PC 06-14-04
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
JUNE 14,2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of June 14,2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Acting Chairperson
Gilbert Wong; and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Acting Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Commissioners absent:
Chairperson:
Taghi Saadati
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin lung
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 10 Regular Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer:
Page 7, 4th bullet, line 2: change "pipe" to "line"
4th line, change "was" to "is"
Page 7, 5th bullet, line 2: delete and change to read: "usable and just the mass and
size of that are concerning, and even though ..
Com. Miller:
Page 20, 4th motion: Mr. Piasecki clarified the content of the third condition
suggested.
Acting Chair Wong: Page 18, line 2: Change "edition" to "addition"
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to approve the minutes of the
May 10,2004 Planning Commission study session, as amended.
(Vote: 4-0-0, Chairperson Saadati absent.)
Planning Commission Minutes
3
June 14,2004
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to remove Application
M-2004-02 from the ca1eudar. (Vote 4-0-0, Chairperson Saadati absent).
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
Clarified that no action should be taken if the application was being postponed from the
calendar. A minute order can be requested under Oral Communication about that tOp1C: 1t
should not be discussed or a vote taken.
The most appropriate thing to do is bring it back under New Business at the next meeting.
Acting Chairperson Wong moved the agenda to Items 3 and 4.
Acting Chairperson recused himself ITom discussion of Items 3 and 4 as his family owns property
adjacent to Town Center. Com. Miller chaired the meeting for items 3 and 4.
3.
ASA-2004-06, EXC-2004-06
Dahlin Group, Inc.
Southwest corner of
Rodrigues and Torre Aves.
Architectural and site approval for a 51-UDIt
townhome development as part of the CivIC Park
approval. Exception to the Heart of the City Plan
Tentative City Council date: June 21,2004
Peter GilIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Application is for architectural and site approval for a 51-unit townhouse development as part
of the Civic Park approval and an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 17 foot
side setback where 20 feet is required.
Illustrated the site plan and reviewed the architectural and site design.
Jim Yee, Dahlin Group, Inc.:
Reviewed the site plan and architectural and site design.
Said that the object of the design was to put the townhomes in courtyards and clusters to
conceal the cars and ITont the units onto the street.
Reviewed the floor plans of the units.
Com. Giefer:
Said relative to the drainage being installed, in an earlier meeting it was agreed the city would
require bio filtration as much as possible.
Said the applicant was using a hard metal drain system, and asked where it is going to be used
and what goes around it.
Said she understood that during construction there will be a hay-like material around It to
prevent construction materials ITom going in it, and asked where that type of drain would be
used.
Would like to see where the drains are going directly into the sewer lines, we fil~r the runoff
before it goes into the drains and finds its way into the Bay.
Mr. Yee:
Said they were required as part of state mandate to meet certain standards in terms of filtration
before it goes into the drain systems.
Mr. Piasecki:
The nonpoint source program requires the temporary fixture seen before the construction
phase and you will see the device that does some of the filtering that you are suggesting.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
June \4.2004
Com. Miner:
Asked the applicant to address some of the other elements, such landscaping, furniture,
lighting and special features.
Mr. Yee:
Said relative to lighting, they put as much as possible on buildings, in terms of trying to gam
the appropriate scale, the balance is bollards with lighting on the buildings; some more
residential scale standards, and on the buildings with some kind ofbollards.
Play area is fenced in for the children; pre-manufactured fountain; walkways with stoops
coming down to it; use of lighting with bollards and lighting of the buildings.
Relative to visitor parking, said there is approximately 25 parking spaces and 79 in this
location; as part of an overall mixed use plan, there is on-street parking, structured parking in
this garage, 280 cars in one area; anticipate a lot of adjacent office parking for guest parking.
There are two parking spaces per unit enclosed, and the balance would be on the street or in
the adjacent parking lots, after hours the offices vacate and guest parking would likely be after
those hours, which is part of a mixed use scenario.
The agenda was moved to Item 4.
4.
ASA-2004-07 Ren Bates!
Carducci Associates
Town Center Lane
Architectural and site approval for an approved park
space as part of the Civic Park development.
Tentative City Council date: July 6, 2004
Peter GnU, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. It is a one acre park, which bisects the entire project with residential and retail on the south
side and office buildings on the north side.
Relative to the inti-astructure of the park, there are plenty of locations of electrical outlets
which are shown with the lightning bolts; recycling and trash bins are also distributed
throughout the park and there was one location recommended to be added.
. The other part of inti-astructure is parking and during special events on weekends when the
offices are closed, all of the surface parking in the project will be available, and all of the
parking on the surface of Building G under construction now, is going to be available, as well
as office building parking and onstreet parking.
. Described the handicapped accesses in the project.
Said that the decomposed granite would be around the base of the oak trees.
