drive through
businesses in the Heart of the City.
• The other thing is we specifically list lighting types on 2-85. We are not anticipating new
technology like solid state lighting, LED lighting; we are talking about fluorescents and
different types of lighting. I suggest we make that reference to low energy using wattage
lighting systems on our street so we can anticipate future improvements.
• Through the Heart of the City, we have a resf~onsibility to have a vision of what we want our
city to look like in the future. If we want to build a city for the future, and if we want to build
a city for the future, we need to look at having some big strategies that we want to pursue.
• If we synchronize the lights on Stevens Creek: and have a diverse lane for non-pedestrian but
non-motor vehicles, it would probably run n-ore traffic smoothly along Stevens Creek and
encourage people to get out of their cars, being consistent with the direction the State is
moving toward.
Com. Kaneda:
• The vocabulary used along Stevens Creek is riot drought tolerant landscaping; there seems to
be a tension between the desire to have drought tolerant landscaping, but if we are consistent,
we have this look in Cupertino along that road, and if we are consistent with that, it is not
drought tolerant.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Said they make a strong visual statement with the treescaping along Stevens Creek, and she
did not want to affect that; but as new businesses are developing or they are putting in
boulevard shrubbery bushes, she said they need to go to more drought tolerant landscaping and
drip systems to save water. She said she slid not want to meddle with the tree selection
because it cools the city. She supports the tree: selections, but had some issues with the palette
of species on the shrubbery list being recommended.
Com. Kaneda:
Said there was a comment made about the streetscape and its not being used. What is the
reason it is not being used; is it just inertia; are you suggesting taking it out?
Alei Honda Snelling:
• Said the street furniture has never been put in place and followed up by Public Works
department, and she was not sure why.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 August 26, 2008
Steve Piasecki:
• It is out there in various locations, but not consistently applied. We can leave it in and we can
make sure it happens in the future.
Com. Kaneda:
• The comment about more public input into some of the changes; is there an opportunity for a
study session if we decided we wanted to go that route.
Steve Piaseclci:
• Said that given the comments from Com. Brophy; if the commissioners feel the same way, a
study session is appropriate. It gives you more time to drill down, work it page by page,
policy by policy and come up with whether you like it or not, how would we change it, and
that is usually the appropriate mechanism.
• Responding to a request for a history of the original Heart of the City document and how it
was developed, he said the concept of the original Heart of the City was to reflect the fact that
the Crossroads district and Vallco Park, Cupertino Square, will become the shopping district
nodes. Cupertino Square might be extended to include Portal Plaza and the Marketplace
Shopping Center and as we are talking about the Sand Hill property site, it becomes a node in
and of itself, and that the mid-block area betwc;en those districts would be quieter, more mixed
use office; and it could be more market driven. I think the comment that we are forcing mixed
use or encouraging it; that is an easy one; let the market drive whatever happens in that mid-
block area. You have examples in the Crossroads district with Peet's, Panera, Whole Foods,
and at the Marketplace Center where you have all commercial buildings, there is no mixed use
in those buildings. We have had mixed use as well and I think it is correct that gives you
especially with the high speeds, 6 lane boulevard we have, it is hard to pull over; there is no
teaser parking, there is no incentive to brin;; in national tenants; you tend to get smaller
tenants. Two nodes, mid block, a little bit tamer, quieter, mixed use; I think the first thing you
need to look at is what is the real overall purpose; what are you trying to accomplish both at
the nodes and at the mid-block. Is that still she vision or is there something different. The
General Plan still speaks to that node concept where you have the more intense activities at the
two nodes and then the variety stringing along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Part of the
perception is, that it is hard to walk Stevens Creek Boulevard and stay entertained with the
retail uses.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• The Heart of the City Plan down Stevens Creek Boulevard from Wolfe Road eastward to the
Santa Clara boundary is an area where part of it is not developed; the Sand Hill properties has
no trees, they have some existing mature landscaping which we hope will be preserved and
then there is some extremely lush plantings on either side of Wolfe Road. I hope that the full
35 foot setback public right of way along that road will be honored in future; double row of
Ash trees at that end of town; lawn as much as possible; very minimal or little invasion of
private buildings into that setback. We had some issue where Sand Hill is proposing putting
parking in that public right of way. We want to make sure that we keep the entire 35 feet of
public right of way, how the Heart of the City Plan pans into this; I think Heart of the City
extended all the way back to the Sand Hill property to Vallco Parkway. That end of town
needs as much parkland and that public right of way along that street is very important.
Please make sure we keep the double row of Ash trees along there and we have more planted
in the future. I see that the heights have gone to 45; not a big fan of having tremendous
buildings looming up immediately against the public right of way. Also having buildings that
Cupertino Planning Commission 14~ August 26, 2008
have no setbacks on each side for smaller lot areas sets the precedence of having building on
zero lot line, which you are going to have a bunch of boxes connected all down Stevens Creek
Boulevard and that is not a good look for that end of town. I appreciate the consistency of
keeping our Ash trees down there.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed with Com. Brophy's comments and some of the other issues that were raised.
He suggested continuing the item to try to s~~t up some type of study session and get public
input into the edits on the Plan.
Com. Brophy:
• He summarized what he felt was specificall}~ wrong and said that he felt they should hold a
study session. He quoted Page 2-62 "some examples of projects where the Heart of the City
standards have been successfully applied are; Adobe Terrace, Marketplace Shopping Center
and the Verona development." He said if they felt that those projects are examples of what
was done well in Cupertino and that they should try to encourage more of that, they should
ignore him when he talks. He said it was time to drill down into the Heart of the City study
and take a serious look at what kind of projects we are encouraging or discouraging through
our Heart of the City Plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Asked if City Council was expecting a recommendation back from the Planning Commission
at their next meeting.
Steve Piaseclci:
• We originally scheduled it for last week; anticipating that when we went to the Commission
in June that we would have the opportunity to have a second meeting, and we would be ready
to go to the Council at that time. We pre-advertised it; it did not come to fruition so we have
removed it from the Council's agenda to wait: for the Planning Commission to fmish its work
and re-advertise it for the City Council.
• Said it was within the purview of the Plamiing Commission to have study sessions but it
would be wise to communicate to the City Council that they are focusing on the document in
greater detail; are holding a study session t~~ do that; consequently it will not get to them
before the end of September or October.
• Said it was important to get it right, rather retuning to revisit it repeatedly.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Concurred, and said she had considered it a landscaping and accoutrement plan; and had not
thoroughly considered how it may impact future business development on that street. Said she
did not want drive-thrus and would be interested in understanding more about Com. Brophy's
position on these items.
Said she would support having a study session to clearly articulate what further information
they need to improve the Plan and make it even stronger.
Com. Rose:
• Said she appreciated Com. Brophy discussing some of the issues that were buried in the large
document, and if a study session would be a s~ife way to ensure they are not acting too quickly
without enough education, it would be the appropriate way to proceed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 August 26, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed also, and he felt it was appropriate that they revisit the document; it is a
planning document and they have expertise on it, which could help address the document in
more detail than has been done in the past. To reiterate Vice Chair's question earlier, you said
the Council gave us some very specific direction as to what to do or not do, and you
commented back that it was in our purview to widen that scope.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the Council gave the direction; I think what will happen as a result of it, is if it goes
beyond the Council's scope, then the Planning; Commission could suggest that you think you
should go beyond it and/or that this is really a. General Plan concern, not necessarily Heart of
the City concern, and as we are going to be amending the Plan for the housing element update
which by necessity opens up the land use element; you could suggest to the Council that we go
in and fix some element of the Plan that is disagreeable.
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed; it is timely since they are doing the housing element as well, and what they do
on the housing element and what they do here, are in some ways synergistic.
