PC 10-25-2016CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P .M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED/ AMENDED MINUTES
OCTOBER 25 , 2016
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 25 , 2016, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Alan Takahashi.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Alan Takahashi
Margaret Gong
Geoff Paulsen
Winnie Lee
Don Sun
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Staff Present: Assistant Community Development Director:
Principal Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Associate Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the October 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting:
Benjamin Fu
·Piu Ghosh
Ellen Yau
Gian Paolo Martire
Colleen Winchester
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve the October 11, 2016 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
2. MCA-2016-03
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Municipal Code Amendments to amend Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping
and Table 19 .2 0 .020 of Chapter 19.20 Permitted , Conditional and
Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones regarding the
regulation, location and the keeping of bees in the city and to make
other conforming changes in Table 19.20 .020 for consistency.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 October 25 , 2016
Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reported on evaluating proposed changes on two sections of the code, the evaluation will include an
overview of the current regulations in other cities, the importance of the honeybee to the environment
and the results of regulatory action and how their proposed change will make beekeeping allowed in
Cupertino . The current code limits beekeeping to permitted use in A Zones and agricultural zones ,
conditional use in A-I which is agricultural and residential uses and permitted as accessory uses in all
other zones, but the specific Chapter 8.07 states that the hives themselves must be located 1,000 feet
from nearest residences, church , school, public building or corral or water area in the corral and 300
feet from any public road . Because of that even though they are permitted use, this effective ly prohibits
beekeeping in most of the lots in the city. Earlier in the year Cupertino Rolling Hills 4H Club and the
Santa Clara Bee Guild presented on the importance of bees to the environment and requested that
Council review the existing restrictive regulations and asked staff to evaluate the current regulations
and draft an ordinance to set reasonable regulations to change some regulations to allow for this use in
the city . Other cities were studied and some of those changes were rather significant; one of the
minimum setbacks on property line is about 5 feet and from streets 20 feet, which is a drastic difference
from Cupertino.
• Said what is important is why honeybees and why make the change? Compared to other cities, the
Code does prohibit the keeping of bees because of those regulations and setbacks. It is important
because bees pollinate about 85% of crops they have ; scientists have claimed and stated about one in
three bites of American diet is due to the pollination of bees because they pollinate flowers, crops , and
they produce other products such as beeswax and honey. Due to some variable factors such as climate
change and pesticide applications applied to residential and commercial lots, they effectively have the
phenomenon called colony collapse disorder, which is where a significant portion of the U.S . bee
colonies have vanished. They looked at the national agenda in terms of preserving the bee environment
and many cities around the area and nationwide where they have modified the regulations. They are
making two section changes in the proposed code of Chapter 8.07 Beekeeping; made changes to the
definitions by consolidating some of the definitions and clarifying them ; also made it explicit that it is
a permitted use for A and A-I zones, accessory uses in all other zones.
• Under Locations, the setback requirements were changed from 20 feet from the front property line and
public or private streets and to IO feet from side and rear and driveway easements. Other cities
evaluated , lots with less than 5,000 square feet are limited to hives because they are smaller lots and
the concentration of the beehives was something they thought about. Sections were also added to
maintenance, registration , nuisance and enforcement. Throughout the research evaluating other cities ,
it was important that water provisions for the bees are sufficient; that way they stay within the area to
access water. If there are any concerns about hives being left there, abandoned structures , it was put
into the code that those apiaries would be dismantled and taken down.
• She reviewed the changes to Section 8.07 .040 Nuisance, 8.07.050 Enforcement, Chapter 19 .20 as
outlined in staff report , page 4 .
• Staff recommendation is to find that the proposed action is exempt from CEQA, and adopt the draft
resolution recommending City Council introduce and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 8 .07
Beekeeping, and Table 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20 , regarding the regulation, location and the keeping
of bees in the City and to make other conforming changers in Table 19.20 .020 for consistency.
Staff answered questions relative to the application.
Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing .
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 25, 2016
Ethan Chi, Chris Chapman, Nathan Chi, Bryan Chi, Elena McPherson, Rolling Hills 4H Club of
Cupertino:
• The group members each commented: That they were pleased to see the Beekeeping Ordinance being
updated; it was a great learning experience to speak at the City Council meeting in March ; it was
wonderful to know that anyone, including kids, could make a difference. They thanked the Commission
for considering their proposal, and said they hoped that the Commission would approve this
modification to the Code. Hopefully soon, Cupertino will be a model green city with many busy
beehives and pollinated plants.
Alysa Sakkas, Adult Leader from Rolling Hills 4H Club of Cupertino:
• Thanked the Commission for their consideration, and suggested three minor semantic
recommendations to offer for consideration in changing the wording . First one is Item 8.07.030
Location Number Maintenance and Regulation of Apiaries; would recommend for A3 which currently
says minimum setbacks; that it be changed to minimum hive setbacks, to clarify that the setback
amounts are in respect to the hives vs. in respect to the apiaries as stated at the top of the paragraph .
