PC 08-27-2013 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 9501"4
CITY OF C_ UPERTINOPLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MNUTES
6:45 P.M. August 27, 2013 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of Augu t 27, 2013 was called to order,at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350`Torre Avenue; Cupertino;CA. by Chair Don Sun.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Conuiiissioners present: Chairperson: Don Sun
Vice,Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Conmiissioner: Margaret Gong
£ormi issioier: Winnie Lee
Conunissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao
Assistant Planner: Simon Vuong
City Attorney; Melissa Tronquet
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: Node
PUBLIC HEARING
2. TM-2012-03, 22012-01, Parcel Map,to subdivide an existing single fanuly lot into three:
EA-2012-04 residential lots and one common area lot; Rezoning of w.96
James Chen (Cherryland acre parcel from Single Family Residential (RI-10) to Single,
LLC) 20840 McClellan Rd. Residential (R-1-7.5)Tentative City Council date: Sept. 17, 2013
Simon Vmmg„Assistant_Planner,presented-the;staftreport:
• Reviewed the application for a Parcel Map to subdivide an.existing single fanuly lot into 3
residential lots 'acid one common area lot; rezoning, of the single family zone property. He
reviewed the-slide presentation, including the project site and vicinity; subdivision design and
street improvements; conceptual house plans: General Plan and Rezoning; trees;,Environmental
Review and Mitigation Measures; and nolicin;and,public connnents.
Cupertino Planning Conuivssion 2 August 27,;2013
• In order to study thc�cnvironmental effects'of the project, an Initial Study was prepared by
David D. Powers & Assoc. with the ERC recommending approval of"the, mitigated negative
declaration. The mitigation measures required.as conditions of approval to reduce the impacts of
the project'to a.less than significant level are biological and cultural resources, hazardous.material
and noise. The project is also required to remediate the site by removing and disposing of
impacted soil as prescribed by the•Countyof Santa Clara Dept. of Envirornmental Health.
• Staff recontmends�that'thc Planning Commission recommend approval=to the City Council ofthe
mitigated negative declaration, tentative map and rezoning application.
• Staff'answered question about theapplication.
Melissa Tronquet,;Assistant City Attorney:
• Responded to a question if the subdivision results in 3 lots and one would be-a conunon.area lot;
how is;itmaintained, who owns it, and how are safety issues addressed.
• She said that there is usually 'a requirement for conditions, covenants and restrictions that
establishes all the requirements for maintaining-the common area, the roads, etc. and that would
be a required condition of approval that the'applicant-would be required to complete before`the
building permits are issued. If the owner of an adjacent lot waisted to use the.road, staff would
need to evaluate whether the CC&Rs already established would be adopted or creaiera mutually
agreed to CC&R, at the time an application for that property was subnutted.
Jim Chen, Engineer:
• Said he prepared the tentative map, and commented that:the.project is good for,the conummiity.
Chair Sun opened the public;hearing.
Hung Wei,.Property Owner,7583 Erin.Way:
• Supports application; 'happy that the lot is being subdivided. Said he felt the city has 'good
regulations.for residences, but felt the processes needed to be streamlined to make the building
process easier. He:said lie was pleased that the project wassmoving.forward and hoped that it
would be forwarded to City Council for approval.
• Said he supported second story, homes and if the home close to his was being remodeled, lie
would prefer it to be'a second story home.
Daniel Hsu, resident:
• Supports project. Said that over the years, there has been a lot of development in Cupertino and
many large,houses built. He said he felt thatin•the rezoning process, it would be more benefcial
to Have houses of a more,appropriate size rather than very large,homes.
Tracy Hsu, Cupertino resident:
•. Supports theprcject;,pleased:that the parcel of land is being developed, particularly the location
of the sidewalk'andcurb.gutter.
• 100% supportive of the rezoning;:it,matches with the neighborhood lot size and pattern.
