PC 06-09-2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMIrSSION MEETING
APPROVED M11 UTES
6:45 P.M. JUNE 912014 MONDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUTJITY HALL
The Special Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy.
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Associate Planner: George Schroeder
Assistant Planner: Gian Paolo Martire
Assistant Planner: Kaitie Groeneweg
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
• Item 1, also letter from FCC notifying that an. application for cell tower has been submitted,
Cupertino City Hall site. Card from architectural firm representing client from the gas station on
Foothill Blvd. expressing appreciation for opportunity to speak before Planning Commission.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. EXC-2014-02,TR-2014-09 Residential Hillside Exception to allow a 2,986 sq. ft.
(EA-2014-02) EXC-2014-03 single family residence to be constructed on a slope of 30%
TR-2014-10 (EA-2014-03) or greater(Lot A); Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal
EXC-2014-04(EA-2014-04) and replacement of 5 trees to facilitate the construction of a
Terry Brown(Osann and new single family residence(Lot A); Residential Hillside
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 9 2014
O'Grady Lots) Exception to allow a 3,185 sq. ft. single family residence to be
10645 Cordova Rd constructed on a slope of 30% or greater(Lot B); Tree removal
(Lots A,B and C) Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 3 trees to facilitate
construction of a new single family residence(Lot B); Residential
Hillside Exception to allow a 3,186 sq. ft. single family residence to
be constructed on a slope of 30%or greater(Lot Q.
Planning Comnission decision final unless appealed.
Kaitie Groeneweg,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed application for three residential hillside exceptions to allow three new single family
residences to be constructed on slopes greater than 30%; detailed information is contained in the
attached staff report.
• She presented a Power Point summary, reviewing the project site, project background, project data,
proposed residences, Hillside Exception, Geological Review, Tree Removals, Cordova Road
Improvements, Environmental Assessment, Outreach/Public Comments and Staff Recommendation as
outlined in the staff report.
• In addition to the standard noticing, the applicant voluntarily held a neighborhood meeting on June 18,
2013; neighborhood concerns voiced at the meeting are listed on Page 6 of the Power Point
presentation included in packet. The project is consistent with RHS ordinance and conditions have
been added to address most of these concerns.
• Staff recommends approval of the hillside exceptions and the tree removal permits in conjunction with
the draft resolutions.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application.
Terry Brown,representing 3 Property Owners: Osann,K. O'Grady,B. O'Grady:
• Responded to issues and concerns summarized in the question/answer period with staff.
There are 3 parcels; 3 separate owners since 1998; the retaining walls on the site were redesigned for
two reasons: one for appearance and the second for the driveway issue. They worked with the
neighbor most affected across the street with respect to actual retaining wall materials and design; and
also at staff's request limited the retaining walls to a maximum of 4 ft. height and they are less than
that. The driveway issue, the old driveway is on the south side of the Torre pine, hard to access; the
new driveway is on the north side of the Torre pine and is designed consistent with the Fire
Departments request and requirements. They had several discussions with the Fire Dept to make sure
they could access that property with their fire equipment. The Torre pine tree is a rare tree and there
has been a request to retain the tree. The road had to be widened south of the driveway in order to
accommodate the request. The Fire Dept. has approved that and there is only one residence that is
served south of that Torre pine by Cordova Rd.
• With respect to the lot sizes, normally in the city you can build 45% of the lot size and they have been
restricted, and also further restricted on Lots A and B; where they have to subtract the easement for the
driveway; which is the reason for the relatively modest sized homes and they comply with the
residential hillside ordinance with respect to lots of 30%or greater.
• The old house was demolished 15 years ago at the request of the City of Cupertino; the original site is
not acceptable for the construction of a house because there is a lot of undocumented fill there which
they will be required to remove and the grading will essentially eliminate that particular building site.