An apiary is an area that may enclose several hives, sometimes some people don't choose to create a
boundary for an apiary but an apiary is a collection of hives. Recommends that the 20 feet and 10 feet
are respective of the hives vs. if someone was to create a fenced area wouldn't want that measurement
to occur from the edge of the apiary.
• The second one 8.07.030c under Maintenance, suggest to strike the words "abandon or" full sentence
to state "Maintenance; any abandoned or disused apiary shall be promptly dismantled and removed
from the location", strike "abandoned or" would clarify, if it is abandoned by the bees it does not need
to be promptly dismantled because beekeepers often have bees absconded from their hives and would
probably choose to leave the hive assembled and moving the colony into the hive. It is not clear whether
abandoned means abandoned by the beekeeper or the beehive but the remainder of the sentence can
stand alone .
• The third one 8.07 .040 Nuisance; recommend striking the word, to say "the maintenance or use of any
real property in violation of this chapter or when apiary bees swarm and/or abscond or which creates a
condition as defined in Section 1.09.030 is hereby declared a public nuisance, is prohibited in a subject
to code enforcement and all other enforcement remedies as provided in this code. Recommend striking
the words "or when an apiary's bees swarm and/or abscond, and the remainder of the paragraph stand
alone in terms of the nuisance law; primarily because beekeepers cannot control swarming or
absconding hives ; this will alleviate someone being jeopardized for their beehives swarming or
absconding.
• Thanked the Planning Commission again for the work done; said they were happy with this code and
looking forward to seeing more beekeepers in Cupertino.
Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing.
Com. Paulsen:
• Complimented the group of 4H students on their excelient presentation.
The Commission discussed the three suggestions from Alysa Sakkas.
• The first is the setback as far as whether or not it was defined to the hive vs. the apiary.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said that could be at the Planning Commission's pleasure; which means that if a hive is surrounded by
a fence or some such structure, it could be within that 5 or 10 foot setbacks; the setback varies between
all the different cities looked at; most cities define the apiaries as being the collection of bees, the hives
and any accessory structure. All the setbacks are to the apiary and not to the hives.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 25 , 2016
Ellen Yau:
• Said there are some cities who when they define it, define apiaries and hives differently in some cases ;
the insertion of hives would not be much of an issue because we are looking at the specific structure of
the hive ; we do define apiaries, we do include hives , bees and the appliances themselves, but the
appliances that there was another structure to store things , would fall under our accessory facilities
chapter as well. That would have slightly different setbacks.
Chair Takahashi:
• Said from a clarity standpoint it would make sense to reference the hive as well.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he felt saying "hives" clarified the issue, and the suggestions made by Mr . and Mrs. Sakkas were
reasonable suggestions ; the swarming issue and the abandonment issue as well as the definition of
hives. He suggested they be included in the final resolution.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said she agreed with the first and second suggestion; the second one to strike the abandonment or
disuse; instead of striking that, keep it and add abandonment by beekeepers as opposed to by bees,
because if the beekeeper abandoned it , then they should remove it ; said she would not strike it.
Com. Paulsen:
• Agreed that it was reasonable.
Benjamin Fu:
• Said staff would not have an objection to that; their intention was not to have structures that are
abandoned ; or an eyesore . There was one additional email item received from the 4H Group , switching
the word "freshwater" for "clean water". Staff can briefly discuss the difference between what their
intent is for the "clean " vs . "fresh".
Alysa Sakkas:
• Said it was okay as stated.
Com. Lee:
• Said she was in the minority, but did not have a problem with how staff has put it in the draft resolution ;
and she felt if apiaries wanted to be closer they could reach some kind of agreement with their neighbor
and if they wanted to be closer encroaching the setback, she would rather they could go through the
city and encroach in the setback with some type of ministerial review.
Colleen Winchester, Asst. City Attorney:
• Said it would have to be with the permission of the neighbor. It would be a private agreement ; the city
would not mediate it.
Com. Lee:
• Said she would support the wording as proposed ; she felt it was better as stated in the draft resolution .
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said she agreed they should make it apiary vs. hive.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 25 , 2016
Chair Takahashi:
• If an individual wants to put a hive in place; we outline the structure of an offset and could they then,
depending on the offset between the actual hive and the apiary, alter the structure such that they would
use a fence as part of that enclosure? Could they work it with that offset and meet the intent of the
code?
Piu Ghosh:
• Said she understood they were saying that the hive could be placed at the 10 foot setback and an existing
fence, property boundary line fence could be used as the fence to enclose that as an apiary; that could
be how it could be capped. Saying that that is a setback for the apiary does not necessarily mean that
you can place a hive at 10 feet because you don't have to enclose the hives with fencing.