• Said he would support a study session.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that if it is the will of the Commission, he suggested they have a meeting on the 9d~ of
September and 23rd of September; holding a :study session before the regular meeting, which
would give staff an opportunity to send out notices to the affected property owners and get
broader notice of this.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to continue the aplication
to the September 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, at which time a study
session will be convened to receive public input on the Plan,
Minute Order: Minute action of the Planning Commission advising the City Council of the
Planning Commission holding a study session on the Heart of the City Plan
and focusing on a number of issues in relation to the General Plan;
consequently the document will not be forwarded to the City Council until
either October or possibly later November.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Suggested that Kelly Kline, Economic Development Manager, be included in the discussions.
Amendment accepted by Com. Kaneda; second by Vice Chair Giefer. (Vote: 5-0-0)
3. EXC-2008-14 Hillside Exception for a new two-story, 3304 square foot,
(EA-2008-OS), single family re:~idence on a slope greater than 30%, and
TR-2008-OS Tree Removal r~:quest to remove and replace three
Amy Cheng specimen size Oak trees. Planning Commission decision
San Juan Rd. final unless apps;aled.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• He reviewed the application for a hillside exception to construct a new two-story, 3,304 square
foot single family residence on a slope greater than 30%, and a tree removal request to remove
and replace three specimen size Oak trees, as outlined in the staff report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 August 26, 2008
• Grading quantity is about 200 cubic yards, the maximum allowed in the hillside zone is 2,500.
Pazking required normally for a single family residence is 4 stalls; however, if you do not have
street pazking, you should be providing two more. They attempted to accommodate 6 pazking
stalls on the lot.
• Project issues include the hillside exception for construction on the steep slope; the
geotechnical review, tree removal and this particular section of San Juan Road is privately
owned. There are some publicly owned sections but this particular section is privately owned.
• Hillside exception: the residence is built at the top of the slope with the garage on the upper
floor and most of the living space cantilevered below; the type of foundation is a piering grade
beam foundation and this is necessary to mir.~imize the grading on this property. The home
design is similaz to two previously approved homes in the azea. 'This residence is on a very
steep slope but it is not a prominent ridgeline. He reviewed the site plan and floor plan of the
proposed home.
• Geotechnical review: The site was reviewed by a private geotechnical engineer and was
reviewed by the city geologist. The recommendation was for a pier and grade beam
foundation which is the best suited foundation for the site as it minimizes the grading impact
and saves as many trees as you can. The side because of the steepness, is highly susceptible to
soil creep and landsliding and so the geologist said it was important that we convey any of the
storm drainage out toward San Juan Road and not into the surrounding soil. The city geologist
recommendations aze incorporated in the model resolution.
• Tree removal: The azea is covered with Oak tr~:es and you really cannot build anywhere on this
property without removing something. There aze three specimen sized Oaks greater than 10
inches in diameter and three non-specimen sized Oak less than 10 inches in diameter proposed
for removal with this application. There are- two other trees that the city azborist believes
would probably not survive the construction, but the applicant has elected to try to preserve
them, and there are recommendations in the azborist report to try to preserve them. The
replacements recommended aze per the protected tree ordinance which in this particulaz trees
requires for the three specimen sized removed, that they plant six 24-inch box Oaks.
• The segment of San Juan Road is privately owned. The Inspiration Heights subdivision azea
was subdivided in 1917 when they didn't pay much attention to the challenges of the slope and
the steepness of the slope when they put it in because they were rectangular lots. There was a
road that was mapped on that subdivision offered for dedication to the County but never
accepted. In all likelihood, the person making the road decided where the road would make
the most sense. The road itself is in place:; not where the offer for dedication but never
accepted road is, and along this particulaz section of the road, it is on private property owned
by a gentleman in the audience, and two other men who put up the money to basically improve
the road and fix it up and so anyone who has access to that road must participate in a
reimbursement of road costs agreement with the original fenders of the road and there is also a
road and retaining wall maintenance agreement that any property owner in the azea must also
join. In addition there aze access and utility easements that must be negotiated with the
adjacent property owner. The city's involvement in this is limited to just the road
reimbursement agreement and the maintenance agreement and it will be incumbent upon the
applicant to negotiate with the adjacent property owner who owns the road over the easement
agreements in order to get the utilities to the property.
Steve Piaseclu:
• Noted that the City of Cupertino was not incorporated in 1917; these aze subdivisions that took
place under the County jurisdiction at the time and there was very limited oversight and
review. It has been upheld by the courts that the cities must allow reasonable use of
independent piece of property and that is why ;you are seeing this on an otherwise awkwazd lot.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 August 26, 2008
• Staff recommends approval of the hillside exception and tree removal in accordance with the
model resolution, with the added Public Works condition: "That the applicant shall participate
in the road reimbursement agreement and road and retaining wall maintenance agreement prior
to building permit approval."
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the application.
Amy Cheng, Applicant:
• Said she had nothing to add to Colin Jung's presentation. She said she agreed with the
applicant's reimbursement for the road improvements, and the maintenance agreement; and
agreed to follow the context of the agreement.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Tom Hutton, San Juan Road:
• Is opposed/neutral on the application.
• Said it was important that they get reimbursed for the road and also the road maintenance
agreement; and he was pleased that Ms. Cheng has agreed to that.
• Regarding the easements, the people who lived on the property before us granted an easement
to this property in 1980 and my reading of the: easement is that it is a 15 foot easement in the
center of the property. When I look at the pla~is, about 50 feet of the property is connected to
the road; there is a lot more use of the easement than 15 feet; I am concerned about that and I
have had other people review it and they agree- with me. I don't know where we go from here
on the easement, we can discuss it with the (:hengs but I hate to see everything go forward
with the present plans if the easement is as restrictive as I believe it is. That is a concern.
• Another concern is the parking. Traditionally there hasn't been any parking on this portion of
San Juan Rd., it is not particularly wide and there is a fair amount of traffic on it. Said he
would object to having parking on San Juan Road as a part of ordinary parking, and would like
to see some other options other than having to park on the road which nobody does.
• There is a beautiful Oak tree on the property line and if I look at the plans for the parking
space, it is about a three foot setback from the property line, which is a little close. That
parking space is only going to be a foot from this 22 inch Oak, which is on our property and
we would like to maintain it. It is not one oi' the three trees slated for demolition but I am
feeling it has a problem with the way the plans are now, and I would like to see that addressed.
• The Chengs are heroic in trying to preserve Oaks because the property is riddled with them
and he suggested they keep a close eye on their contractor.
• There is the issue of the utility easement which is something between us that we will work out
but now that is an open issue.
• Originally the storm drain on San Juan Road on that portion of the road was only done for us
and two other parties were added to that and eve took a look at that when we did that to make
sure that the storm drain had sufficient capacity and now we are adding another property.
There should be some type of engineering analysis that says we are going to dump another XX
amount of square feet of water on the San Juan Road in the 50 year rain; or whatever the
criteria is because there have been a lot of mudslide problems on San Juan Road and down the
street from us.
• Said he was neutral on this development, and not really opposed to it, but there are many
tricky things with the hillside things that need t:o be addressed.
Colin Jung responded to Mr. Hutton's questions3:
• Relative to the ownership of the storm drain systems and capacity of the storm drain system,
he said he asked the Public Works Department to see if they could locate the engineering
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 August 26, 2008
analysis for the road itself to find out how the ;storm drainage system was sized for this area. It
anticipated to some degree the Hutton's property, the Queen's property to a lesser degree, the
former Marianist property. He did not know how much of a contribution this particulaz house
would be; normally when we require storm drainage systems we don't build it to the
minimum, but usually build it over capacit;~, but that is something that will need to be
addressed. We will have to go back to the ori;;inal research to find out exactly what the storm
drainage calcs were for the surrounding lots, figure out what size drain pipe was built down the
road and factor that in to see how it all works together.