• Relative to the road, the current roadway on Cordova ranges from about 10 to 13 feet; it is difficult for
cars to pass; the new roadway will be fully improved 20 feet wide which is easy for two-way traffic
and there will be no parking on that side, but it will be 20 feet wide except around the Torre pine
where it will be restricted to 10 feet.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning,Commission 3 June 9, 2014
Chair Brophy:
• Said there is always a concern with projects on steep hillsides including the danger to the homes being
built or to the adjoining property owners. Said in the past there have been houses that have slid in
rainy winters and he was curious if that is an inherent risk on building sites that are this steep or can
they be designed such that there should not be a problem?
Rex Upp,Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer:
• Has been working on the subject project for many years and in Cupertino hills for over 30 years.
• Responding to Chair Brophy, he said the latter; they can be designed so that there is not that problem;
the issues are evaluated and analyzed ahead of tirae and they are designed and constructed based on
that analysis. In this particular area there was landslide 20 years ago uphill of this which was to the
north but on a different slope going a different direction and it was caused by grading to create a
property down slope of the slide and eventually it just went because it was an unsupported slope.
• Said the subject site doesn't have those problems although it was graded decades ago for that original
house; those cut slopes have never created a probl(,-rn, all the new slopes are going to be retained with
walls, the foundations will be constructed down i:ato the bedrock; the houses are being set back into
the hillside which is a much more stable configuration than trying to create a big level pad and putting
the house on a level pad so they will be set back into the hillside which is a more stable foundation.
He said he did not have any concerns about slopes stability at the subject property.
Terry Brown:
• Said they have to comply with the city ordinance relative to construction hours. The best solution is
to let the workers work as many hours as they can to get the project done because it's a disruption on
the neighborhood and it is incumbent on any builder to expedite the process.
• If the construction hours are significantly limited beyond what the city already does, it will drag the
project out and will be a neighborhood disruption ]or a longer period of time. The bulk of the people
who use Cordova Rd. live north of the proposed driveway; there is only one residence that is south of
the driveway and if the trucks are on site they are going to park on the construction site. The current
roadway is narrow and if they want to limit concrete trucks arriving at 7 a.m. or condition it within
reason,it could be done.
Chair Brophy:
• Said a neighbor sent a letter expressing concern riot so much about the usual issue with construction
hours and noise, but more about the ability of people who reside on Cordova Road to get children or
commuters off the street and not have it blocked by construction vehicles especially during the 7:30 to
9 a.m. period. If they are big vehicles the residents leaving early in the morning won't be able to get
out of their houses which would be a concern.
Gary Chao:
• Said there were requirements for construction management plan that would require Terry Brown and
contractors' crew to demonstrate to the city construction hours in conformance with the city's
requirement as well as access of not only construction vehicles, but contractor's parking and
emergency access including a telephone number to the superintendent in the event they need to reach
them in an emergency.
Chad Mosley,Public Works:
• Public Works requires all staging of construction equipment be on site and if needed to utilize the right
of way, for staging, they would be required to get an encroachment permit limiting construction hours
between the hours of 9 and 3, so it shouldn't be an issue in the morning for people getting out.
• If they are required to utilize the right of way and would be blocking full access, Public Works would
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 9, 2014
work with Terry Brown as well as the resident to temporarily open the gate to the south side to allow
access out. It would be done on a temporary basis and only as necessary. For the most part the
construction site can be staged onsite.
Chair Brophy:
• The key thing from the perspective of any resident there is they would like it addressed beforehand
rather than have a problem on a given day where they would just take it out for school and for work.
Said he hoped that any construction management plan would reflect the unique situation on such a
narrow road.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the construction management plan consisting of all those points addressed would have to be
reviewed and approved by the city including Public Works Dept. prior to issuance of building permits;
so the site is not going to commence construction activity until staff is comfortable with that plan.
Brian O'Grady, Owner of Lot C:
• Provided a brief history of the subdivision on the hills; originally subdivided in the early 1900s when it
was common to have small lots. At one time there were as many as 6 or 8 lots on that hillside; over
the years the shapes were changed but they were always under separate ownership. When they
purchased the lots in 1998 they had been recently reconfigured in 1993 by the three separate owners at
that time. The reason for the reconfiguration was to make them into regular shaped lots.