Com. Sun:
• Said he agreed with Com . Lee and Vice Chair Gong; it is the original intent of the city amendment ; it
is more accurate and may prevent some future problems with public nuisance.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to approve Application MCA-2016-03 with the following amendments: Section
8.07.030, Subsection C2, any abandoned or misused ... (suggest language we were
suggesting: any apiaries abandoned by beekeepers or disused apiaries" (and keep same
language after that) grammatical correction to your suggestion.
Strike in Section 8.07.040 Nuisance ... "or when an apiary's bees swarm and/or
abscond"
2. MCA-2016-05
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Municipal Code Amendments to various Chapters in Title 19 , Zoning of
the Cupertino Municipal Code including but not limited to Chapter 19.08
Definitions), Chapter 19.20 (Permitted , Conditional and Excluded Uses
to Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural
and Agricultural-Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32
(Residential Duplex (R-2) (Zones), Chapter 19 .52 (Reasonable
Accommodation), Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling Units in R-1,
RHS, A and A-1 Zones), and 19 .124 (Parking Regulations) in response
to recently adopted State legislation regarding accessory dwelling units
for compliance with State Law, and for internal consistency. Amendments
will apply citywide.
Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the staff report, stating that the ordinance amendment is in response to the recently passed
Senate Bill signed by Gov. Brown on September 27 th • Reviewed the various chapters listed that were
being amended in Title 19 zoning; most of the chapters will be swapping terms out for the secondary
and there are substantial changes to Chapter 19 .12 and the definition section .
• Explained that the Municipal Code is reviewed periodically to ensure that it is consistent with State law
and that there is internal consistency amongst all the titles and chapters of the Municipal Code . The
urgency is if the cities in California don't adopt something by January 1, 2017 , any ordinances
regulating second dwelling units are considered null and void. What is changing and how is it going
to affect how we develop second dwelling units , accessory dwelling units? Primarily it will amend
19.112 Second Dwelling Units and Rl-RHS A and A-1 zones.
• He reviewed other changes listed under State-Law Consistency -SB 1069 , Chapter 19.112 , Second
Dwelling Units in R-1, RHA, A and A-1 Zones summarized. In addition to ensure consistency with
State law , minor amendments have been proposed to ensure internal consistency and as clarifications .
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 25 , 2016
Senate Bill I 069 amends Section 65852.2 of the Government Code by replacing the term "second unit"
with "accessory dwelling rut unit". The definition of second dwelling unit has been updated to match
the State's definition of an accessory dwelling unit. The term "second unit" in the Municipal Code,
when used in the context of an "accessory dwelling unit" has been replaced. While the City's current
practice of processing of an accessory dwelling unit is a ministerial process through a building permit,
SB 1069 requires that the City incorporate language in the ordinance to memorialize it. Allowable
accessory dwelling unit sizes are being increased from 650 to 800 sq. ft. for lots of up to 10,000 sq. ft.
for lots over I 0 ,000 sq. ft .
• Other parts of the State law were amended that don't deal with the zoning ordinance but will be reflected
in how an outside agency such as sewer and utility lines are hooked up to the second dwelling units
including the elimination or relaxing of some fees that for accessory dwelling units are built within
existing footprints of homes. What will affect how the City of Cupertino processes fire sprinklers is
that these accessory dwelling units built within these homes won 't necessary be required to have fire
sprinklers and that is more of a Cupertino standard than it is a building code standards, and that will be
reflected when the building official will bring those changes to City Council by the end of the year.
• Said they took the opportunity to clarify some terms , such as refining the definition of duplex to give it
more of a separation between the relationship a lot may have with a primary family unit, primary
residence and an accessory dwelling unit rather than a duplex . There are slight refinements to that
definition . Also removed all references to family as indicator of occupancy in unit types , in response
to recent case law; and have inserted term "transient" for lodging and lodging unit to ensure that it
meets the definition of transient; setting a time of 3 days or less for a person who is residing or staying
in a unit.
• It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that they find that the
proposed actions are exempt from CEQA and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 19, Zoning, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code including but not limited to Chapter 19 .08 Definitions), Chapter 19 .20
(Permitted , Conditional and Excluded Uses to Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.24
(Agricultural and Agricultural -Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19 .32 (Residential Duplex (R-2)
(Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation), Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling Units in R-
1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones), and 19.124 (Parking Regulations) in response to recently adopted State
legislation regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with State Law , and for internal
consistency.
Ellen Yau:
• Said they would have to do it _in response to State law , unfortunately because of the California housing
crisis, the Governor saw fit to sign the bill into law . She said when stating they see impacts , she was
not sure what kind if impacts they were eluding to.