Parking on San Juan Road: He said they were not proposing any parking on San Juan Road;
there is a sepazate sheet in the plan set where I asked the applicant to talk to their contractor
about the construction staging for this project and I think that he did show some construction
workers parking on San Juan Road; that is not going to work. We are not proposing any
onstreet parking; all parking proposed is on the property with the exception of this space over
here which is overlapping her property and the Hutton's property as previously mentioned. For
construction staging, the construction worket•s will need to talk to the Legionnaires which
presently owns the Mazianist property and use some of their surface property.
Chair Miller:
• Next issue is that there is currently a curb there at the property line which will be removed
with this construction, and the curb was preventing water that is shooting down from higher up
from draining into the lot itself.
Colin Jung:
• The construction has to be done very cazefull;y; once they remove that curb, they will not be
allowed to do any type of construction during she rainy season; which is from October through
April, that they are not going to be able to do the type of work that you are thinking about. It
is going to happen during the dry period. It i:; not going to be as much an issue but there are
some unseasonal rains and what Public Works normally requires is that they aze going to have
to set up some type of straw waddles or simila~~ to keep the flow going down San Juan Road as
opposed to onto the property.
• Said the curb would not be put back in after the home is completed. The geotechnical report
indicates that the driveway has to be sloped towazd the street, and that not only are they going
to have to carry the drainage from the roots onto the street but they are going to have to
prevent the drainage that is coming off the adjacent properties, keep that on the street and not
flowing onto their property.
Chair Miller:
• Last issue was that the Oak tree is about one foot away from the paved area for parking. Will
that impact the root structure of the Oak tree? He asked if staff was concerned about the
impact to the root structure of having cement pazking that close to it?
Colin Jung:
• He said that they would have to look at some type of pervious driveway to make sure that the
water that hits that driveway percolates in thy; ground to feed that Oak tree but keeping the
drainage of the roots off the lot and onto the road; because it is getting rainfall where it is.
• The root structure itself, an azborist will have t~~ look at that particulaz tree; there is language in
the azborist report about protecting the tree itself but if you were to able to go onsite and look
at the slope conditions, there seems to be very little upsloping; most of it is downslope of the
trees; and in this particulaz case much like th~~ other trees, most of the soil that the roots aze
attached to are downslope of the tree itself.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 August 26, 2008
Cary Queen, San Juan Road:
• Said he supported the project; it appears to take into account the difficulties of this particular
site. Said he did not have any particular concerns and supported it moving forward.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• When talking about the Oak tree, the general structure of this building is piers; is there any
areas along the street where there is slab on grade type situation, because if the building is
standing on a dozen piers, I don't see why you have problems with damaging root structure.
Colin Jung:
• That is the beauty of the pier grade beam foundation, is that you are drilling piers and you have
minimal impacts on roots when you do something like that; however, the front of the house
itself there is a little cut and fill in the front and it shows up on the grading plan itself, so there
is a small pad over there before you get to the ;fade beam.
• Said that the Planning Commission did not have to deal with the issues raised by Mr. Hutton.
He said that Mr. Hutton has a lot of control iti the sense that there are easements that have to
be acquired from him for this property and in the fact that there is also the reimbursable
agreements and the maintenance agreements that are city-signed and recorded documents that
require the applicant's participation in them or they do not get their building permit. There are
a lot of existing strings attached to what Mr. Hutton has described, but we are pleased he
brought it up. All the personnel that were involved in the previous agreements with Mr.
Hutton as far as getting this road constructed have all since retired or left the city. There is a
condition of approval that says the applicant is required to reimburse the three property owners
for their previous financial contribution for thc; road and they are also required to be a party to
the maintenance agreement for the road. Tho~;e are the two things that the city is involved in
with this property.
Chair Miller:
To some extent this is a legal issue and on different applications, the legal staff has ruled that
the easements have to be resolved before the applicant can go ahead. There were other
situations where the legal staff has ruled that the applicant can get his permits and approvals
and the easement issues were private matters to be dealt with between the two property
owners, and the city did not get involved. Hc: said that given he had seen both situations, he
was not comfortable without some type of legal input as to what the city's position should be.
Colin Jung:
• Said with the previous application, the Flul:er application, which also required a hillside
exception, all those agreements were utility access easements and parking were all negotiated
between Mr. Hutton and Mr. Fluker after the fact; they were all negotiated before the house
was built but after the planning approval for it.
Chair Miller:
• He pointed out that the manner in which the legal staff sees this from the legal issue, gives an
advantage to one party or the other in subsequent negotiations, and perhaps there should be
some legal input. Has the city legal staff looked at this?
Steve Piasecld:
• Said they typically would not send it to the city attorney; there is nothing wrong with the
Planning Commission putting a condition that: says that the attorney shall review the existing
Cupertino Planning Commission 2C~ August 26, 2008
easement arrangements and verify that they both protect the public's interest in terms of
drainage and access, and maintenance, but also that they are a legally defensible agreements
and he buy off on that prior to them pulling a building permit on this.
Com. Rose:
• Said she had similaz concerns about the loose end part especially regarding the drainage, if
there is currently a 16 inch curb and how that is going to be changed. She said she felt a closer
look by the attorney on those issues would be a wise move.
Com. Brophy:
• (directed to Mr. Hutton) As faz as the proposed resolution before us tonight, are you
comfortable with it, do you support it. My thought on this is, if Mr. Hutton and Ms. Cheng aze
willing to go ahead with the resolution as proposed, then if they are willing to take whatever
risks there aze of negotiating satisfactory, various agreements, I would be willing to go
forward.
Tom Hutton:
• Said that he was; and noted that he was not opposed to the development per se; but there aze
the issues of concern.
Chair Miller:
• I appreciate that also, but the city is another party at risk and wanted to make sure they are
covered as well. That is why I think it is appropriate that this be reviewed by legal staff.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would support the project; there aze a number of complex issues. He said he would be
ready to move on subject to the additional clause suggesting attorney's review for city liability.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he generally supported it, with some concern about the statement of the storm drainage
which is covered in the resolution.
Com. Rose:
• Said she agreed.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she was concerned about the slope being too steep; and was concerned about the
proximity in general of the azea to the two difi'erent fault lines, 300 feet from one and 600 feet
from the other fault line. There is a known slide pointed out on the seismic and the geo charts
and some buckling that occurred in the road which potentially is either water or land
movement.
Said she was not comfortable giving a hillside exception, and would not support the
application.
Chair Miller:
Said he was not comfortable with it either, and felt it was foolish to put a house there.
However, they have been reassured several times that engineering-wise it is possible and city
staff will double check this and make sure the city is not liable in any way.
Said he did not disagree; the question is are our hands tied here in terms of approving
development on this property because we have inherited it from the County; exactly what is
our requirements or responsibility here.
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 August 26, 2008
Steve Piasecki:
• The requirement is to allow reasonable use of 'the property, and if you feel that due to the slope
and drainage conditions and existing trees, that reasonable usage mandates a much smaller
home, you could ask the applicant to go back and redesign to accommodate that; and/or if
there are any technical questions including the: legal question or geologic questions or that the
apparent fill area you are not satisfied with, }~ou could ask for clarifying information, so that
you could determine whether this house or whether it needs to be reduced in size. Courts have
upheld that cities, when there is an independent lot that we need to allow reasonable use of the
property. Specifying no house is not a reasonable use for the property.
Chair Miller:
• Said he was not in a position to identify what size house would be more acceptable than some
other size house, and would have to rely on the; technical reports they have.