Chair Brophy:
• Noted for the record a letter from Chris Mitchener, 10676 Cordova Rd summarizing issues to be
addressed: (1) Feels adding three homes on a street where there are only five toward the end of the
street will increase the traffic and create safety issues, especially for families with young children; that
it will permanently alter the character of the neighborhood; and the development of three homes does
not fit the character of the present neighborhood. (2) The nature of the construction, specifically about
the issue raised earlier about whether or not construction activities between 7:30 and 9:00 will make it
difficult or impossible for parents to deliver children to school or similarly when people go to work she
does not want to be in a situation where children will be late or have to negotiate on an ad hoc basis
with the contractor.
Dennis and Barbara West, 10670 Cordova Road,
• They have been at their address for 38 years; property is immediately adjoining the development
project. Thanked staff for their dedication and time to the project to get it right and also to the
developer for his sensitivity to the neighbors' issues and willingness to address them. A key concern is
to have water at the construction site during the construction period except during the rainy season for
fire safety reasons. The road is closed at one end by a locked gate and the road cannot accommodate
two way traffic; the fire truck cannot get past cars. Because of the drought the ground is dry and at
high risk for fires. She asked that the developer reset the survey markers when they are done the road
improvements.
• Said they supported the development; they had a neighbors meeting over a year ago, have listened to
the neighbors' input and have been good about addressing the concerns.
Richard Enfantino,property owner adjacent on northern side:
• Opposes the project.
• Owner of two properties, one on.Mercedes Rd and one on Cordova; access is on Cordova; they had a
private driveway before the.proposed construction. Said he has had extensive work on his property
following slides and earthquake damage over the years. Putting in 3 more houses in the neighborhood,
with all the grading would pose a heavy impact on his property. Relative to the width of the road, the
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 9, 2014
house on Cordova goes to the street in a wedge shape. It will be a pie shape going out to the street
which will narrow it down significantly, creating a bottleneck. With 3 more houses there will be many
more cars causing.a heavy impact with no end in sight on how to get the road all the way down. Said
he travels extensively and was not aware of any meetings scheduled. Said he was willing to talk with
the developer and willing,to share costs relative to the widening of the road.
Gary Chao:
• Said it was not within the city's capital improvement program to carry out the street changes; it is
city's standard policy to work with the individual property owners to do it a section at a time.
Steven Breinberg,resident:
• Echoed Mrs.West's remarks about the developer being extremely helpful, accommodating and willing
to hear their concerns. He owns the property next to Mr. Enfantino's wedge; the house that most
directly faces the house on the north side, lot C; one concern he had is about loss of visual privacy that
the house being proposed for Lot C would now have a view straight into our front windows, whereas
we currently have a nice private living room.
• Requested that if the project moves forward the developer either retain the trees and brush that
provides visual privacy at that edge of the property or replace it with appropriate trees to restore that
visual privacy they will lose.
• Said he had concerns about increased traffic; couldn't say that he supported the project with due
appreciation for consideration of Mr. Brown,but if'it does happen,it is one request he would make.
Terry Brown:
• Said he has complied with R1 requirements for privacy plantings and would be happy to speak with
the neighbor about that and work something out.
Gary Chao:
• Added, depending on if the Commission is considering adding a condition to that effect, perhaps they
could consider language along the line of addressing the intent of the R1 privacy protection because
there might be some retaining walls that preclude leaving a tree or shrub at that particular location in
which case Terry Brown could work with the adjacent neighbor in exploring planting trees on the
other side on the neighbor's property as well potentially to address that.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Gary Chao:
• Said the city consulting geologist Cotton Shire peer reviewed their recommendation and geotechnical
analysis and prescribed a set of conditions which are incorporated into the resolution, they are
comfortable with the game plan moving forward.
Com. Gong:
• Said several neighbors support the project and the developer has worked well with the neighbors. She
supports the project and recommended that the developer work with Mr. Enfantino as well as Mr.