Larry Yee,20810 McClellan Rd., Homeowners of eastern side of proposed rezoning:
• Would be adjacent to Parcel C; has several concerns,and'spoke on behalf of a,neighbor'who was
not ableto attend the.meeting. Although it is a rezoning,meeting,they have concerns about the
mirroring;of the(_setbacks,referred to earlier.
• Although their home is approx. 5 feet from the'fence line; they have a 7 kilowatt solar panel
system that has been in place "since 2007 and it would be in the direct path of the sunlight that
would,approach4heirsolar panels, particularly the second stories,of"theproposed structure. Both
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 27, 2013
he and his wife drive electric cars and in the spirit of clean renewable energy, theywant to do
their best'to;preserve their solar system.
• Other concerns relate to the proposed bank of 6 or 7 Italian Cypress trees, which as they mature
have very, large root systems that will undermine the concrete and lift the sidewalk up and
potentially lift the fence up. With these trees.so close to the neighbors and alongthe fence line as
well, their concern,is,about future damage from these large root systems.
Bhoomaiah Alishetti, neighbor:
• S'aid that Parcel C is.going to be big two-story mansion; exceeding4,000 sq. and irlooksy directly
into his kitchen. The current 23 foot setback from the fence is not adequate; it will set a standard
for the next empty lot.
• The camphor trees planted on the south side grow huge and will uproot the fence. The ground
level is almost 200 feet above the current lot; to avoid the roots growing into his area, he
suggested consideringa-concrete sub-fence so that the fence.is stable.
Larry Harrison, resident:
• Said there was a telephone pole in his back yard and there will,be,underground utilities for this
project. Asked if it was feasible to extend the underground utilities to a few homes that currently
are,on'the,back fence, and what the cost would be to enhance the lots to get rid of the.telephone
pole.
Chair Sun closed the public'hearing.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said that story poles were not put up. A previous speaker noted that the application was for a
subdivision and also,rezoning. hi the future there may be potential design review process if the
applicant or owner decides to build two story homes. It would trigger additional processes.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Asked staff if there was a policy for what kinds of trees are chosen when houses come through for
design-review. The privacy trees may have systems that would undermine fences or concrete
areas,on their properties.
Gary Chao:
• The most important thing is that the neighbors have the ability, between the'applicant and the
adjacent neighbors, to work out their own planting strategy as long as,there;is a waiver that the
neighbor can sign that either waives the plant ing,requirement all together if they-feel that there is
no need for planting to potentially underine the,fence or structures nearby; or agree on some
typeof'spec'iebetween the two parties and sign the waiver to waive the city's involvement in the
situation. There is a list of pre-approved privacy protection trees; typically the understanding is
that the trees are meant to be more vertical in nature and Tess evasive in terns' of"their root
structure: That is why there is the flexibility of the ordinance providing-the neighbors to get
together and decide on the,best course of action.
• Relative to Mr. Yee:s concern about his-solar panels, the city has setback requirements that not
only governs ground floor, in this case minfinum is 5 feet, but second floor is actually more than
5 feet-,,from 10 to 15 feet. The diagram on the;site plan-demonstratestthe,,full-extent of the ground
floor`potential; that doesn't reflect potentially how far out the second floor can-come out; it most
likely is much less than the footprint. The,applicant:candecide;there is flexibility in terms,of the
decision that needs to be made in terns ofsingle story building vs. two story buildings.
• He encouraged the applicant,to talk to the,owner.about their concerns and work together; it's an
Cupertino.Planning Commission 4 August 27,;2013
area where they can offer some offset in terns of the second floor.. If early enough in the
planning process they can accommodatesome,concessions in their floor plan and,it.may work out
it,is an area that will give more room for the solar. There are building envelopes called daylight
plane, that prescribes on the ground floor how far the building wall next to the property line can
be in terns of height and how far it can be:as.close to the property line. If the property applicant
meets those requirements there is',no further specific,requirements Or protection on solar-panels'.,
• The,underground utilities is,an`interesting thought and the Public.Works Dept: would encourage
that although it.is not what the city can require,in terms of undergrounding, it'is only subject to
this property. The Cityeannot require this particular°applicant to-do improvements outside of-the
scope and parameter of the property.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said relative to the rezoning, he would prefer three smaller houses rather than two very large
homes, as'it-fits with the patte-m of development.