• He said he would reluctantly support this application.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application EXC
2008-14, TR-2008-05, EA-2008-05, with the following condition: City Attorney
Review: The City Attorney shall review the existing private agreements to
ensure that the city's interest relating to storm drainage, reciprocal easements,
and maintenance of the roadway are observed and protected; and that said
review shall take place prior to filing or release of permits. (Vote: 4-1-0; Vice
Chair Giefer No)
4. ASA-2008-05, Architectural and Site Approval and Amendment to Development
(EA-2008-06), Approval for the demolition of five buildings containing about
M-2008-03, 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new two-story
TR-2008-06, office buildings containing 155,500 square feet, atwo-level, 204
Tim Kelly (Embarcadero space parking gar~ige, surface parking lot and landscaping
Capital Partners) improvements at <<n existing 19.8 acre park; Tree Removal request
1 Results Way to remove 303 trees on approved landscape plan and replace them
with 321 trees at the existing office park. Tentative City Council
date: September .16, 2008
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for architectural and site approval and amendment to development
approval for the demolition of five buildings; and the development of three, new two-story
office buildings, atwo-level, 204 space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscaping
improvements at an existing 19.8 acre park; tree removal request to remove 303 trees on
approved landscape plan and replacement with. 321 trees at the existing office park, as outlined
in the staff report.
• He reviewed the project data, site description:; project description; General Plan development
allocation; zoning interpretation; site design; on-site circulation and parking; traffic and
circulation; lot line adjustment/easements; tre~:s; and public noticing. Details are contained in
the staff report.
• Staff has additional- conditions to add to the iJse Permit and Architecture and Site Approval.
They are numbered to correspond to the conditions in the model resolution. There are some
wordsmithing changes to clarify the intent of the condition; Cond. 5, the key word is: we are
leaving the LEED Silver in there, but we are saying certifiable as opposed to just LEED silver.
The applicants questioned what we meant by the maximum extent feasible as far as recycling
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 August 26, 2008
of building materials; obviously depending o~i the type of building material, the type of site
materials they have, that could vary how much they could recycle. They felt comfortable with
an 80% level but I think what they were really striving for is whatever is what the industry
practice is as faz as what is feasible in ternis of recycling building materials. There is a
modification to Cond. 24, to portion of 24, which relates to the McClellan Road frontage; they
are offering a dedication of widening of the road along a portion of their frontage; not only a
dedication by an improvement for road widening and we aze also asking for a contribution
towazd the cost of travel lane restriping and also the potential, and this hasn't been entirely
investigated yet, but it was part of the previous application on this site when we had the pazks
at Monta Vista; there was a residential de~~elopment and they were talking about some
improvements on McClellan Road and one of those had to do with a potential student dropoff
azea on the opposite side of the street, and if we widen the road on the industrial park side then
we could potentially capture a lazge enough azea where we may be able to install an additional
student dropoff on the south side of the street. We aze asking the applicants to fund the lane
restriping and the concrete barriers, which would make that possible. Pointed out that this is
still under review by not only the private traffic engineer, but also by the Public Works
Department and it not entirely set in stone yet. There also needs to be another discussion with
the school district on their thoughts on this.
A couple of new conditions: the Bocci ball court was a conceptual idea for the landscape
amenity and they wanted some flexibility; or some other type of landscape amenity next to the
cafe.
They wanted some clarity as far as the type of uses that could be allowed in the office
industrial pazk. This language was suggested because it is of an interpretive nature made by
the Director of Community Development and because of their interest in having a greater
degree of certainty so they are able to go out ire the community and mazket the buildings itself.
We have come up with this language; it talks <<bout what we are interested in achieving on this
property as faz as it being a really high tech campus and I have a paper copy of that as a
handout. It talks about high tech, biotech, ve~7ture capital, and similar supporting businesses,
whether they be financial or of some other n~~ture, but of course getting away from the more
commercially oriented businesses mentioned in staffl s report. What we mean by
commercially oriented businesses would be things that don't relate to the high tech campus
itself, such as an insurance service, real estate brokerage, patient serving medical or dental
uses vs. a medical products manufacturer; those kind of minor distinctions that they wanted
some clarity on and some certainty on before they can mazket it to the business community; so
that language is in there and you can review that.
Com. Brophy:
~ Said the key issue appeared to be traffic; this is being presented as an addition of 11,000
square feet, which is a trivial number. I think we aze talking about 15,000 since there is a
4,353 foot deduction for corridors which is riot occupied space, but that is not my concern.
My concern is that I walked the parking lot on Friday and yesterday and I would say that of the
1,200 current pazking spaces, there aze probably 500 that are presently vacant and that is
because I am assuming because of the complE;x as it is presently constructed, is not designed
for modern office use; but more for semi-manufacturing function. What we are talking about
with the reconstruction of this project to a modern office complex is the addition of 500 cars a
day coming to that slot, and since Measurex originally built that campus, we have had
massive growth in student population at both Kennedy and Monta Vista and anybody who has
been in the morning rush hour at McClellan and Bubb Roads knows that combination of
student traffic, resident traffic heading north o~i Bubb or East on McClellan to head to work, is
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 August 26, 2008
already one of the worst intersections in the city. I am wondering whether or not the traffic
analysis should reflect the fact that we are looking at several hundred more cars per day
coming as a result of the conversion to a modern complex.
Colin Jung:
• Say for the moment that the buildings exist there now and if they elected to occupy those
buildings, they would generate more traffic bust there would be no traffic analysis, because the
buildings are there, but a portion of them are not occupied. They are tearing them down to put
up some new buildings that they feel will be much more usable for them.
• Relative to the traffic generation, it is a :standard practice with the traffic engineering
department, not only from the city side but the private side, to look at the trafi=lc generation
from the net increase in the square footage. :[ understand your concerns about that and even
though the traffic report says a net of 11,000 to 15,000 square feet, we are asking for road
improvements in that area where it was identified in the previous project for this site, but still
makes sense from the circulation standpoint. One of them is that there is a dedicated porkchop
island that sits in front of their driveway, and'. part of the conditions of approval will require
them to remove that porkchop island and what this would do is that you instead of having one
northbound lane on Bubb Road, you would have two northbound lanes on Bubb Road now.
We still need to get people in and out of the site; therefore there will have to be some
modifications to the signal light, looking at the crosswalk to make sure all that is functioning.
The other aspect of the road improvement'. discussed has to do with the dedication on
McClellan Road and that is in the potential student dropoff area on the south side of McClellan
Road and that is once again there to ease some; of that congestion that you are currently seeing
right now.
Com. Brophy:
• Said it was all well and good but the issue is that presumably the applicant is not proposing to
tear down 140,000 feet of buildings and repl~~ce it with 155,000 without the expectation that
they could fill it with tenants. They are also talking about 500 to 600 additional cars in the
morning rush hour; and if you look at what th,~t interchange looks like at 7:30 or 8:00 a.m., to
say that it's replacing buildings is correct, but avoids the issue of what does it mean that we
have 500 to 600 additional cars in morning rush hour coming to the Measurex complex. It
seems that the kind of proposed changes w~e are talking about which were originally put
together when we were talking about putting 90 homes on this site, are not exactly relevant to
dealing with 600 people coming in at mornin€; and evening rush hours. Anybody who stands
at that intersection during morning or afternoon rush hours, especially in the morning rush
hour, would say what would happen if we als~~ had to put 600 cars coming into that site in an
hour to hour and a half period.
Steve Piaseclei:
When we discussed this with the traffic engineer, they pointed out that most, if not a large
majority of those trips will be coming to and from the freeway, down Bubb Road, going into
Results Way and going back out Bubb Road. The assignment of those trips into that
intersection would probably be fairly minor, but that doesn't help you with analyzing,
specifically what that is.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would feel better if he saw an analysis that reflected the reality rather than the theory
that we are simply replacing existing buildings.