Bainberg to accomplish their request. Said she agreed with Vice Chair Lee that they should not be
imposing R1 requirements right now; and left it to the three neighbors to work out issues as they will
be neighbors.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 9, 2014
Com. Sun:
• Relative to the road issue, he said he felt it was the developer/applicant's responsibility for 300 feet;
any further is the city's responsibility. The traffic bottleneck is not the developer's responsibility;
there may be some sharing of costs between the neighbors. The city geologist has determined there is
no problem on the unstable hillside construction, which overrules the neighbor's complaint. He said
he did not feel the privacy was a major problem; some trees can be planted to protect their privacy.
• He said he supported the project.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said staff and the applicants did a good job. She generally does not like building on sloping lots or
hillsides with slopes; it affects the visual character of the hillside. As it is three separate owners and
has been three parcels for almost 100 years, she said she respects the property owners' rights to
develop, and felt the site plans are reasonable and the number of parking spaces for each property and
residence seem appropriate. She said in the particular situation she would support the hillside
exceptions and concurrently the tree removal permits as well in order to construct the three residences.
She said she reluctantly supported the project.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said the project complied with everything with the exception of the grade. The fact that there has been
peer review of the geologist's work is positive, given the concern of building on hillsides. It was noted
by the neighbor that the developer has been proactive in outreach to the neighbors; with a goal to have
a harmonious neighborhood and not have any animosity after they are done building the project. It is a
good model for development and creates a positive environment moving forward. Given all the
findings he agreed that tree removal is required and the replanting as specified.
• He said he supported the project.
Chad Mosley:
• Said they had no issue with having water on site as long as the developer is on board; there is a fire
hydrant about 150 ft away which the Fire Department usually states is adequate. It has been a very dry
year and it may be advantageous to have water on site but only if the developer is willing to take the
extra step and do it. He said they don't want to put undue requirements on them when the Fire
Department states what is there is adequate.
Gary Chao:
• Said that there is also a condition that addresses that. (Section 4,Para. 24)
Chair Brophy:
• Said they generally adhere to whatever the Fire Dept. says. He felt that while the hydrant is behind the
gate, to the extent they ever need to use that, there won't be a problem getting a line there, but while
they can't get the truck behind the gate, they can certainly get a line to the hydrant. Said he felt the
various issues have been handled.
• He expressed concern about the construction management; that whatever the construction management
plan is, it be sensitive to the narrowness of the road and the burden that the construction activities
could place on the residents trying to get out especially in the morning hours. He said it was important
to make sure whatever additional terms are needed to deal with the unique situation of the one lane
roads in the hills is reflected. Residents don't want to have to call the city to get a concrete truck out
of the way so they can get to work or take the kids to school.
Cupertino Planning.Commission 7 June 9, 2014
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0
to approve EXC-2014-02, TR-2014-09., EXC-2014-03; TR-2014-10, EXC-2014-04 and
approve Negative Declaration for EA•2014-02, EA-2014-03 and EA-2014-04 per the
model resolutions.
2. U-2014-01,ASA-2014-05 Conditional Use]Permit to convert approx. 7,500 sq. ft. of office
JaniceYeh(Little Tree space of an existing two-story office building into a day care center
Bilingual Montessori use; Architectural and Site Permit to allow a play area, landscape
20111 Stevens Creek Blvd. enhancements and associated site improvements for a new day care
#130 and#150 center. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Gian Paolo Martire,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report:
• Reviewed application for Conditional Use Permit Ito convert a 7500 sq. ft. office space at an existing
two-story office building into a day care use, architectural and site approval to allow a play area,
landscape enhancements and associated site improvements for a new day care at an existing office
building; and Public Works condition that the driveway to the lots is also upgraded and brought up to
code, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed-the background of the application, existing site and
surroundings, operational information as outlined in the Power Point presentation.
• He reviewed three concerns of resident Mr.Tucci. Relative to the noise concerns,he felt that the noise
impacts from the playground are significant. Staff found that the noise impacts emanating from the
playground and coming into the playground from the outside uses of the general area,both conform to
the General Plan Municipal Standards. In the noise study prepared by the city's noise consultant, it
was also found and concluded that no significant in:ipact was found for the neighboring properties.
