PC 01-25-05
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M.
JANUARY 25, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
V ice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Gary Chao
Chair Saadati thanked the Commissioners and staff for their support and hard work in the
previous year.
Election of Chairperson:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to nominate Com. Wong to
serve as Chairperson. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Wong abstain.)
Chairperson Woug chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Election of Vice Chairperson:
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati , to nominate Com. Miller as
Vice Chair. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Miller abstain)
Environmental Review Committee Representative and Alternate:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to nominate Chair
Wong to serve as Environmental Planning Commission representative.
(Vote: 4-0-1, Chair Wong abstain)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to nominate Vice Chair
Miller to serve as alternate for the ERC. (Vote: 4-0-1; Vice Chair Miller
abstain.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
January 25, 2005
Housin!l Commission Reoresentative:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to nominate Com. Saadati as
Housing Commission representative. (Vote: 4-0-1,
Com. Saadati abstain).
Desil!n Review Committee Chair and Member:
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to nominate Vice Chair
Miller to serve as Chair of the DRC, and Com. Giefer to serve as
commissioner on the DRC. (Vote: 3-0-2; Vice Chair Miller and Com. Giefer
abstain)
Economic Development Committee Representative:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to nominate Com.
Chen to serve as EDC representative. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Chen abstain)
Chair Wong:
· Acknowledged past Chair Saadati for his one year of service and said he looked forward to
working with staff.
· Welcomed new Vice Chair Miller and said he looked forward to working with Corns. Chen
and Giefer in their second year on the Planning Commission.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 11, 2005 Planning Commissiou meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the January 11,
2005 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2.
DlR-2004-06
David Perng
(Tian-Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of an approval ofa Director's Minor
Modification for minor additions to an
existing church. Request postponement
to February 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Tentative City Council date: March 1, 2005.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone
Application DIR-2004-06 to the February 8, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Deborah Hill, Cupertino resident:
· Expressed concern for children and their safety in the area of Rodrigues and Torres Avenues,
and lack of bike lanes.
· Asked if it was possible to widen the streets.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
January 25, 2005
· Concerned about pedestrian safety.
· Asked for patrolling in the area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Indicated he would pass Ms. Hill's comments to the Public Works Department.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
GPA-2004-01
(EA-2004-17)
City of Cupertino
Citywide location
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan.
Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled.
Chair Wong:
· Said that the process and goals would be discussed with the Planning Commissioners.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he felt it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission and community to be more
rigorous in the method of reviewing the General Plan and in preparation for that, it would be
helpful to review the goals and reach an agreement on the process to be followed.
· Submitted his suggestions for goals:
o The General Plan needs to meet the State requirements for a General Plan for the city,
including the ABAG objectives, It is important to look at key areas in town in more
depth, including areas such as Vallco, North DeAnza and the Crossroads and all the
areas that are under discussion and potentially have differing viewpoints.
o One approach is to review the objectives in each of the areas, reviewing what works
and what doesn't work, and whether or not it is appropriate to make adjustments to the
goals, use, zoning, density, and height of the setbacks.
o The next area is to review industrial and office properties in more detail, particularly
those vacant properties which are not being used or are being under-utilized, which
represents an opportunity for the city, particularly in terms of its housing
requirements. In part the housing requirements are driven by industrial space, even
though the industrial space is not occupied, hence there is an opportunity to reduce the
overall housing requirement by reducing industrial space. It is a worthwhile exercise
to look at properties particularly on the fringes of changes in zoning, where it might be
easy to do that.
o There is general agreement in the community ITom a goals standpoint to see more
commercial space which would hopefully be successful in generating revenue for the
city; therefore it may seem right to discuss incentives for increasing commercial space
in the city and how it can be incorporated into the General Plan moving forward.
o Another important goal is whether or not the city has the service capacities to support
the proposed development.
o It makes sense to review that after the development plan is in place and they see if the
city has the water, sewer, and the rest of the services to support the proposed
development; and if not, then go back and re-evaluate things.
o In terms of process, he suggested to agree on goals and then review the task force, the
administrative and the minority reports and where they differ, review key areas in
town and hold a meeting to summarize and make recommendations.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
January 25, 2005
Com. Chen:
· The major difference between the two processes, is what has been done in the last meeting and
plan to continue to do in this meeting, and the process that Vice Chair Miller suggested is
already starting on C, but the desire to go back to A which is to agree on the goals, and to
review the task force results vs administrative results and also monitoring these.