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 August 26, 2008
Steve Piasecki:
• That is a valid point and if the Commissioner:; agree, then we could continue this and ask the
traffic engineer to zero in on the net increase: over existing as opposed to net increase over
what could happen if it was occupied, and that is one of the reasons why we asked this
applicant to do these improvements because we knew they were going to help with the overall
situation but we don't have the specific analysis.
Sandra James, representing Community Outresich for the applicant:
• Said her first advice was not to propose housing for the project; she said the community would
be relieved to see a commercial project; they like the business park there and something that
upgraded it, so they could stop worrying about what might be built there.
• Said the ownership has been very generous with allowing community groups to use their
property for vazious events, such as the PTA Using the facilities to store props and scenery for
the grad nights; Fire Departments for training ~md development.
• She reviewed the community outreach for the project, including meeting with the school
districts, Chamber of Commerce, PTAs, DeAnza College, Apple Computer, homeowners
associations in the area, and a mailing notice sent out within a half mile of the project. She
said the owners have been very responsive to remarks that have been received at the meetings.
John Hamilton, Embarcadero Capital Partners.. Property Owner:
• Purchased the property one year ago and have been parallel processing the outreach to
ascertain what the community wanted, and it was heard loud and clear no residential, no cut
through to Imperial, no cut through to Mc(:lellan; yes to two story buildings, much nicer
landscaping, much more organized and inviting configuration of the buildings.
Rich Sharp, Studio 5, Design Landscape Architects:
• Said the reconfiguration of the project pushes the architecture to the perimeter; the geometries
of the existing buildings and the new buildings come together at the north end of the site, and
part of the landscape concept was to reinforce she structure of the property.
• Another piece of the landscape concept is to integrate landscape with storm water practices,
which again going for LEED silver certific<<tion, we are trying to handle through natural
processes as much as possible; all the runoff from both roofs of the buildings and the
handscape and parking paved areas. Starting from the front of the project moving into the
project, as part of the redesign we have been able to, what we think is a strong point of the
project, is extend the Results Way drive from what is now a very short drive to a roundabout to
a more elegant boulevard coming into the project; it grabs the new building structures the
building A parking gazage, building B and C with this dropoff azea; and the goal of the
landscape along that drive is an asymmetrical street section where along sides of building A,
building B and building C we aze using deciduous trees to help with solar gain on the
buildings, so that in the winter there is sun on the buildings.
• On the west side of the entry drive because of the diverted geometry of the project with the
existing parking lots coming in, we aze using that as an opportunity with wedge shaped
landscape azeas to introduce bio retention areas that would drain all this existing pazking. We
aze trying to bring it from a vehicular perspective into an amenity coming into the project.
With this paving azea as with the entry paving area, we aze looking at permeable paving
conditions, same way with the entry pieces, a:ll permeable paving again going towazds LEED
points and just a more sustainable way to handle handscape. The boulevard drops into the west
pazking area and the north parking azea. This is where we are picking up a lot of the
replacement Oak trees to try and create a mere majestic tree in the parking lot vs. a more
typical sweet gum or sycamore that you typically fmd in a parking lot. All the planting around
the perimeter is taking into consideration bios~~vale conditions, so we aze looking at Alders and
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 August 26, 2008
Willows along the edge to buffer buildings B and A and the pazking garage along the
pedestrian path; and then along the east side of the project along buildings C and 543 we are
using deciduous tree, currently we are showing the Red Maple to again be a deciduous
condition create relief for the solar gain, create some privacy for the residents along this edge,
we are also infilling between some of the existing Canary Island Pines, in here we aze infilling
to help with the privacy issue along that side o:Fthe project.
Ted Korth, Architect:
• Reviewed the site plan and showed a slide presentation of the elevations, views from different
locations, pazking structure and azchitectural design of the project.
Gary'Black, Hexagon Transportation Consulta~tts:
• Worked with city traffic engineer to examine the site in light of the proposal compared to what
it was before with the residential project. Said there was a more extensive complete traffic
study done for the residential project at the time and the study accounted for the difference
between the residential project and full occupancy of the buildings as they sit today.
• With that as a basis, the city traffic engineer a;~ked us to do a calculation of what would be the
difference with this project as proposed as anall-office project compared to an existing
research and development project. There aze two components, one is the slightly larger size
and the other is the switch in use to something more intense in terms of the building
occupancy. Accounting for those two factors ~we made an estimate of the added traffic which
was put in the slide, between 60 and 70 trips in the morning and afternoon and then your
traffic engineer compazed that to the baselinE; that was published in the previous study and
could cleazly see that this project would not ad.d traffic even considering layering on traffic for
full occupancy of all the buildings, would not add traffic to such an extent that would trip the
city's level of service standazd. It was cleaa~ to the city's traffic engineer that this project
would not have an impact as measured by those objective criteria. Cleazly everyone is aware
of the traffic situation out there and your cite staff has looked extensively at what could be
improvements to the azea to try to better manage the traffic flows primazily due to the schools
and a portion of that overall plan would lie implemented by this project, in particular
improvements at the intersection of Bubb and Results Way, as stated eazlier, to create two
northbound lanes on Bubb and then at some future time when it became possible, that could be
tied into two lanes on Bubb at McClellan that ~:annot be done today because the right of way is
not available, but it is anticipated that it can tie done in the future and the improvements that
this project would do would set that up so that it could be done when the right of way becomes
available.
Com. Brophy:
• Said his understanding was that the 66 additional trips on the morning commute is the result of
adding a net increase of 15,000 or 11,000 square feet of space.
Gary Black:
• He said it included a change in use from rese~crch and development to office. Adding 15,000
squaze feet would not generate 66 trips; it would be less than that; but it is that plus change in
use.
Com. Brophy:
• He said he was not necessazily suggesting that it is the applicant's responsibility to deal with
the problem of several hundred more employees on site as a result of tearing down the existing
R&D buildings and replacing them with a roughly equivalent amount of square footage of
Cupertino Planning Commission 2E~ August 26, 2008
• office space; but said that they as residents of the city have to figure out what to do if there are
going to be several hundred more trips and not 66 once the project is rebuilt and filled up.
Gary Black:
• He said that has been accounted for, but the way it is typically done is they create a
background scenario, take the existing traffic count and then add on other traffic that could
occur with or without this project.
• Some of that are other approved projects in the area, but in this particular case, the primary
thing that could occur without this project, is full occupancy of those buildings as they sit.
That was added in to create a background scenario; then the project was compared to the
background scenario.
Com. Brophy:
• I am not arguing that is what the CEQA says; what I am saying is we are proposing a
reconstruction of the site that will lead to a few hundred cars per day and I am directing staff'
that what are we going to do about it given the current conditions at that intersection. I think
to be talking about the 66 cars a day, while I understand why you are saying that, I don't think
that is relevant to the problem that we as residents of the city have to deal with.
Gary Black:
• He said that if you add 500 cars per day, than: added on to this project plus what is out there
already, does not cause any intersection in t}iat area to exceed the city's standard. The city
traffic engineer wrote a memo that was shortcutting the whole process and saying this project
would not have a significant impact, but there is a lot of analysis that goes behind that fmding
but it is not in the agenda packets.
Chair Miller:
• Said with the Taylor Woodrow housing project, they did a full traffic study that included all
the traffic that would be generated by the hou;~ing project. What was not heard was what was
the difference between the total traffic that the housing would have generated and the expected
total traffic that the project would generate.