• The second issue is that the elimination of parking will create an overflow onto Randy Lane and
neighboring properties. In the parking and traffic study prepared by the consultant, it was found that
the impact would be less than significant or not .significant at all. The site demand is equal to the
spaces provided; and the applicant will provide a parking management plan as conditioned. It was
noted throughout the study that the demand for parking fluctuates throughout the day; the day care use
at this site will not benefit and is inconsistent with-the surrounding uses. As mentioned earlier,the site
was developed as an office space and not for retail, and as it is developed, it would not be suited for
retail, and the day care uses along Stevens Creel: Blvd. aren't actually increasing. The city is not
getting a new day care use, it is relocating to across the street. The environmental assessment for this
project was found to be categorically exempt because it is found to be an infill development project
and conversion of a small structure.
• Staff recommends approval of the use permits, and the architectural and site approval to allow the
operation of a day care center per the draft resolution.
Staff answered Commissioners' question regarding the application.
Janice Yeh,Applicant:
• Family has been running Montessori in Bay Area for the last ten years, currently 4 schools; has been in
current location for 5 years; however presently having difficulties at current site regarding parking and
circulation. Said that the construction for the B:iltmore North project has negatively affected the
circulation and there is a construction fence encroaching on the parking spaces making driveway even
narrower. Dust and noise from the construction site is also negatively affecting the day care center.
The proposed site across the street provides a similar square footage, ample parking, easy circulation.
They purchased the building with the intention of moving the present day care center to the one across
the street on the ground floor. She said she was aware of Mr. Tucci's concerns about the possibility of
parents parking on his property but the day care patrons will.not be parking on his property or on
Randy Lane because their parking lot is in closer proximity to the day care center. Relative to the
noise concerns, she said they have schools next to condos or behind office building and there have not
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 9, 2014
been noise problems; and they are willing to make adjustments to schedules or number of children on
the playground if any problems arise.
Com. Gong:
• Expressed concern about the designation of school parking vs. the parking for the tenants, and
suggested designating a specific area for the tenants to park separate from the school parking, and also
staff's point that the 5 space dropoff might be sufficient. She felt that 5 spaces designated for drop off
was not sufficient; and suggested mitigation of a specific area in the parking lot for school parking, not
intermingled with the tenant parking.
Janice Yeh:
• Said they would be able to accommodate that; in the current site there are 4 designated parking spaces
with 105 students.
Chair Brophy:
• Noted for the record that he met with Ms. Yeh earlier in the day. Said it wasn't technically a city
concern, but the applicant paid a high price for the building because of its Cupertino location, and
asked the applicant if she was not concerned about being able to rent space in a building where 25% of
the space is occupied by a day care center.
Janice Yeh:
• She said certain businesses would be attracted to a building with a day care center for the convenience
of dropping their children off.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Carl Tucci, resident:
• Opposes the project.
• In order to emphasize his concern about the noise impacts from the children attending the day care, he
played a tape recording he took of children's voices behind Cort Furniture, approximately 20 children
in the parking lot, 20 feet away. Said the corner of the day care's property is on the corner of his
property with no buffer. He said the plan is based on a fallacy that they are going to go through an
easement and park their cars four abreast. He said he was not getting an easement, there has been no
easement negotiated with him and he was not giving an easement. He said he was not going to tear his
buildings down; he has owned his property for 35 years. He said the noise pollution is a definite
problem and impacts his property directly; restaurateurs have expressed interest in the property but
when he tells them it was a day care plan, they back off. Said he is knowledgeable about property
values and could not overestimate the impact it will have on his property.
• Relative to the noise, he said that the consultant reported that the dba level exceeds the limits of
Cupertino and their traffic report says that the traffic exceeds the use permit limit. He said at best the
noise pollution would not make for a pleasant environment for the kids to play. He said he was not
opposed to children, but was worried about his own property and the noise emanating from that. He
said he felt it would be an all day madhouse in the parking lot.