• Said Com. Takahashi's point was well taken regarding the bicycle and pedestrian problem,on the
southside of McClellan; that this site will take care of one of the parcels that`is non-conforming
when the,parcel to the west is developed, that should take care,of the second.one. The.city may
have to take care of the-third one to the east by itself, since it does not look like that house is
going to be redeveloped anytime. He suggested sending a noteato Public works to keep track of
that if the second parcel does get developed. He.conunented that it was frightening riding a bike
down McClellan Rd.
• Said he supported the,rezoning.
Corn-Lee:
• Said that if City Council agrees with the plan, the predominant neighborhood pattern would not
be affected and would fit into the rest of'the neighborhood, and would encourage the rest of the
neighbors who had concerns; to go to the.applicants, and,suggest they incorporate some of the
concerns relative to the trees and communicate about the trees. It is early in the process and the
best.way is to work things out with the neighbors.
Looking at the,lot sizes since they are not really'substandard and there are no exceptions to be
madewith.this, she.said she would recommend to the City Council to approve:theproject.
Com: Gong:
• Said she supported the rezoning; it makes sense to create.3 separate;lots with Housing available
rather than build one mega mansion. She encouraged the current neighbors and applicant to work
together to solve many of the issues that have been brought up: It would be to their best interest to
work together-now.
Corn. Takahashi:
•- Supports the rezoning; it provides a level of consistency to the neighborhood and echoes other
commissioners' comments. The concerns are valid concerns and if the owner has an
understanding of-the neighbors' concerns, and tries to accommodate them where feasible, it
would go a long way towards a harmonious neighborhood, which is the overall goal.
Chair Sun:
• Suppoits,the:rezoning.
• Said hejwasi pleased to see__residents present to discuss their concerns;,however the:concems were
not so much about the rezoning, but the next stage. The applicant can put all things•together for
the.next phase, the project. Heconcurred with Com. Lee's emphasis on working+together to build
a.better community.
Cupertino.Planning Commission 5 August 27, 2013.
Motion: ,Motion by Com. Lee,second by Com. "long, and unanimously carried 5-0-0
to recommend to City Council approval of TM-2012-03,:Z-2012-01, and EA-2012=04
2. U-2013-08, ASA-2013.06, Use Permitter allow office uses, including medical,offices,
TR-2013-35,Leonard to exceed.25%,of the building space in an existing
Afaide{Foothill Commercial co nmercial condominium complex; Architectural and Site
.Condo Association approvabto all the construetion.of a new detached sidewalk
,10011N.Foothill'Blvd. patio and associated site improvements at an existing
commercial condominium'complex; Tree Removal;Pennit
To allow the removal and replacement of one 32" diameter
Tree to facilitateghe construction of a detached sidewalk and
Associated site improvements. Planning Coninussion decision
Final unless'aappealed.
Chair Sun declared•a.short recess.
Stephen Rose;Associate Planner, presented.the,staff.report:
• Reviewed the, application for a Conditional Use Penuit to allow office, and medical uses as a
permitted use in an existing commercial condominium complex; an Architectural and Site
application to allow the construction of a new detached sidewalk and patio; and',a Tree Removal
permit to facilitate the construction ofa new sidewalk, as outlined in the staff report. Staff is
supportive of the request provided that the design of the existing center does not readily lend
itself to conuinercial uses. Parking requirements will be met;, even if the entire site becomes
medical and provided that the Plammng•Comm�ission has.been supportive,of similar proposals..in
the past for properties located outside Heart of the City and other key'conunercial.areas.
• He-reviewed the land use history and existing/proposed uses; parking analysis; architectural site
application; site improvements including deck repair/replacement,, detached sidewalk, AC
equipment screening and street trees and landscaping, as:.outlined in the staff report.