Areas with decomposed granite are not accessible to the handicapped.
Com. Giefer:
Said she understood that there was an agreement to allow the park to be used for publIc events
during the year.
Mr. GiIli:
Applicant has agreed to make it open for 72 days per year and city management is working on
whether or not it is acceptable.
Acting Chairperson Miller opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who
wished to speak.
Planning Commission Minutes
s
June 14, 1004
Com. Giefer:
Said she felt the applicant is willing to work with the city in allowing public use and access in
a private park; good job in design, preserving much of the larger trees; will be a lovely open
space for the residents living in the adjacent development.
Com. Chen:
. Concurred with comments.
Done a great job and looking forward to seeing the park.
Com. Miller:
It is a quality presentation, and project will be a good edition to the city.
Com. Giefer:
This pertained to a conversation earlier with staff, regarding flat curbs as opposed to raised
curbs to enhance runoff and asked that it be required to use flat 6 inch curbs as opposed to
raised 6 inch curbs in width to allow for greater runoff and to filter into lawn areas specifically
adjacent to grass areas; if applicant was agreeable.
Mr. Piasecki:
There are a number of curbs in the project, and they are the ones on Torre Avenue in the
public right of way and the Public Works Department feels that they need the vertical curb to
direct water flow.
Also pointed out that because the vertical curb is on the west side of the property most of the
flow of the water is going to be to the north and to the east, and it will likely drain down to the
other direction; they would prefer to have the vertical curb on Torre Avenue. The other curbs
inside the project; we can work with the applicant to determine which ones can be lowered as
you suggest to allow drainage into particularly the park area, which seems to be m the proper
flow of things.
Com. Giefer:
Said that on some of the plans, the center between the building, they provided a raised curb.
. Said she would like to see that be a flat curb to enhance runoff into the lawn area.
Mr. Piasecki:
In the center areas there is a lot going on and a lot of grade changes gomg on.
Not certain how successful they will be at accomplishing that, but with the general direclJon
and condition, staff and the applicant can look at it and see where it can be done.
Applicant:
Said he did not object to adding the words "subject to responsible civil engineering and public
works approval", so long as they are not saying something they cannot do.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application
EXC-2004-06 (Vote: 3-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent, Vice Chair Wong,
recused)
Com. Giefer:
Said she would like to add the detail discussed in terms of using flat curbs to that as
appropriate around the townhouse area; as it makes sense between staff and civil engmeenng.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
June \4,1004
Change accepted by Com. Chen; Yote 3-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent; Vice Chair Wong
recused)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application
ASA-2004-07. (Vote 3-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent; Vice Chair Wong
recused).
Mr. Gilli announced that the City Council date for both items would be July 6'h.
Acting Chair Miller called a short recess. Vice Chair Wong returned to the meeting.
Acting Chair Wong returned the agenda to Item 2.
2.
CP-2004-01, EA-2004-09
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Finding of General Plan Conformance for the 5-year
Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2004-05
to 2008-09. Tentative City Council date: June 21, 2004
Coliu Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Two aspects of the 5 year Capital Improvement Program will be reviewed tomght: one aspect
is making the recommendation on the environmental revIew of the program itself and the
second aspect would also be making a finding of General Plan consistency for the 5 year
program.
This year's CIP is relatively unadorned in comparison to previous year CIP, partly a result of
the state of the city's budget, but there are some necessary expenditures they need to be
making and a number of the projects are also grant funded; those are the ones being proposed
in the budget today.
Said they normally focus on just the first year funded projects relative to the environmental
determination, because the first year funded projects are really the only genuine projects that
move forward in the coming year. .
Typically funding projects change and there is no certainty as far as the succeeding years of
the 5 year programs whether the projects will move forward or not, unless it was part of a
multi year program.
The projects before the Commission that are funded in the first year of the CIP are typically
replacement, rehabilitation, restoration items; such as an air conditioner unit on the sports
center, the re-roof of the Blue Pheasant restaurant, some design related work on the city hall
having to do with the council chambers, since the public meetings will eventually be moving
to the new community hall in the fall.
Replacing the backup generator for city hall, making sure the city streets are continuously
maintained and paved; the only large capital project is the Mary Avenue bicycle footbndge:
we will not be doing the environmental review of it at this stage; the Publ1c Works department
will be conducting its own separate environmental analysis of it involvmg both sllte as well as
federal environmental review laws; therefore that is not part of the purvIew of thIs partIcular
environmental review.
Other aspects that are part of this project include improvements to existing facil1tles such as
neighborhood calming measures, upgrading of signal lights, installation of sidewalks along
safe routes to schools, improvements to pedestrian lights and signal lights, and resurfacing of
the tennis court. Staff is recommending the negative declaration.