Mr. Tucci:
• Said he was not opposed to them making money from this business. Miss Yeh eluded before to the
agreement they had to lease his property, that agreement fell apart because there was a covenant in the
agreement that said if the city required him to give an easement, the deal was null and void. Said that
he has people interested in his property and was open to considering a deal. He said they could build
an 8 foot high solid wall around their playground area to eliminate the noise factor.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 9, 2014
Brian Flory,resident:
• Supports application.
• Complimented the staff on their day care program.and the excellent education afforded to learn more
Chinese language. Said their current parking,situation is bad, but the proposed parking much better.
They feel the bilingual school is important as it affords them the opportunity to have both their
children learn more Chinese.
Dasha Babic,resident:
• Supports application.
• Said his child would become trilingual while attending the day care, and has enjoyed the social,
cultural and educational services offered at the clay care. He attested to the current bad parking
situation at the facilities and said he was recently involved in a fender bender in the parking area. He
said what was presented was a better solution with or without the easements for in and out for drop
off, the drop offs are very controlled. In the morning the five designated spots are okay because they
arrive in a two to three hour time block, not just one hour; and evenings are busier with pickups
happening between 6 and 6:30 p.m.
• He said the noise from the kids was not a concern, but the car noises were not good. Said he liked the
idea of the screen between Stevens Creek and the playground. The trash structure is in the back by the
parking lot and the area is kept very clean and tidy.
Zhongying Chen,resident:
• Supports the project.
• Resident of Cupertino for more than 10 years; keen the growth of the community and consistent
demand for child care. It is important for parents to look for good child care; the bilingual school is
popular in the neighborhood because it is a bilingual Montessori program that helps the children
develop different skills including both English and Chinese languages and prepare for the kindergarten
program. It is a good idea to expand the facility and it will be a benefit to the community.
Richard Wilkinson, resident:
• Supports the project. Commented on the high quality of education at the school, enabling his two
children to learn Mandarin Chinese.
Julie Mercik, representing property owners to the east,20045 and 65 Stevens Creek Blvd.
• Said she has been leasing office space in Cupertino for 30 years and is familiar with the Little Tree day
care Saratoga facility, and is pleased to hear positive comments about them. She expressed concern
about the traffic corning in and out of the existing easement. The traffic report says there are 92 new
trips created which is a lot for one day.
• She said they have an issue since Apple came and are parking their vans in the lot next door to the
proposed day care; they share a parking lot which is full to capacity every day, in addition to the Apple
vans coming and going. They talked with Apple because they were bringing their vans through every
20 minutes which was an issue as they cut through their property adding to the confusion. She said
she felt adding 92 trips per day would be difficult.
• She also addressed the issue of day care use and office space. Said she sold an office building at the
end of Stevens Creek past the Main Street to Sunflower Learning Center for their second location.
She said it would be difficult to lease that building to other office uses if the day care use goes in there.
It would be more of the after school learning type uses in there that are more compatible with day care.
Summer Sky: (husband spoke on her behalf):
• Said his wife was concerned about people parkin; in their parking lot and trekking across their lawn
into their neighborhood property even though there is a No Parking sign. They also park on Randy.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 9, 2014
• He said he erected an 8 foot high cyclone fence along the border of his property to prevent the
trespassing onto his property.
Joanne Li,property manager of the office building:
• Supports project.
• Addressed the current parking situation. The office is now about 80% occupied, with about 50 people
working each day in the office. The site of the proposed playground is mostly empty during the day
except during certain hours when there is a shade created by the building. The two back roads of the
parking are empty most of the time. Up until now they have not heard any concerns from existing
tenants.
Jackie Funk,Director of Campbell preschool:
• Addressed concerns about noise level. The Campbell site is located behind the social security
building, with a combination of residences, business on one side and shopping center across the street.