• The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive ;impact to the neighborhood and is
categorically exempt under CEQA, and staff reconpnends that the Commission approve the
project pursuant to the required findings'in proposed conditions included intherdraftresolutions.
Com. Gong:
• Asked' if different designs had been explored to preserve the,pine tree which is proposed for
removal.,
Steven Rose:
• Said a number ofalteniative designs were considered to work around the tree, which is located
outside the path of the proposed sidewalk. It is more of a matter of the root base being in
conflict„and by extending the sidewalk iinthat: area;`it will compromise'the root system of the tree
to an extent that will be irreparable.
• Said the work to the deck was completed in the last months; the deck had been removed without
prior 'review and staff has 'been working with the applicant to try to retnediate .a workable
solution. The work is presentlyon hold.
• Said the,parking site was analyzed for the possibility of 100% medical use;, the.anticipated
buildoutrof the site.may not involve 1'00% medical in the near future; the buildout would include
the two vacant tenant spaces as well as the 29,%u existing medical office use of the _site. The
overall,goal for the,center is to allow flexibility as tenants come and go.
Cupertino.Planning Comiission 6 August 27;-200
Com. Takahashi:
• Commented that the 66 parking spaces that Have been deemed acceptable based 'on the
independent study didn't look like they, included any potential parallel parking- on the north
entrance (Staff said it was a true statement). He said there are currently 4 handicap parking
spaces on,the,propertyand he felt that if it eventually gets to 100% medical, it will require,more
handicapped spaces.
• Said he did not know what the ratio of handicap spaces`to,square footage for medical facility is,
but that it should:be understood that if they need to double or'triple their handicapped spaces it
will eat into those 6 spaces. He said he felt there was enough space on the property to
accommodate more parking in a parallel fashion along the two entrances but it would be
something,to,keep into account.
• Thernew-patio.area looks like a very large wall that the forms were in place to-pour,,it,looks like,a
foundation rather than'a patio:
Terry Wiss, Co-Owner and Board Member for Commercial Condominium Assoc.,
• Historically although it was supposed to have been retail, there never has been any retail in that
location; it is apparent'that there is,more demand for medical office space than anything else.
• Recently there were two sellers, but the interested purchasers were interested in purchasing-for
medical space; they looked:at-whether it was feasible and,the first step was to look at,the parking
because,they knew it something the city would require.
• Itwas'very complicated to figure•out and,they came up with ajoint.plan. The deck was becoming
a Hazard; demolition took place and everything was halted until going through the process of
making+sure everything was okay.
• Said she had, been in the same location for 17 years and knew the.history. Currently some of
them are professional office spaces and almost exclusively owner-occupied and said she had no
knowledge of any professional offices planning to move soon. Currently it. is 29% medical
offices.
Gary Chao:
• Reviewed the history of the project.
• The;building,was built while in the County's,jurisdiction; it was built to,bean office complex;
there are',no"storefronts or activespace in the front; there is`no dialogue with the street. Physically
it would have to be,changed to facilitate commnercial; given the location at the book end of the
city disconnected from the'commercial core area, commercial really is not going to be°successful
in that area. If the buildiingwas rebuilt in the future, the Use Permit would be revisited And would
require.additional discretionary review. Itwas built in the county and when.it was annexed into
the city,the Use P-.ennit was issued.
• The Commission has in the past considered some similar proposals;- there are only a couple of
sites that the.Commission would support something similar,and this,represents one.
Chair Sun:
• Asked staff if theyfeel that citywide 20%is reasonable or outdated already.
Gary Chao:
• Forthe;most parrit has been upheld and you have to put yourself in the'conunercial.area; in the
Heart of the City area, or the Crossroads area where they are looking at a shopping.center that
would be under the same zoning designation of general commercial;,you�don'tlwant to have more
than '25%, of a shopping center turned into daycares, medical offices and offices; from that
perspective 25% is appropriate. That is.the reason staff is presenting,a Use Permit change to
allow for more, because given this location, it doesn't make sense:
Cupertino PlarmingCormnussion 7 August 27, 2013
Chair Sun opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who,wished to speak,the public.hearing
was closed.