The other aspect of Planning Commission review is the General Plan conformance; and what
staff is asking be addressed, is are these particular projects consistent with the General Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
7
June 14,2004
.
policies. Staff has put together a matrix of the projects, in this particular case they looked at
the full 5 year program and also at what particular General Plan policies they are consistent
with.
The improvements related to the primary circulation system in the streets, are there to improve
the safety and functioning of the system. Other projects such as the Mary Avenue bicycle
footbridge, safe routes to school, neighborhood calming measures, the Regnart Creek trail;
those projects relate to managing neighborhood traffic and decreasing the reliance on the use
of private vehicles. The General Plan policies that relate to that are spelled out in the staff
report.
Other projects are focused more on the usability of the city parks, not necessarily new parks,
but relative to the sports center, tennis court resurfacing, Blackberry Farm improvements, etc.
Some projects are on the five year list and don't have a specific policy or General Plan
language tied to them which has to do with improvements to city facIlities such as city hall
They do not conflict with any text policy or goal of the General Plan and that has to do WI th
the emergency generator at city hall as well as the City Council chambers remodel.
The final category has to do with a regular amount that is added to the storm drainage budget
to take care of minor flooding problems that occur ti-om year to year.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the negative
declaration and make a finding of General Plan conformance for the 5 year CIP program.
Com. Miller:
Questioned the status of the projects labeled unfunded 5 year CIP, specifically the ones
identified for 2004-05, such as city hall remodeling.
Terry Green, city architect:
Said he understood that those projects are unfunded and will not go forward until funded.
Com. Giefer:
Relative to storm drainage, said it appears that approximately an equal amount of money is
allocated to storm drainage every year; and questioned if repairing or fixing a small amount
per year is more effective than consolidating and doing major re-pipes to effectively get rid of
flooding in specific areas, if there are specific areas that flood.
Mr. Green:
There are several specific areas which do flood and one of the unfunded projects IS the Bubb
McLellan storm sewer project, which is of particular interest and has been identified.
Unfortunately the economic circumstances don't allow us at this time to recommend domg that
work and it is correct, the other amount on the funded category is a regular amount considered
necessary on an annual basis to treat things that we either know about now or we anticipate
having to deal with during the year.
Com. Giefer:
Asked if some of the money was spent on the Bubb McClellan flooding area as well.
Said there are several streets in that area that flood badly, and will not get any relief by the
minor improvement money allocated.
Mr. Green:
Said he did not think the $75,000 per year was spent on the Bubb McClellan flooding area.
Speculated that a substantial portion of that money on an annual basis has been used at this
point to bring it to the level of repair that it is.
Planning Commission Minutes
&
June \4.2004
Mr. Jung:
. Said minor repairs have been made in that area to the storm drainage systems.
Said it appears at this point that the long term problem is so serious that it will take a major
expenditure of money not only if you see the manifestation of it on streets like Elm Court, but
it is going to take a significant amount of money to address the problem which is the main
stonn line down McClellan Road.
Acting Chair Wong:
Can address Elm Court at a later time.
Asked if the amounts shown for the sports center, Blue Pheasant re-roof, city hall remodel, and
PG&E upgrade would be put out to bid, or were they final amounts.
Mr. Green:
. Said all projects will go out to bid.
Com. Chen:
. Said the paving management says it is for citywide street maintenance.
Asked if there is a schedule to do the pavement work or is the amount of money set aside. and
how is it decided what projects are done for that amount of money?
Mr. Green:
. Said he would check to see if there is a schedule for the application of those funds on
individual projects.
Com. Chen:
Said if there was a program or type of analysis already set aside to prioritize these streets for
the pavement repair, she would like see that report.
Acting Chair Wong opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak.
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Giefer:
No further comments.
Com. Chen:
With the amount of money we have, the allocation looks appropriate.
Com. Miller:
Agreed, stating it is a fairly austere budget.
Acting Chair Wong:
Said he supported the project as well.
Commented that the Homestead Barranca traffic signal was a good signal, and said if there
was sufficient funding, he would recommend implementing those kinds of signs in the city of
Cupertino.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
CP-2004-01 and EA-2004-09. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent).
Planning Commission Minutes
9
June 14,2004
5.
MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal
Code (Rl Ordinance) Continued from Planning
Commission meeting of May 24, 2004; Tentative
City Council date: Not Scheduled
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport:
Discussed the topics offocus as set forth in the staffreport:
0 Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge
0 Second Story Wall Offsets
0 Privacy Planting
0 Old Business: Second Story Area (Minimum)
0 Old Business: Second Story Daylight Plane
Staff recommends that either the offset sizes be increased or that part of the approving action
of a design review project, if all two story projects are reviewed, will be to make sure that the
offsets are effective, and then it will be case by case and up to the approving body.