· Asked what the major difference between the processes was and how much more time was
needed in terms of timelines.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Not certain of the timelines; the major differences is to review individual properties in more
depth, particularly the ones that are in everybody's mind and under discussion.
· For example, there is an application tonight talking about doing something in the No. DeAnza
area, and there has been some discussion about whether there should be more housing or less
housing there, what makes sense, should it be just a little commercial, should there be housing
on the Apple property?
· There are a number of different issues on the table and all the issues need to be discussed and
decide what the appropriate zoning and use ofthat property is as part of the General Plan and
how does it fit with every other property.
· Said he would like the discussions to be in-depth than in the past.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if it was outside the framework of the Hot Topic items, or is it predicted that Hot Topics
will not cover some of the items that more time should be spent on.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Each one ofthe areas has its set of Hot Topics that have been identified; in the context of the
Hot Topics he suggested drilling down and taking each area individually.
· Focus on land use first and only relative to land use.
· Suggested a path to get through land use which seems to be the most complex and the most
controversial section of the General Plan.
Com. Giefer:
· Need to think about the process and whether or not enough time is provided is valid; also is the
public being given ample opportunity to provide input.
· With regard to goals for land use, although brief, they are in the General Plan draft document.
When participating on the General Plan Task Force, each subgroup also established goals they
had within their subgroup. She said it may be difficult to come up with additional goals.
· Several stakeholders who are listed are valid, but the residents are not listed as stakeholders;
she recommended that they go back to the input the General Plan task force provided.
· Consider going to a study session process similar to the Rl which was more informal where
they could do comparative analysis, which some have been doing, but have not yet had the
discussion between the administrative draft, the task force draft and the minority report, and it
would be a more casual forum for the Planning Commission to have that discussion.
· Would like to change process a little to accommodate more discussion between us and citizens
who are interested, and other stakeholders in attending those meetings similar to what was
done with the Rl.
· Said she was hesitant to establish goals independent of all the work that has been done prior to
receiving this document.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
JanuaI)' 25, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he did not intend to exclude residents, he just assumed they were part of the process
because it is advertised and they are encouraged to come.
· Concurred that the process used for the Rl worked well and suggested patterning it after that.
It is a good idea to do study sessions, held in the council chambers and videotaped, so the rest
of the community can review them if they choose to do so.
· There are many goals, and perhaps it will clarify things when the task force recommendations
and differences are reviewed. Said he wanted to ensure that they remain focused and proceed
with the process as quickly as possible and to do that they should focus on reviewing the goals
and not create new ones, and be in agreement of what the objectives are.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he felt if they followed the original agenda prepared by staff they could address all of the
items brought up, and some may need to be discussed in more detail at the study session.
· Said that as the need arises, they may need to extend the meetings on specific topics or
lengthen the study session.
· Relative to focusing on specific lots, he said he felt they should focus on the area rather than
the lot, which is already planned in the General Plan, identified by different colored areas for
focus. The economic condition may change and in five years it may be completely different.
· He said one area that is hard to defme would be a balanced community; more input from the
community is needed, and based on that, arrive at an opinion.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said they were valid points; however, he was not suggesting that they go over every individual
property. The only suggestion for individual properties is where there is vacant unused
industrial land.
· Concurred in terms of looking at areas such as north DeAnza Boulevard or Vallco North and
Vallco south and not getting down to the individual properties.
· Said he did not want to over-burden staff; if they drill down further than what is done
presently, that implies that staff has to do some more work and they need to be treated fairly as
well.
Ms. Wordell and Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff was already prepared to get some of the information requested which was potential
properties that might be converted to residential uses.
· When discussing the individual Hot Topics, if there are areas and specific properties that have
characteristics that a commissioner feels should be treated special, staff needs to be informed.
Chair Wong:
· Suggest because of time constraints that the topic be moved into a study session; also looking
at the revised General Plan schedule, there should also be a land use wrap up and the other
elements wrapped up to be able to provide guidance to staff.
· It is a good compromise on No. I vs. No.2 that will extend it more, but if the General Plan has
to be prolonged, they will address that.
Ms. Wordell presented the staff report:
· Said the discussion would include housing issues, representatives are present from the Housing
Commission and Public Fine Arts Commission.
· She noted that the Housing Hot Topic would not be discussed in detail as they were discussed
at both community meetings in the Fall and also at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
January 25, 2005
· The Hot Topics document covered the economic impacts, what it would mean for some large
projects; it could be a big ticket item for some of the larger projects, but something that is
pointed out and perhaps they will point it out as welL It doesn't have to be a separate piece of
art that would cost a lot, public art can be integrated into a project, it might be things that the
project developers want to do. It is a broader way of looking at that.