Gary Black:
• Said he would have to crunch some numbers to be able to answer that question; I can tell you
that the housing project was actually projected to generate less traffic than the buildings they
were going to tear down. If you look at the report for the housing project, its impacts are all
negative numbers because it assumed in the background that the vacant buildings would be
fully occupied and so then if you tear down fully occupied buildings, you get a net decrease.
That was the comparison that study did.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Glen Lynch, Owner, Cupertino Supply, Imperis~l Avenue:
• Supports the project; said it was a vast improvement over the Taylor Woodrow proposal. The
project is not connecting to Imperial Avenue ~md that connection was right behind adjacent to
his building so it preserves the commercial space, prevents the encroaching residential.
• He expressed concern that at the community outreach meeting there was a posterboard
presented that had a notation on his property treat said Exception Lot No. 1. When he talked to
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 August 26, 2008
• Mr. Hamilton about that, he said he was assured that was only an artifact of some drafting
process. He said that although he trusted his ~~vord, he would like to place it on record that he
was assured Exception Lot No. 1 meant nothing.
Tom Huganin, resident:
• At the community meeting I noticed there was a cut through or driveway between building C
and existing building 5; it isn't presently there. This will have vehicle traffic both coming and
going in the morning and the evening when people arrive and leave work. Unfortunately when
they arrive in the morning if it is dark, the lights will be hitting the residential directly behind it
according to what staff showed on previous; slide. It would be a good idea to put more
shrubbery and screening there to afford the residents living there better privacy. Currently the
lighting on the site; you can play ball behind the thing. It looks like the developer has proposed
to upgrade the lighting to high energy efficien~~y and hopefully he would be able to correct the
problems with the current lighting that redirects on adjacent properties.
• Another concern is the trash enclosure located behind building 5 abutting the residential
property. Los Gatos Garbage is going to come in and drop that the trash container about 6
a.m. on a regular basis as they tend to do that. That is a poor place to locate that trash
container.
• Otherwise this is a nice project.
Sherry Hsu, Imperial Avenue:
• Neutral on the project.
• Asked if there would be construction of a trail or walkway along the residential property. She
said the neighbors need screening coverage in order to protect their privacy.
• She said she hoped they could locate a whole area for infilling trees, as currently some of the
trees aze in poor condition and hang onto her property. She asked that the lighting not shine
directly on their homes and that the contractors follow the construction requirements relative
to noise levels when construction is going on.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was pleased with the intent of the I~roject; the previous Taylor Woodrow proposal
was controversial because of the intent to build residential.
• Bubb Road is one of the oldest tech parks in Cupertino; having the use of this property as tech,
office space, especially for start up companies is something that the city really will benefit
from in the long run. I like to see Bubb Road area remain as a tech park; I think that as
Cupertino gets older, more mature, we are going to see that there are areas of the city that
remain tech parks; we are beginning to see that the North Vallco azea where Apple has
purchased property, is appearing to be retention as tech pazk area, certainly Apple has a high
presence in the middle of the city and I thin}: that is important for Cupertino, so we have a
diverse economy. The tech park has beautiful landscaping, mature trees and that is one of the
benefits of having beautiful tech park land available for companies to come in rent.
• I hope that every effort will be made to retain as much mature landscape on the property and
that the trees put back in will be of significant size. I do appreciate the efforts to preserve the
Oak trees of heritage size and the Redwood tree on the property.
Chair Miller closed the public heazing.
Colin Jung:
• Relative to the question about trash enclosure and proximity to residents; taking a look at the
plans, there is a 25 foot landscape strip between the residential properties and the pazking lot
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 August 26, 2008
but there is one trash enclosure that is on the west side instead of the east side of the aisle; it
can be easily flipped over to the other side. It is likely that the applicant's goal was to make
sure they had a trash enclosure for each of the buildings.
Said there is no trail next to the residential pro~~erties; the trail is along the railroad tracks.
Relative to trees, screening, lighting and noise.. one of the first things staff identified when they
were putting together the landscape plan, was to fill in all of the holes in the existing landscape
screen on the west side of the property which they are proposing to do. That would include
renovating the existing landscaping that has died. Relative to lighting, we don't get into the
lighting details at the Planning Commission level; usually that is a staff level review and what
we do is we take a look at that is full cutoff fi:Ktures and then we have them do a photo matrix
study to make sure we don't get a lot of light exposure on adjacent properties. Construction
hours and noise levels are controlled by the noise ordinance. Question about generators along
the west property line that might bother people, staff will look into it along with the traffic
issue if the Commission continues the item.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said that going through the model resolutions., replacement trees along the western border aze
not in the model resolution; either the ASA, the tree removal or the use. Said it was not in the
landscape plan either. She asked if it was the uitention to retain Redwood tree 179,
Rich Sharp:
• Said that the illustrative plan hasn't been upd~ited, but the L1.0 where it shows the trees to be
removed, the tree disposition plan, accurately shows that there is a discrepancy on the
illustrative plan. It is the intent to retain tree 1'19 and they aze looking at paving studies around
that tree because they don't meet the setback requirements without completely reconfiguring
the pazking lot. They redistributed parking, introduced an island around it to maximize
uncovered area, and areas where they don't hit the setback requirement, they would use a
permeable paving.
Com. Kaneda:
• Does this new construction remodel trigger all new parking lighting required across the site or
is it just in azeas where parking lot work or roadway work is going to be done.
Colin Jung:
• Said the applicant could address that question; there aze still people occupying those buildings
and there was not the expectation that they would change everything but they met the parking
requirement in all of the new parking stalls an~3 the reconfigured pazking stalls would have the
unisize stalls.
Applicant:
• The north parking has been restriped to create that landscape wedge in the center to break up
the massing of the parking lot and to naturally drain it with the biofiltration at that location, so
there would be some realignment of parking in that area.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was not concerned with just the parking, but the existing lighting of the parking lot as
well.
Applicant:
• If we are restriping, then we would be relocating light fixtures and updating light fixtures to
meet code with the shields on them etc.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 August 26, 2008
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they aze completing reconfiguring that whole pazking lot, including the lights.
Com. Brophy:
• In terms of lighting, one of the issues raised was cazs coming in early in the morning or late at
night and the light shining onto the homes ors Imperial Avenue. Is there anything we can do
about that?
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it was a difficult issue; parking lots have cars, cazs have lights and I can tell you that one
aisle that was pointed out that they actually have a porkchop and that is going to direct the car
as it gets closer to the homes to turn north, and that in effect will redirect the lights away from
most of the houses, but as you are back 100 to 150 feet, you are going to have some spillage
from the cars going through that aisle.
Applicant:
• Clarified that currently there is a 10 foot grade drop off on the project; it is fairly substantial at
one point and as part of this exercise, beyond 5, we aze transitioning the grade down, so we
have dropped the grade in the zone of the road by about 5 feet lower than where it stands; so as
those cars are coming through, they are actu~~lly down and there is the fence at the property
line, the grade rolls up at the property line. ~~Ve could cut a section through there but I think
the headlight alignment would be nowhere ne~-r the top of the fence, where it would shine into
the residences.
Com. Brophy:
• He asked staff, since this is zoned NIL, was there a reason why they wouldn't switch to
rezoning because this is an office project and we aze in a zone that is designed for packing
house, used furniture sales, etc.
Steve Piasecld:
• You could direct that it happen; it wasn't nece;~sary to accommodate the uses that the applicant
was proposing; because rezonings take a lot l~~nger and cost more, we don't normally require
that applicants that do go through that process simply to clean things up, but that is something
the Commissioners could discuss.
Com. Brophy:
• I don't necessazily think it needs rezoning, but just that I am concerned that even though I
think this condition about the zoning code about an acceptable office uses, you have tried to
draw it as broadly as possible, I am uncomfortable with the idea of the owner of the property
forever having to go to the city to run by the names of his tenants. I personally would feel
happy if we said this was an office project and whoever wants to rent the space, that the owner
is willing to rent to, should be fine with the cit;~.