There are also cases where the offset may not be necessary and those are cases where the
second story wall is not very visible; the only occurrences of this have been with a building
permit, not a design review project, that is a two story project with an FAR of 35% that didn't
need design review, that they had to add in an offset where it didn't really need to be done to
reduce the rnass and bulk of the second story
Along those lines, staff recommends that the offsets not be required in cases where the
exposed wall height of the second story is less than three or four feet and whichever figure is
more comfortable with the Planning Commission or even higher or lower; that is a ballpark
amount that staff believes is reasonable.
Com. Miller:
Requested that second story wall heights be added to the discussion (19.28.060, Section FA)
Said that in looking at the requirements, he had a general concern as it is a complex ordinance.
Said he felt the daylight plane would simplify the discussions in terms of many issues and
would satisfy the issues relative to bulk and mass, and at the same time simplify the ordinance
to make it easier for a layperson to understand how to comply with the requirements. The
daylight plane concept applies just as much to all the things relative to second story setbacks
and offsets as it does to the other issues.
Mr. GiIIi:
SÚd it was not in the scope of work from the City Council, that is why it was not included in
the staff report.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said they contacted the city of Palo Alto to request that they come to speak on the daylight
plane. They were not able to be present tonight, and staff will also get written material from
them for the Planning Commission before the next meeting.
Mr. Gilli:
Said city of Palo Alto staff would not be available until August.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
June \U~~4
Com. Giefer:
With regard to recommendation on the privacy planting, who would bear the cost of a tree in
ones neighbors yard; would it be the homeowner?
Mr. GilIi:
It would be the person who built the two story house.
Acting Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Susan Lui, Woodburry Drive:
. Asked for clarification on second story surcharge in addition to the setback.
Asked if changing the second story minimum square footage from 600 to 800 was being
continued for discussion.
Relative to the setback of the house, one side has to be 10 feet, one side 5 feet, can a property
owner place the home 8 feet on one side, 7 feet on the other.
Acting Chair Wong:
It is being continued in discussion.
Mr. GilIi:
. Relative to the surcharge, said the ordinance has minimum second story setbacks and also a
surcharge to insure that there is more than enough offsets off the first story.
The rules were prior to 1992 which was prior to the city having a limit on the area that the
second floor could be. The surcharge says that you need to add 15 feet more to the front and
side setbacks, and at least 5 of it has to be applied to one side.
The ti-ont setback on the second story is a minimum 25 feet, the sides are 10 feet; the surcharge
can be split amongst the ti-ont and side, but at least 5 feet has to be on one sIde. One optIOn IS
to keep the ti-ont setback at 25 feet, and put all of the surcharge on one of the sides and make
one of the side setbacks 25 feet instead of 10, or put most of the surcharge on the front, where
that will result in a ti-ont setback on the second story of 35 feet and one of the sides will be 15
and the other will be 10. The rule predates the 1999 amendment which created a minimum or a
maximum amount on the second story. The Planning Commission may want to look at
whether or not that is needed now if there is an aerial limit that will already preclude anybody
from maximizing a second story that would fill up all the setbacks.
. Acting Chair Wong had answered the second question.
The first story setbacks that were specifically in the scope of work that the Council gave to the
Planning Commission were in cases where there are narrow lots. What the Planning
Commission may still want to pursue is make some recommendations that aren't in the scope
of work and staff can present that to the City Council for endorsement.
There have been people in the past bringing up the idea of splitting up the sides: although there
have been people on large lots as partially reflected in the surveys, that beheve the large lots.
over 10,000 should have 10 feet on both sides. There are many nuances to that and the
Planning Commission may want to look at that further.
Acting Chair Wong:
Wanted clarification; for the second story surcharge, what is the purpose of it again, since we
already have second story setbacks.
Planning Commission Minutes
11
June 14,2004
Mr. GiIIi:
When the rules were put in place, the idea was that the minimum setbacks were not enough,
but they wanted to have more setbacks, and to provide the flexibilitY where the
applicanVarchitect can place the additional setback wherever it worked in their case. Part of
the reason a minimum of 5 feet is to be applied on the side, was to make it harder to have a
two story wall plane because one of the first story side setbacks is 10 feet; if you had the
second story side setback at 10 feet, you could have a two story wall plane, and in the history
of Rl, that has been discouraged by the CitY Council. In one respect it was to require more,
but in a flexible way.
Acting Chair Wong:
Currently, are they any other cities that have this surcharge.
Mr. GiIIi:
Based on the review of the cities and county, I don't believe so.
Acting Chair Wong:
. Ms. Lui had an appropriate question regarding the flexibilitY of the 5 to 10 feet; your
recommendation is to bring it up at a different hearing for staff to investigate it.