· There is the issue of whether public art should be onsite or an in-lieu fee; some of the issues
about not having it onsite are it is staff intensive to administer an in-lieu program and also you
have to find appropriate sites for public art if it is not on the project site.
· The Hot Topics document presented some options; one would say to consider it instead of
develop and adopt an ordinance, so that it would not be mandatory; also the option was
discussed relative to going back to the existing General Plan policy. Another option was to
lower the square feet for considering development approvals to 50,000 square feet which
would help to capture more projects.
Hema Kundargi, Fine Arts Commission:
· Described what public art was, and how it benefits the community.
· Explained One Percent For Art and emphasized its significance in Cupertino. She said that
public art reflects the character of a place; it is the expression of a city's innovative spirit and
establishes the visual identity of the community; and is in the form of furniture, sculptures,
murals, mosaics, sidewalk treatment, special doors, unique signage, fountains or a garden. One
percent for art can be easily absolved into development projects if it is understood to be an
expense which benefits all who will enjoy its enhancement.
· Said she viewed Cupertino's implementation of percent for art as a commitment to help
celebrate and enhance its cultural, demographic and artistic diversity. Such a commitment
serves to stimulate both the public and private sectors to collaborate to recognize the city's
diverse cultural influences.
· The percent for art program is well established in many neighboring cities; it brings visual
identity and character to the city, and Cupertino needs to be competitive in every aspect to
attract businesses and residents. The character of the community may be intangible but it is
the city's most valuable asset; it needs and deserves both our protection and investment.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if the Fine Arts Commission came up with detail on the approach; many cities have
programs, but all the programs are slightly different. There are differences in which types of
projects are asked to contribute and the size of the projects before they are required to
contribute.
Ms. Kundargi:
· Said that the ordinance states a preference for projects which are 50,000 square feet or more to
have the art for their projects; therefore there is more art in the city rather than 100,000 square
feet. It did not include residential projects, nor non-profit social services and rehabilitation of
historically significant buildings.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked how they arrived at 50,000 square feet, because there are some other cities that start
below that level. Perhaps the city should look at other cities and consider a lower level,
because a 30,000 square foot building is a significant size also.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
January 25,2005
Ms. Kundargi:
· Said they thought if they tried for very small projects, it would be difficult; but if it is bigger
projects, it will make more sense for the art to go in place, and they see more possibility for
that to happen.
· Concurred about the lower square footage and will go back to the commission to discuss it
more detail and come back with more suggestions.
Com. Chen:
· Public arts projects do enhance the look of the city; said she appreciated the projects in place
last year.
· Asked for the commission's recommendation relative to onsite artwork or the in-lieu fee; or
should it be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Kundargi:
· Said the developer could make the decision. They are asking that it be incorporated into
budgets, such that it is part of a project.
· They don't emphasize to have only a sculpture; it can be very small ways, but it can make a
very distinctive appeal in the city, and that is what they are looking for.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if the Fine Arts Commission should be part of the suggestion group, and if it was
entirely up to the developers.
Ms. Kundargi:
· It is up to the developers, but the Fine Arts Commission would like to take a look and talk to
them, so we are part of the process.
Kim Smith, staff liaison to the Fine Arts Commission:
· Responded to the question, should the art be onsite or would the Fine Arts Commission
recommend acceptance of an in-lieu fee instead. She said it was the decision of the Fine Arts
Commission that an in-lieu fee is not preferable; it is better than nothing, but creates a burden
on staff.
· She said they would need to have possibly a larger percentage, since about 25% of most
percent of art projects goes to administrative overhead because of the administrative
responsibilities that go with it. It is also very time consuming and it is difficult to find city
owned property on which to put the sculpture, mural, or we may need to buy something; so
that also increases the cost.
· The Fine Arts Commission's recommendation was that the art be included on the site of the
project, not only because it is more cost effective, but also it will help to distribute the art
throughout the community as the projects develop, instead of having it centered on the city
owned parks.
Frances Seward, Housing Commission:
· The General Plan including the housing element is an important document that shapes the
future of the community, and changes to the document should be considered carefully.
· The goal of the Housing Commission is to promote affordable, attractive housing for all
income levels in Cupertino. The Commission also believes that economic and cultural
diversity in Cupertino is vital to providing a healthy, vibrant community.