Colin Jung:
• Staff does that, and looks at everything. Arty new business tenants are required to have a
business license and planning staff has to sign off on a zoning affidavit for any new business
that enters Cupertino.
Cupertino Planning Commission 30 August 26, 2008
Com. Brophy:
• What I am saying is if they aze going to be working in an office space, why do we really want
to evaluate the nature of their business, as long as the landlord is comfortable that it fits into
his overall scheme; let's not spend any time or effort on staff or anxiety on the part of the
landlord and tenant, to worry about whether w~~ think this use fits our idea of what should be in
the buildings.
Steve Piaseclci:
• Said the only difference is that it is a planned cievelopment/light industrial, as opposed to just a
straight forwazd conventional light industrial which gets to that laundry list of rather strange
uses that could be allowed. As a planned development in conjunction with this, they would
have to file a separate use permit to lock it in to something other than what the zoning permits.
The zoning references the light industrial zo~ies, but if the Commission feels strongly, they
could direct the applicant to file a rezoning.
Com. Brophy:
• From the applicant's perspective, I assume he i ust wants to get this through and not rezone.
Applicant:
• Said it was correct. In Cupertino in this kind of location within Cupertino, the great odds aze
that it will be a high tech type company. We have encountered this in other azeas such as
Stanford Reseazch Park which has certain restrictions on who can go there; as an example
Stanford will interpret that some venture capital companies and law firms can in fact go in the
reseazch park, because they are really joined at the hip with a lot of these high tech companies.
Staff has expressed the intent as we have tried to, as much as possible, define the acceptability
of the nature of tenancies; we aze comfortable with it and would go forwazd with it; thank you
for your thoughts on that.
• Relative to renewable energy, he said they were currently fmishing a half million square foot
campus for a company in Stanford Research Park. The CEO of the company wanted photo
voltaic; however the economics on it were ba.d and there was not a payback. Technology is
evolving quickly but in that location, but there was not a payback within 10 to 12 yeazs and we
just couldn't go forwazd with it, despite it being a psychic mission of the CEO and the
company. Its time will come, but right now it is not for us.
Chair Miller:
• Said that relative to PPA Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) there are two issues. Depending
on if the federal credits get renewed, and assuming they will, you can get into one of these
things without putting up front money into it. From a rental standpoint, there is the potential
that since the tenants' electricity bills aze govig to be lower, one could potentially argue that
you could chazge a higher rent simply because you aze going to supplant a higher utility bill
with a lower utility bill. That is a reasonable argument.
Applicant:
• A lot of the Silver LEEDS requirements reduce energy consumption and that is a major point.
It is not just psychic anymore, it is the real thong on energy conservation; companies get it and
they aze thinking about not just energy savings, but also the quality of life for their employees.
Com. Brophy:
• Said the key issue is traffic; it is critical in our role in looking after the interests of the city to
figure out what the actual affect of this proje~~t will be, not a theoretical effect, and once we
look at it, it may well be that it may not be incumbent on this applicant to fund all of the
Cupertino Planning Commission 31 August 26, 2008
expense; but I think it is incumbent upon us to figure out what the problems aze and to identify
those improvements.
• It looks like a first rate project and it has been presented to us in a professional manner which
is very much appreciated.
Com. Rose:
• I also appreciate the time and effort you put into the presentation; it is an exciting project. I
share Com. Brophy's concerns about the traffic and I notice that came up in the environmental
report also. I am not sure what the answers .are, but it is something we have to keep in our
process as we move forwazd and not assume t}iat it is going to work itself out once this project
is done.
• Said she would like the project to take a serious look at a PPA with the renewable energy and
see how that would affect the site since as a city we aze working with our residents and we
have two different programs right now withir.~ our residential community that is encouraging
homeowners to do that and most are taking that route.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Relative to traffic, I live up the street, and I think that we learn living in the neighborhood and
taking kids to school when to go up and down Bubb Road. The majority of the impact of
traffic to this project is going to be from Stevens Creek up Bubb Road to Results Way. I have
yet to work for a tech company where you had to be there at 8 a.m., you have a flexible time
schedule.
It is a valid concern that there will be traf=fic issues; we have traffic issues there now,
regardless if this project is fully occupied or not. I think that employees will schedule meetings
from home, do conference calls rather than rush to the site to be there in all the school traffic.
I think we will learn to adjust; if traffic gets worse and it's hard to imagine that it could get
worse at that intersection. The objection w~~ had to the last project was housing and the
enrollment impact to the school, not the traffic as much. I am concerned about the traffic, but I
am less concerned because this traffic is not going to go onto McClellan and try to make that
right hand turn or continue up through Kennedy. I remember when redevelopment of this
space came to us last time; one of the things on principle I had an issue with, is we talk a lot
about integrating jobs and residential together and here was an opportunity where we already
had potential employment center in a reside~rtial area; so that we could potentially reduce
commuting, and we were going to take the job:; away and put in more housing.
I am comfortable with the project; I am pleased with the LEED standards that you aze trying to
achieve with core and shell; I am pleased with the landscaping; and would support the project.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he was pleased that they were striving for LEED silver. Going back to the parking study,
we need to condition this, but ask you to specifically look at what the traffic conditions aze
now as traffic conditions aze a reality and thc;n how much, not the background number you
were talking about, but how much additional b•ips you will generate based on what the current
occupancy is, compared to what the current occupancy would be if the development is fully
tenanted. As Com. Brophy said, that is not necessarily your fault, that the current
development is almost empty, but there is still going to be a potentially large impact on the
neighborhood if this project is successful and those trips that maybe should have been there in
the first place, actually start occurring.
I want to get that comfort level that if in fact this project is hugely successful and you lease out
all your space, that we aze not going to have l~idlock. Whoever's fault the gridlock is, I just
want to know if we aze going to have it or not. It is important that we do this study correctly
and try to ascertain what will really happen.
Cupertino Planning Commission 32 August 26, 2008
• The only other issue, I don't know if it is alre<<dy conditioned in, but I would like to make sure
that if the lighting is as bad as I am hearing;, that we condition that parking lot lighting is
replaced per city requirements.
Chair Miller:
• Point of clarification; if we do another traffic study, and it turns out that more road
improvements need to be made in order to mitigate traffic impacts, who would ,pay for that.
Steve Piasecki:
• It would be incumbent on the applicant to lay for whatever is necessary to mitigate their
impacts.
• The question is, is the applicant willing to take the two week continuance assuming that they
can generate that information for you if you decide to go there.
Chair Miller:
• Said he wanted to explore it more. The applicant is taking over existing buildings and there
were approvals given and traffic levels done; if he never changed the buildings, he could do
whatever he wanted to and if the traffic i~~creased, he wouldn't be required to pay for
improvements to the roads, would he.
Steve Piaseclei:
• Staff said it was correct; if there are requirements to improve roads anywhere in town, it
becomes part of the capital improvement prol~am, and is unfunded until the city can identify
who will fund it. They either save up the money or find another funding source.
Chair Miller:
• He said he did not see the nexus in terms of if there are additional improvements to be made,
insisting that this particular applicant make the-m.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked why there were proposing a student dropoff lane on the south side of McClellan, which
has a zero nexus. Tearing down outmoded buildings, the applicant is proposing to tear down
140,000 square feet of buildings and to replace it with 155,000 square feet; it says to me that
these are not buildings that are reasonably 1 easable in their current condition. Before we
approve anything, it seems to me that we need to know what will happen when the new
buildings are constructed and we have several. hundred more cars coming in sometime during
the morning rush hour.