Mr. GiIIi:
If the Planning Commission wants to explore that and any other item that is not on the scope
of work, direct staff to take it to the City Council and present that it was not on the original
scope of work; but after all the public input, it may be an issue that the Planning Commission
wants to look at and see if they will endorse it.
Summary on Second Story Setbacks and Surcharge:
Com. Chen:
Said staff suggested changing the language without changing the real content; it doesn't
change the result, but change the language to further clarify that; not sure it helps.
Said she felt the intent of the setback was to further reduce the bulk and mass.
Mr. GiIIi:
At the time the surcharge was put in place, there was no rule that had a limit on the size of the
second story, so you could conceivably build out to the minimum setbacks; the approach at the
time was make an additional surcharge that would keep all the houses /Tom looking the same;
it precludes the architect /Tom building out to the minimum setbacks on the second story, and
th~ Planning Commission may find that now we have a minimum area already, that we can't
build out to the minimum setbacks, that maybe the surcharge is not needed on all lots.
What was added as a recommendation is if the Planning Commission believes the existing
setbacks and surcharge should remain, then that would be the language to change that; that we
would recommend, but we are not going so far as to say that you should not look at the
possibility of the setbacks changing.
Com. Chen:
With the second story setback plus the limit on the maximum square footage on the second
floor, do they all work out?
Planning Commission Minutes
12
June 14,2004
Mr. GiIIi:
Said he could only speak to the projects that have been approved with the second story at 35%
or in some cases 40% of the ground floor; they have never maxed out the allowable area on the
second floor within the setbacks; so there has always been extra setback area that has either
been on one side, both sides, the ITont or the rear, and that leads to a lot of vanety and
flexibility in design.
I do not know if the second story is 50% if that will still exist, I believe 11 wIll, but there may
be some cases where you could have a second story that fills out the entire second story
building envelope. Probably that would be on smaller lots.
Com. Chen:
Basically do not disagree with second story setbacks, although I think the surcharge might be a
little too much restriction; without a decision on the second story area, it is a difficult decision
to make.
Mr. GiIIi:
. With all of these rules you can't really make a decision on one until you really know what the
whole picture is, because they are inteHelated; but the process that we are trying to do is to try
and take it issue by issue and then when it is brought together at the end, see if it meshes or
there are conflicts that need to be explored further.
Com. Chen:
. Agree with the second story setback; it is a regulation with good intent and would like to keep
it.
The second story wall offset is a good requirement; concur with staff recommendation of
privacy planting.
Agree that all the privacy planting has to be recorded for the protection of all the property
owners.
Rancho Rinconada: staff recommends the surcharge be eliminated; agree with that.
Relative to staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission consider the benefits and
drawbacks of privacy planting; the existing rule is appropriate.
Agree with staff that offsets should not be required in cases where less than three or four feet
of the wall height is exposed.
Com. Giefer:
Supports staff recommendation to change the language to make it less confusing with regards
to the second story surcharge.
Pointed out the irony that while privacy is an issue on three sides, the one part of the building
where the homeowner will not invade anybody's privacy is in the front of their home; yet 11 is
required that they push the second story to the rear which invades three other neighbors.
Said it would be ideal to design 100% ti-ont facing walls to push as much of the house to the
street as possible as part of privacy protection; but it may result in designing a lot of ugly
boxes. The more of the house that can be pushed to the front, would create less invasion of
neighborhood privacy; yet again it would create bulk and mass which is specifically what is
trying to be reduced.
. Pleased they are doing something to help the neighbors in Rancho Rinconada, and support that
the surcharge for the Rancho Rinconada owners be eliminated.
Supports privacy plantings; would like to see choice in privacy plantings for screenings; said
that if re-landscaping her yard and there is not enough room on her lot for all the trees, and I ¡-
there is still a privacy issue, she would like to have the option of plantmg live trees on the
Planning Commission Minutes
13
June \4, 2004
neighbor's lot at her expense as opposed to having frosted windows and louvers In the
neighborhoods other than those specifically designated Eichler neighborhoods.
Supports staff recommendation with regards to the second story offsets.
Com. Miller:
Relative to privacy, the majority of people in the survey said àG---ßGt leave the privacy
unchanged and I agree with that.
Staff had a good suggestion in terms of exploring wherever possible if there are issues with
privacy, putting the trees on the neighbors' property -MlO has a concern about the privacy.
. Moving to the topic of small lots and sections of town such as Rancho, said he was going 10
suggest something perhaps radical. There are a number of planned commumtles In town that
are somewhat similar and the one that comes to mind, is Seven Springs, and many of the lots
are similar to the size of the lots in Rancho that we have to deal with, and yet Seven Springs IS
a development that I think was done very well. Allowing that kind of development in areas
where we are dealing with small lots is a good idea; furthermore picking up on what Com.