Com. Sun:
• Presented an example of a single family house which was divided into a duplex, which would limit the
parking spaces . One single family home would have a maximum of 3 cars , but if separated into a
duplex there is a minimum of 4 cars; there may be another space for accessory room or unit and then
have 6 cars there in one particular lot. He said it was a problem he could foresee .
Piu Ghosh:
• Said she understood their concerns but unfortunately that decision was taken out of City 's hands by the
Senate Bill the Governor signed with those changes. It states that if you are providing an accessory
dwelling unit within the existing structure, as if you have an existing family house and you are taking
a portion of it and converting it into an existing dwelling unit you do not have to provide any parking
spaces. There is a list of conditions under which parking does not have to be provided on the site for
that accessory dwelling unit. There is nothing cities can do to regulate that; all they are doing is making
changes to conform to that amendment that the Governor signed .
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 25, 2016
Gian Paolo Martire:
• Clarified that they do not allow accessory dwelling use in duplex R2 zones anyway. If you already
have a duplex you can 't add another accessory unit on top of that.
Piu Ghosh:
• Presently the ordinance allows accessory dwelling units at RI , RHS , A and A-1 zones which are
primarily single family zones ; you can only have a single family home there. We currently allow
accessory dwelling units there , we are just making conforming changes to that.
Vice Chair Gong:
• If it is the primary dwelling unit and a part of it is carved off as an accessory dwelling unit, no additional
parking is required. What happens ifthere is a stand-alone garage that is now converted to an accessory
unit, but those two parking spaces in that existing garage; do parking spaces have to be provided on the
lot and since it is a stand-alone building, do additional parking spaces need to be provided in accordance
with our ordinance?
Gian Paolo Martire:
• As the ordinance is written now, if you take away two enclosed spaces, you have to provide two
enclosed spaces somewhere else on the lot.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said if you do convert your existing garage into a stand-alone or you are attached ; it doesn 't matter; if
you converted that into an accessory dwelling unit you could provide replacement spaces on the site in
any combination of the applicant's choice, unenclosed , enclosed or with parking lifts in any
c ombination ; th ey don 't necess a rily ha ve to provid e two e nclosed spaces ; it has to be on the site as
opposed to street parking. If eliminating parking from your project, you have to provide replacement
spaces on the site but can be in any combination 9f their choice of enclosed, unenclosed or with parking
lifts or tandem parking . With this amendment, we cannot require enclosed spaces.
Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing .
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she felt Gov. Brown had signed many strange laws recently, particularly some of the ones allowing
additional liberties to developers for housing element sites. Said she was concerned about completely
overriding the current laws , municipal laws about what goes into suburban homes and state laws.
• She referred to the city of Fremont and a bill started by an assemblyman from Fremont and another
similar bill from Santa Monica and said it appeared that Fremont is having some problems if they are
starting to have ordinances like this and getting the governor to sign them . Said she did not know what
problems Fremont had as they have the largest amount of space of any city that is unbuilt in the entire
state. Said she was not pleased with what is coming down from the governor, when they have no right
to say anything about it. She said she had questions because she felt they were turning suburbia into
duplexes; you have a home and it is becoming a duplex. She addressed the issue of Air B&Bs ; and
questioned if people were building those units to be able to circumvent hotel laws. Would someone
buy a home and build one of these units? Having a structure for grandparents or a college student is
acceptable but she did not support building one specifically to rent it out for Air B&B . She likened it
to being an inn keeper living in suburbia and putting 1200 sq. ft. on a lot, potentially having 5 people
living in the home . It also says that if you live within ½ mile of a transit, you don't have to have
any parking places; does that mean if a VT A bus is ½ mile away and you have a 1200 sq . ft .
home, that secondary accessory in your back yard could generate 4 cars and they would be on
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 25 , 2016
the street. Said she felt they needed to look at the issue more , and Cupertino needs to make a
statement about it because it is eroding. Said that she was pleased it was going to go to City
Council.
Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing .
MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to
recommend that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 19.08 under
Definitions, Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural
and residential zones) Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural (A) and Agricultural -Residential
(A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32 (Residential Duplex (R-2) Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable
Accommodation), and Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling units in R-1. RHS, A and A-1
Zones), and 19.124 Parking Regulations per the draft resolution.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
There was a brief discussion about the November 8th meeting being held on election night; Staff will keep
everyone posted on next meeting date.
Environmental Review Committee:
Housing Commission:
Economic Development Committee Meeting:
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
No meeting.
No meeting.
No meeting .
No report .
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
MISC.
Com. Lee:
• Announced the Cupertino Quota Club fundraiser on Saturday, October 29th at Original Pancake House
open at 7 a.m. Brunch also from noon. (Open 7 a.m . to 3 p.m.) A flyer about the event will be sent.
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on November 8, 2016 beginning at
6:45 p.m. (yet to be detennined because of election night)
Respectfully Submitted:
Approved as amended: January 17, 2017