Said he has not had any residents voice concerns about the volume of sound from children throughout
the day. There are designated morning and afternoon times that the children are outside, and there is
also a time when the children are sleeping in the afternoon and not outside. There is a maximum of 40
children are outside at any given time and there haven't been any complaints from businesses or
residents nearby. Most people have expressed proactively that having a bilingual school is a
wonderful experience; moving across the street offers more opportunity to connect with a bilingual
school which is a positive.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified comments made regarding the noise in terms of what was stated in consultant's report; it is
important to clarify for the audience. Mr. Tucci pointed out that in general the staff's or city's
consultant pointed out that the proposed day care and its play area is going to exceed the city's noise
limit which is not accurate. He said Mr. Tucci's comments were taken out of context; and quoted the
conclusion by the noise consultant stating with informal type of play activities, the age of kids and the
distance involved, the noise incidents would not be noticeable in adjacent areas and would be within
the city's noise ordinance limits and would not be expected to create any noise impacts in adjacent
residential areas. That is a statement directly out of the city's noise consultant engineer's report.
• The other comment he referenced was in terms of having a fence and whether it was recommended by
the city's noise consultant; who said it would be desirable to have an 8 foot wall surrounding the play
area but that was within the context of reducing the noise from the traffic from Stevens Creek Blvd.
• It is difficult to mitigate traffic noises along Stevens Creek Blvd. because it is what it is and that is
something that all the tenants, commercial or professional, or day care, would have to deal with on a
daily basis. It is not whether the play area is going to generate noise where it warrants a wall
surrounding these children; it is more the other way around. He pointed out the fact that the existing
ambient noise level could at times be uncomfortable; therefore the applicant should consider doing it.
• In the content of the report it talks about noise impacts measured at the property boundaries which
effectively would impact residential and/or other professional office commercial sites and it was
confirmed at the boundary line that all the decibel readings projected will be within the city's noise
ordinance. There might be conversations about if you are at 10 ft or 5 ft away the decibels could
occasionally reach a certain level given the type of use, but where it applies and where it is measured
from is at the boundary line.
T ,
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 9, 2014
Com. Sun:
• If Mr. Tucci sold his property to convert commercial building into the residential building, does the
day care permit have to reapply or just stay there?
Gary Chao:
• Said the day care would not be impacted by whatever Mr. Tucci does; it is valid no matter what Mr.
Tucci does with his property.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she was concerned that they would potentially be adding another day care use if the use permit
had not expired and two day care centers could be located across the street from each other. In HOC
they try not to have a lot of non-retail uses on the first ground floor on Stevens Creek Blvd because
that is the commercial area. Said she did not feel the particular location is desirable for a day care
center; presently it is commercial/office and would be more appropriate to leave it as
commercial/office.
Com. Sun:
• Said the use permit is to locate the day care across the street from where it presently is and it is a
business decision of the owner and doesn't involve; any zoning issue. He said he was not opposed to
the project.
• Said he did not feel that Vice Chair Lee's concern about the possibility of having a competing day care
center across the street from the proposed day care:was justified as Little Tree is a successful business
and not threatened about having a similar business in the area. Other businesses offering similar
services have been successful even though they are:within close proximity to one another.
• Relative to the noise impact, he felt it didn't compare with Stevens Creek highway traffic; the sounds
of children on the playground during play time is not noisy and there are set times they are on the
playground, not all day. He said he respected Mr. Tucci's business decision but Mr. Tucci's letter
voicing his concerns was not very convincing and he would support the project.
Com. Takahashi:
• Asked what happens to the existing use permit given that the tenant is now vacating the lease property.
Gary Chao:
• Said the landlord could have many options; they could rent it to a professional office use; they could
have retail use or they can continue with some other business operator with the day care business
provided that the new day care business can comply with the conditional use permit that runs with the
land. Little Tree day care intends to physically -remove all their play equipment, fencing, planters,
basically restoring the back area into the original parking lot. Some effort would be needed if another
person were to put in a day care center. There is an expiration of the use permit if it is not used, one
year from the date of termination of previous business. If it is not used it also expires; whoever comes
along would then have to reapply for the whole process.