Giefer said about moving the second story setback on the front up, I am not convinced that it
creates ugly buildings, we just approved earlier tonight an application where there was no
second story setback, and everybody commented how well that was designed and it didn't
appear to us as enhancing bulk and mass at all.
That again gets me back to where I started earlier this evening and I think we need another
way of looking at this; I keep coming back to the daylight plane, it would allow us the
flexibility to get better designs and different designs and not have every house look the same.
In fact if the ordinance itself forces houses to look the same if we got rid of the complexity of
regulations and we went to a simple concept like the daylight plane, I think we could solve the
bulk of our problems. Palo Alto is using it very successfully and no one would claim that
there are bulk and mass issues in Palo Alto. Asked the Planning Commissioners to reconsider
looking at it in a different way and getting rid of the incredible number of regulations,
restrictions, that someone has to figure out. No other city in this area has this except
Cupertino; there is a better way of doing this.
Not in favor of the setbacks or the offsets; would rather see it done differently.
Feel surcharge is not necessary; there may be one other city that uses surcharge, but no other
city in this area.
Acting Chair Wong:
Second story setbacks and surcharge: Concur with Com. Miller that if the people from Palo
Alto come and discuss daylight plane, the Planning Commission would not be looking at all
these unnecessary ordinances and procedures; it might simplify the process, which is one of
the principles he said he was advocating.
Regarding the Rancho Rinconada area, support staff recommendation to eliminate the
surcharge regarding the simplification that staff is suggesting for wording; my question to staff
is that if we go to 50% to the first FAR with the second story setbacks, will they still have
enough building envelope to build.
Mr. GiIli:
Said that he agreed that bigger lots would be fine; they would have to draw it up to see. For
the small Rancho lots, the recommendation is to not have the surcharge; therefore you have to
look at the 6,000 square foot lots and see how much area is left within the setback and the
surcharge. It depends on the Planning Commission, it can be done at the end when there is a
complete package or do it sooner. There are going to be a lot of issues come up, and staff
would like direction on what approach should be taken.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
June \4,2004
Acting Chair Wong:
When you go on smaller lots, Page 5-5, 6,000 you can get 900 square feet; but anything under
600 feet, like 5,000 square feet, you can only get 750 square feet on the second story. Even If
we look at the Civic Center project we approved, these second story bedroom floor plans look
really good, but one thing that really comes out is that they don't have the wall offsets and in
order to get these plans in Rl, it wouldn't happen because of these wall offsets.
Mr. GilIi:
The difference between the townhomes in Civic Park and other townhomes and what is in
Rancho Rinconada is the townhomes are 25 feet wide and they are designed that way. The
Rancho Rinconada lot will be twice as wide so there will be the opportunity to have a wider
first story and even possibly a wider second story, to provide some articulation on the side.
Acting Chair Wong:
Regarding the second story wall offset, the recommendations that if the Planning Commission
determines that a design review is necessary for all two story homes, then the Planning
Commission may leave the regulation as is, but requiring the approving body of two story
projects determine that the offsets are effective on a case by case basis. I really have strong
reservations regarding having staff review all two story homes; I think that the current way
allows flexibility so I don't support that.
Do not support unnecessary offsets.
Regarding the privacy planting, Com. Miller brought up a good point on Question No. 13, in
the survey that 55% didn't really have a strong concern, and of those who did understand the
RI ordinance, 60% did not have a strong concern on privacy planting.
Agree with Com. Giefer that putting louvers or ITosted windows or even 12 foot trees would
not really address those privacy planting; communication is the most Important thing regardmg
privacy planting by strategically planting the trees.
Do support updating the landscaping trees and shrubs with the handout vs. putting it m the
ordinance.
. Second story setback and surcharge: Agree with Com. Chen that second story surcharge is a
little stringent; would agree with her too; can staff come back and suggest something more
flexible but still keeps with the intent, because there is too much regulation and it should be
user fiiendly for the designer/architect to have good design.
Com. Miller:
Suggested more discussion on the small lot issues and staff providing comments. Asked what
the objection would be to allowing the flexibility on small lots in Rancho that was given to the
Seven Springs project.
Mr. GilIi:
There is no objection to looking into that; it is part of the reason why in the recommendation
on the second story setbacks and at a later meeting on the first story setbacks we have
recommendations that make it easier to build in on the RI-5 lots. It is difficult to compare
because Seven Springs was one whole development but is along the lines of a special
neighborhood plan. Before going too far, it should be determined if the Rancho residents want
that, because a lot of people supported annexation because they had a concept of what the rules
would be, and there is a need to be sensitive to that; as well as sensitive to the people wantmg
to build in Rancho because it is difficult because of the sIze of the lots.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
June \4,2004
Com. Chen:
Asked Acting Chair Wong if he was suggesting that for as long as the design is within the
ordinance and guidelines, it not be reviewed at all; since he was strongly opposed to having
two story buildings reviewed by staff.