Chair Miler:
• Said he did not disagree, but questioned who spays for the improvements; and is it a fair nexus
to ask this applicant to pay for them at this particular point in time because he is tearing down
some buildings as opposed to renovating them.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he was probably the strongest critic of what he thought has been undue nexus
connections, but in this case it is a major imp~~ct on an interchange that is probably one of the
most overstressed interchanges in the city, certainly in the morning rush hour with the school
traffic. Before anything is approved, know what the problem is and then discuss how they are
going to be funded or what we are going to do about it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 33 August 26, 2008
Applicant:
• He explained his interpretation of what the Planning Commission wanted. First, to understand
what is the difference between today and the potential tomorrow of a successful project and
the other which we do have. As part of any traffic study, you look at the background or
baseline of a maximum build out; if you study a worst case, everything that could be
developed azound you that would affect these same intersections, then you look at the
incremental impacts on those same intersections of your project and that is what we have done
and the determination by the city traffic engine-er is that there is no degradation or no change in
level of service (LOS) at these key intersections, and that is why the impact even with a full
buildout, a successful project of ours anti a buildout of other improvements in the
neighborhood there is no discernable change: in the LOS at those intersections. There aze
classifications of a LOS which is a grading of how congested an intersection is; and the
baseline is what Gary could speak to again. Y"ou look at a full buildout scenario because you
want to know what I want to know as a citizen, is how bad can this get; what is this going to be
like?
Chair Miller:
• There are two ways to look at it; one is starting; from today's level, what the increment is when
you get to full buildout; the other way is st~crting from the level it was at when Measurex
occupied the site, to what it is when you go to -full buildout.
Gary Black:
• Said he understood the nature of the questi~~n, but there are two measures that your city
policies look at. One is what is the delta which is what you are talking about and the other is,
what is the absolute number. If the absolute number is not worse than the city standazd, it
doesn't matter what the delta is, it doesn't ri~;e to a level of significance under your policies
and therefore there is no nexus to require improvements out of this project, and that study was
done to show that the absolute number does not go over the threshold and that is what the basis
of your traffic engineer writing the memo saying everything is okay traffic-wise.
• There is going to be an increase in traffic over the traffic levels there today because half of the
buildings aze vacant; but will the added traffic; go over the threshold and it won't and yet the
applicant has still volunteered to make improvements out there even though they are not
required to by your city policy. We can do th~~ traffic study you asked for and put it into your
packet, but we will still be here having the same discussion about the project adding traffic. It
will, but it won't be over the threshold.
Com. Brophy:
• We have gone through this before; unless you are telling me that the staff packet is incorrect,
as I read it, the numbers we aze getting from the city and from the applicant's traffic
consultant, is based on a delta of 15,000 additional feet. There is no question about that. What
I would like to see is what the delta is when we aze talking about 150,000 squaze feet of
occupied space on the site; what that means and what changes to the intersection and nearby
environments. It is a very critical issue and this is not a deminimus matter; it is not a question
of 11,000 vs. 15,000.
• Suggested a continuance for two weeks to see what the answers aze and to hear from both the
city and the applicant's traffic consultant what that means for our interchange.
Chair Miller:
• Said it was a well designed project and will be a welcome addition, an improvement over what
is presently there. Said he was pleased with the level of caze taken in the design and their
intent of keeping energy costs down and being more green. Said he liked the azchiitectural
Cupertino Planning Commission 34 August 26, 2008
plan and the design of the retention or detention azeas and bioswales; and how they integrated
the landscape azchitecture and design into a very functional use.
• Said he was sensitive to Com. Brophy's issues on traffic, yet not sure how to address them.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, to continue the application to the September 9, 2008
Planning Commission meeting, at which time review what the traffic impacts
compared to current occupancy oi' the site and to look at what steps will be
needed to ameliorate any adverse impacts. (Motion failed for lack of a second)
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve ASA-2008-05, M-
2008-03, TR-2008-06 with the folllowing modifications: specifically that the
western planting border of trees is filled in where there are current holes; that it
be specified where green building is indicated that they are building to a core and
shell, LEED silver standard; that t)b~e transplanted trees No. 88 and 89 if they do
not survive, be replaced; that the m~~del resolutions refer to a landscaping plan of
L1.0 which the applicant has stated is not correct; the model resolution needs to
be changed to indicate the most current landscape plan which is 1.1; and that the
applicant investigate PPAs prior to~ building permits being pulled; and that all
lighting must not reflect ambient light on to the adjacent housing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Suggested that they put in a construction management program similar to Vallco and the
adjacent neighborhoods that includes specific items such as no trucks to be left idling during
construction along the adjacent residential tree planted area, and they provide neighbors with a
construction management hotline number, if they do have issues with construction out of
hours, they can report that directly to the proje~:t manager.
Friendly Amendment: Motion by Com. Kaneda, that site lighting be replaced to meet
current city standards; accepted by Vice Chair Giefer,
Com. Rose:
• Relative to traffic, said she felt there was a middle ground and would like them to be more
confident that most likely the City Council is going to see the same issues, Perhaps this
applicant could appear before the Council with an update to the discrepancy we pointed out
here and the Council could address it at that le~~el.
Chair Miller:
• Do the traffic studies that Com. Brophy suggested, but we are not going to do a continuance
and bring it back here, they will go to the City Council with it.
Com. Rose:
• We were looking at trying to figure out this ga~~ so that information could go to the Council for
them to figure out what to do with it.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said that was acceptable.
Com. Kaneda:
• Suggested the traffic study compare current: traffic conditions and the anticipated traffic
conditions if this development is fully tentative; that is not the incremental increase in squaze
footage, it is the anticipated increase in cazs or the parking as is today.
Cupertino Planning Commission 35 August 26, 2008
Com. Rose: Second to the motion approves
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she wanted them to look into a PPA to seE; if it is financially feasible.
(Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Brophy No.)
5. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Ame~idment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance
City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second
Citywide Location floor building azea compared to the first floor building area. The
Revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to
facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or
decreasing the total allowed b~zilding area on an R1 lot or changing the
required second story setbacks. Continued from the July 8, 2008
Planning Commission meetin~~. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Rose, to continue Application
MCA-2008-03 to the September 9, 2~D08 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Miller reported that the San Juan Road project was
discussed.
Housing Commission:
• Com. Kaneda reported no meeting was held. He reported the first meeting of the housing
element was held last week. Discussion included what the housing element entailed, the
numbers for this year, and how they got to be where they aze. The housing numbers have
decreased since last go-around, almost 50%. Next meeting will involve education. Date of
meeting to be posted on website.
MaYOr'S Monthly Meeting with Commissioners:: No report.
Economic Development Committee:
• Com. Brophy reported that the meeting was held in Sunnyvale at the NOVA Job Training
Program; presentation by developers of the So. Vallco site by their azchitect and project
manager.
• He reported the Cupertino Landing Building has been fully leased to Apple; Mervyns filed for
Chapter 11; the Cupertino store is not on the list to be closed; a number of new restaurants
opened; Semantic Office Building on Torre has been sold.
• He reported that he received a phone call from a resident reporting that a tree cutter was
cutting down redwood trees on the Semantic property; he went there and summoned the code
enforcement. One tree was cut down and some were saved. He asked staff to update the issue.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that they would follow up with the tree: replacement plan according to the ordinance;
They have not been successful with that in thE; past. Discussion ensued regarding giving code
enforcement the jurisdiction to stop cutting during off hours until it is verified that the tree is
Cupertino Planning Commission 36 August 26, 2008
not protected in the landscape plan. The owner is responsible for what happens on their
property.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUI\fITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeti scheduled for Sef~tember 23, 2008 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabet lis, Recordin€; Secretary
Approved as presented: September 23, 2008