Vice•Chair Brophy:.
• Supports the project. Said the key point in the issue is that'it is a condominium project; almost
always predominantly medical,users'because that is, are going to be in the same location for
many years and do not have a changing need for square fooiage'inthe course of their business.
Said that in the future, if there are any more condo projects, they should be done under the
assumption,they should be predominantly medical users.
• Said their parking standards do not require owners to conduct "special studies even when they
shouldn't be necessary. He said he hoped they would have air opportunity to streamline and
update their parking requirements so that there is no need for a property owner to pay for a
special study when there is.nothing unique about their property to require one.
Com. Lee:
• Said she had a vast knowledge and experience,with office buildings. She said the building doesn't
look like a commercial building,but more like:,a medical/dental building because;it'is closed off
and appears to have been many years since there have been any exterior fapade improvements;
and things could be done. Said she felt t-he location was odd.for'a medical/dental building and
would bemore:appropriateto keep it general ronmiercial.
• Relative to the parking requirement, she felt that the city ordinance is more in line with what is
needed, which is one spot for every 1'75 square feet.
• It is a comer location, you still need some neighborhood commercial to serve the 'inunediate
needs of the neighborhood. It is not going:to be.a regional neighborhood destination like Main
Street and,that is why`itis not part of HOC Specific Plan.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said he supported the,proposal.
• Given the existing structure and use with regard to the parking, he said to know the current
utilization with current floor space and a study of the.current utilization would have been just a's
useful as;opposed to the equivalent independent locations'.
• In terms of a look vs. an independent study, said he was not 'concerned about parking;, there
appears to be space for parking expansion. T1me location is a good location for the office:structure;
in terms of the buildings, some level of mainbenance such as,window cleaning, etc., would benefit
the site.
Com. Gong:
•
Supports the request.in that they are,all owner-occupied condos. If it were to remain general or to
be converted to medical, the owners cannot be,forced to vacate the property; that's-not the intent;
it,is to allow future owners who would want to occupy it with medical use, the,option,to do Aso.
The designation is 100%amedical.rather than;general, that is to be determined by current or future
owners.
Gary Chao:
• Said they could do retail or commercial if they want to; but they have the ability to go 100%
medical as well.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said that cutting down the,pine tree changes the look drastically; there are not many trees on the
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 27,2013
property and the,tree should be saved if possible. He said from his perspective the city',s tree
health and tree population is below standard compared to other adjacent cities, and cutting down
big trees is unfortunate. If the,tree can,be saved, it should be.
Gary Chao:
• If theaemainder of the Commission agrees, staff could be directed to try to the maximum extent
possible, to keep the tree. Many times°when deciding the fate of a tree, they give the tree the
benefit of the doubt; however, if the health of the tree is already decliningrand ivis already on its
way out, it may be a different outcome. If the Commission as a,group desires to'save'the tree;
staff will try to the maximum extent possible to preserve it.
Chair Sun:
• Supports'the staff report.
• Said he supported the extended professional office to over 25% because,the,location is not for
general conunereial,use;there,islittle debate and no controversy'aboutthe,-issue:
• Agrees that thepine tree should be saved if possible;it is a,landmark.
Motion: Motion by Vice.Chair'Brophy, second by Com. Gong, to approve U72013-08;
ASA-2013-06 and TR-2013-35 with the stipulation that staff make every feasible effort
to save the pine,tree before.moving forward with a replacement with crape myrtles:
A separate vote was taken on eaci application:
Use Permit U-2013-08 approved 4-1-0,,Com. Lee No
ASA-2013-06 approved 5-0-0;
TR-2013-35 approved: 3=2-0, Comst Gong and Takahashi No.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No report
Housing,Commission: No meeting_
Mayor's]Monthly Meeting-: No�report.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT': Written report,submitted.,
Commissioners dinner tomorrow night.
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned o the S_eptember 10, 2013`meeting at 6:45`p:m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabe Ilis, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: October 2;.2013