Acting Chair Wong:
Correct, that is the current ordinance, except for if it is over between 35 to 45%, it is reviewed
by staff. If it is under 35% it is not reviewed by staff as long as it meets the current ordinance;
because if staffrecommends that all two story developments should be reviewed by staff, that
is what was approved in the last Planning Commission hearing in December 2003.
Com. Chen:
In the meantime, increase the total square footage to 45% also for two story buildings; these
two go together.
Acting Chair Wong:
They go together, but the review process portion will be the appropriate time for discussion.
These are not exclusive, everyone addressed them individually first and then at the end. If the
Planning Commission still determines that they are not exclusive and they should be together.
it will be determined at that time. If they can come up with an ordmance that meets
everything, the staff will not have to do discretionary review.
Com. Miller:
Agree with Acting Chair Wong, am hesitant to expand the scope of review to second story
structures that are below 35% and the original ordinance doesn't require it.
It adds more complexity to the process at this point.
Com. Giefer:
When Seven Springs was planned, it was planned with open space pathways all joined to make
that entire planned development feel open; every three cuI de sacs backs into a park. Even
though the houses are large and the individual ownership of the lots are small, it is specifically
designed to give the feel of open space and flowing neighborhood that is highly walkable: and
don't feel it can compare one to one between Seven Springs and Rancho Rinconada.
Also appreciate staffs comments that the reason why they voted for annexation was they
perceived a better quality of zoning with the way the neighborhood is zoned today vs. the way
it had been when it was county land.
Reminded staff that Palo Alto has a one to one relationship between using the daylight plane
or building envelope and design review; all two story homes in Palo Alto go through design
review, and that is their process. Not sure what would happen if you didn't pair those two hand
in hand.
. Numbers staff provided on Page 5-5 are good with regards to house size, the FAR, and what
th~ potential 50% second story size would be.
It would be very informative to apply our rules today to a 50% second story to see if It IS
doable, or if we apply our current setbacks and offsets and surcharges, is it even possible to
have these 50% numbers on the second floor, which we as a group have not agreed that the
first to second floor ratio is 50% yet. Wanted to remind everyone that it is a working number,
not a final number.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
June 14,2004
Acting Chair Wong:
Said the summarizing was direction for staff, and as Com. Giefer said, it is true there was a
majority of commissioners who would like to go 50% to second to first FAR, but at the end
once staff looks at everything, they may recommend likewise.
Summarized for direction to staff that regarding the first recommendation, the majority of the
commissioners felt that regarding the RI zone and Rancho Rinconada that a surcharge be
eliminated; majority saying yes.
Regarding simplification, at least two commissioners support it, which he expressed concerned
about. Asked staff to come back with more infonnation on flexibility.
If the Planning Commission detennines a type of design review, the Commission is evenly
split today; there was no comment regarding increasing the minimum width offset with 6 to 8;
that remains as is.
Regarding the unnecessary offsets, the commission is split; regarding the privacy planting, all
agree that it should be as is.
Said he supported having a presentation ti-om Palo Alto regarding the daylight plane, and
asked Corns. Giefer and Chen to comment on whether they are interested in hearing a
presentation ti-om Palo Alto.
Com. Giefer:
. Said she was agreeable, and would like to specifically understand what their issues are with it,
what they have run into on a regular basis, and what they believe would be the impact if they
did not have the design review coupled with that.
Com. Chen:
Said she would agree to learn ti-om their experience.
Com. Giefer:
Relative to second story wall offsets, agree with staff.
Com. Miller:
I think that is an increased restriction and I don't agree with that.
Com. Chen:
I agree with staff on this one.
Mr. GiUi:
. On the issues that are split 212, one was the wording change in the surcharge; Corns. Giefer
and Chen wanted to go with staff recommendation on the wording, and Com. Miller and
Acting Chair Wong did not want to go with that, primarily because you wanted to explore a
method that didn't have a surcharge.
Com. Miller:
Yes, if the Planning Commission goes along with exploring a different method, that is my first
choice; if we are going to stay with the current method, then I would go with the revised
wording.
Acting Chair Wong:
Said he concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes
17
June \4.2004
Mr. GiIIi:
For now it will remain as 2/2.
Com. Chen:
. Said she felt the surcharge was stringent; agree with setbacks, but don't necessarily agree with
the surcharge.
Mr. GUU:
I had it in my notes that you were agreeable to the change in the language, but if you are not.
then I can adjust that.