• Pointed out that in this case the use pen-nit is specific to Little Tree Montessori school, and in the
future, once their business terminates, they may decide to relocate to another space or no longer want
to operate, the use permit will terminate and whoever comes along next would have to go through the
whole process again. The previous was a standard format and this is different; it was also a suggestion
by Little Tree themselves and agreed upon by staff.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said the fact that Little Tree owns the existing building and are seeking the conditional use permit is
positive from the standpoint that they are also the owner, and the probability of another day care center
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 9, 2014
• wanting to move in within one year is relatively low. He said that parking will be crowded and given
the easement if there is a way to temporarily add those spaces in, he would recommend doing that.
• Said he did not analyze the traffic report in detail and was not fully up to speed as to what percentages
of the traffic migrates across, through the easements over to Blaney vs. out to Stevens Creek because
you can only access Stevens Creek westbound. Relative to the 8 foot fence,presently there is a fence
plan to segregate the playground from Stevens Creek primarily for safety reasons; it is presently
proposed to be a non-soundproof fence mainly for aesthetic reasons or safety.
Gary Chao:
• It is proposed to be wrought iron and supported by staff; the reason being is that for aesthetic reasons,
they want to maintain that look along the frontage but not to visibly have a presence; hence the
screening with landscaping. Said a plexiglass wall to increase the sound barrier could be a creative
option.
Com. Gong:
• Said she was concerned about the reduction in commercial/office space in the city. She was concerned
about the other tenants in the building but since the applicant is the owner, it is now the owner's issue.
She suggested a requirement that the tenants and the school parents only use the Stevens Creek
driveway and easement for emergency use only.
Gary Chao:
• Said they could make that suggestion and a condition of encouragement or to the maximum extent
possible because it is difficult to enforce. Said he would be concerned if it was a requirement; it could
be folded into a dropoff onsite circulation management plan where the management plan would be part
of the new signups or parent orientation that they review for the day care's preference and directions
on pickup and to and from routes, in which case they could encourage the parents to use Stevens
Creek more than the ancillary driveways.
• That route is there but it is not a straight shot; there are parking lots, speed bumps etc. to the side street
so it is not a very convenient location for daily driving purposes.
Com. Gong:
• Said she drove the area and if she wanted to go south on Stevens Creek, she would take the easement
and go on Blaney rather than going on Stevens Creek having to go across and make a U turn. She
asked if the operational plan is part of Public Works or part of the application.
Gary Chao:
• Said there is a condition that already requires parent/children drop off/pick up on site circulation plan
prior to allowing the business to commence. Community Development would review and approve that;
it could be made part of the plan.
Com. Gong:
• Said with the concerns mitigated she supported allowing the conditional use permit especially if it is
tagged directly to the business rather than the land.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he supported the application although he disagreed with some points. If it is denied, it is not
likely that the space occupied by Little Tree would be taken by a retail use. In terms of the visual
image along Stevens Creek or if they desire to have retail businesses along Stevens Creek, this issue is
not relevant to that discussion; it would just be an office use. As.far as the use of the easements that are
now all the way from Blaney up to the property, they exist now and it is just a question if and when at
some future time Mr. Tucci's property were to be developed,the city's policy would be to require as a
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 9, 20`14
• condition of development extending it all the way to the next block. There is no reason why this use
should be limited to not using the easement; it is effectively an unenforceable condition, and
everybody else is doing it.
• Some of the minor issues are best resolved at staff level; when involved in such issues as where the
trash enclosure should be, they wind up spending a lot of time without producing any value to either
the applicant or staff. Other than minor concerns, he said he would be willing to accept the document
as prepared by staff.
Motion: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 4-1-0,Vice Chair
Lee voted No; to approve Application U-2014-01,ASA-2014-05
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
• Chair Brophy reported a meeting was held to approve the Cordova Road project.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
• Meeting to be held next Wednesday.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Written report submitted.
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned to the June 10,2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth Vi Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: July 8,2014
1 I