Com. Miller:
. This is actually, what I think the majority of us are saying is we would like to eliminate the
surcharges, is that correct.
Com. Giefer:
The thought was that the surcharge is confusing on how to apply it; said she liked the
simplification and language and would like to see flexibility on how that additional five would
be added to one side or the other.
Com. Chen:
Yes, basically correct, but I would also like to see how that would work with a 50% second
story, so no decision on surcharge, I would need more information.
Com. Giefer:
. Said it was not unlike the comment she made earlier that with calculations for second story
area with all the setbacks and surcharges, are those second floor; can you actually put that
much second story square footage in those houses at 50%, because if we go down ti-om there,
they will be impacted more greatly.
Acting Chair Wong:
Definitely on smaller lots we would have to do adjustments, especially on lots under 6,000
square feet in Ranch Rinconada or in Monta Vista.
Three commissioners share that concern.
Mr. GiIIi:
. Privacy rules: the same, although there is interest in seeing if it can be in the neighbor's yard;
but that can be on a case by case basis unless language is desired.
The daylight plane we are going to bring back; Planning Commission wants to make sure the
surcharge works if the second story area is allowed to go up to 50% of the first story, and It IS
split on the offsets to support making it wider to oppose primarily because you want to go a
different route.
Agreed that more communication would result in less rules and they should strive for that.
The issue with the daylight plane, one thing that is going to be an issue is If you have a
daylight plane that allows you to build out to a certain area, that is equivalent to having
minimum setbacks without a surcharge. If you had a daylight plane that allowed everything in
this envelope without additional rules, you will see houses that are built out to that envelope
and there is a likelihood that they will start to look more or less the same. Palo Alto takes care
of that through design review; it would be good to have them here to explain how it is done.
Planning Commission Minutes
18
June 14,1004
.
Relative to the offset recommendation in the staff report, if the design review is agreed upon
for all two story projects, then the idea was perhaps you don't have to adjust the actual rule.
you can just look at it on a case by case basis. The review could be all Design Revle"
Committee, staff, none; it has not been looked at yet.
Said that the comment that there is no review of two story homes under 35% FAR, is not
correct. The ordinance now calls for staff to look at the general compatibility of a two story
project that does not need design review; if it cannot be corrected, it would be referred to the
Design Review Committee; that has never been done, so I would like the Planning
Commission to understand that and take that into account.
Reviewed the list of topics for the next Planning Commission meeting, in addition to some
things that need to be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Acting Chair Wong:
Said it is true that staff does review every application that goes through, even two stories and
reviewing for compatibility, because that was done with the design review guidelines, and IS
required by the current ordinance until July.
Said he saw a different interpretation.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Chen, to continue Application
MCA-2003-03 and EA-2003-19 to the next Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
6.
Consideration of cancellation of one Planning Commission meeting during the
summer months.
Ms. Wordell:
Explained that the Planning Commission may choose to take a week off in the summer and
may consider the last week in July to coincide with the City Council break.
Staff recommends canceling the July 26 meeting.
Com. Chen:
Said it was logical if canceling any meeting, to cancel the one prior to the City Council
cancelled meeting.
Com. Miller:
Said that if everyone is planning on being on vacation, it doesn't make sense to hold it, but
suggested they move forward with RI if commissioners did not have conflicts.
Com. Giefer:
Said she could attend the regular meeting; but was open to canceling a meeting if there was no
need to hold one.
Said that she felt they would not meet their schedule if they canceled a meetmg.
Felt there were many things that they required information for; suggested that Palo Alto may
be able to attend the meeting to discuss daylight plane.
Planning Commission Minutes
19
June 14,2004
Actiug Chair Wong:
. Concurred with Coms. Giefer and Miller.
Said he was not opposed to holding the regular meeting to discuss the General Plan and RI.
Mr. Piasecki:
As a result of the discussion, no summer meeting will be canceled; the schedule will remain as
is.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Com. Chen said she missed the meeting; the item that was
discussed was the 5 year CIP Plan and Town Center item.
Housinl! Commission: Com. Giefer reported the meeting was cancelled due to lack of business.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: Chair Saadati attended the meeting; no report
given in his absence.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the City of Cupertino went on record of opposing SB744. Said it
was interesting to see the state take a position that allows for a housing appeal by developers
on housing related projects; and it indicates some of the sentiments heard at various Planning
Commission institutes and talked about over the years.
Said that Com. Wong suggested to Chairperson Saadati that consideration be given to
scheduling a study session to discuss meeting the Planning Commission meeting operational
protocols, have a discussion about how things work, Roberts Rules of Order, reduction of
Planning Department staff, etc. Tentatively scheduled for 5 p.m. on July 26th.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting
of June 28, 2004 at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
SUBMITTED BY:
~
Approved as amended: June 28, 2004