· After reviewing the General Task Force recommendation for the General Plan and the
administrative draft of the General Plan, the Housing Commission urges the Planning
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
January 25, 2005
Commission to adopt an administrative plan especially as it pertains to the number of housing
units, the density and the job housing ratio.
· The Housing Commission also urges the Planning Commission to restore Policy 3-1 in the
Housing Element which designates goals for the number of housing units by income category.
The Housing Commission believes that it is important to provide housing for all income levels
and that stating these goals by income level is very important.
· It is also important to continue to encourage mixed use development especially when one of
the uses is housing along major thoroughfares. It encourages a pedestrian ftiendly
neighborhood atmosphere which is vital to Cupertino; many lower income families cannot
afford vehicles and it is important that these households have an opportunity to purchase
homes in close proximity to public transportation and commercial establishments.
· Teachers and other public service employees would benefit from the affordable housing
opportunities and it is vital that the school districts retain the teachers which make the school
district so successful.
· The Cupertino Housing Commission recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
the administrative draft of the General Plan be adopted in the following three areas: housing
density, job and housing ratios and housing unit allocations.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Mark Burns, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, and Silicon Valley Assoc. of Realtors:
· Relative to the General Plan, there is a report on national news that there is about $136 billion
in venture capital waiting for new startups, and IPOs. He said it would be a grave mistake to
take away commercial or industrial property at this time within the city of Cupertino and turn
it over to housing. Several projects are presently being considered.
· There are many places for medium density housing, more than IS units per acre and these
would help the housing imbalance discussed. Said it is known that when they get into those
densities, studies show that higher density housing in that range has a much lower impact on
the schools and the properties are also generally within the district for Cupertino High School
which probably has the most room to spare; and those things can be done rather than take
away industrial property.
· Cited the example of the Chinese Church of Christ, taking away industrial property
prematurely; they were approved for Friday night activities and Sunday morning services and
are now operating seven days a week and operating other businesses out of the premises. He
said there is not a shortage of churches and he felt a mistake was made in zoning a church in
the area where a new business could be.
· Said one percent for art on top of a project will cost a developer one percent and it is already
difficult to make a small profit. If they can't make a profit they won't come to Cupertino, or
they will use inferior designs or inferior materials. Extra surcharges will overload and kill
projects that could go through. Cupertino does not have a reputation of being the ideal city to
come to and build developments.
· Said there were other ways to enhance the fine arts in Cupertino; money has been raised for
the library, perhaps there could be other fund raisers for fine arts projects, don't hold the
developers totally responsible for providing the funds.
William Flory, Fremont Union High School District:
· Distributed a copy of a report written by the Superintendent of the school district made to the
City Council last February, showing what the growth rates are with the existing housing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
January 25, 2005
· Feels that with the addition of the 2,237 dwelling units identified in the report and current
generation rate of .27 students per household, that there will be an impact of about 603
students on the district, which will consume all the available space.
· The report shows that there is an impact fee that will mitigate that impact, and he would like
more opportunity to work with staff on that because the numbers show they collect about 1/3
of what the impacts truly are to the district.
· The statutory figure now is $2.14 a square foot as the developer fee to provide interim housing
for schools, that is split between the high school district and the elementary districts in this
community resulting in about $.65 square foot coming into the high school district, about 1/3
about what the hard construction costs are.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Summarized Mr. Flory's statement; it is suitable if development proceeds along the current
path as long as the impact fees are substantial enough to offset the negative impacts to the
district.
Mr. Flory:
· Said he had not addressed the impacts of the additional teachers, additional staff, the 150
students per campus, the traffic on the road, things of that nature.
· Said there were several issues to discuss and work through; they are not uncomfortable with
the growth in the community and the good job in planning the commnnity, but they need to
have more dialogue on what the impacts are to the schools and how it is addressed.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked is there was a recommendation on the best way to work with the school district to
ensure they are addressing the issues as they occur, as applications come up, and relative to
whether the schools will be negatively impacted.
Mr. Flory:
· Said he was presently creating a multi year capital outlay plan for the district, which looks at
growth as one of the elements.
· Also commissioning a new study to look at the generation rates for students and what is
collected as an impact fee and what should be collected; then working with the city on how to
blend the resources between the two agencies to best meet the school district's needs.
· In response to Chair Wong's question about how they arrived at collecting only one-third of
the in-lieu fees, he said that he was active on several professional levels within the state and
has an extensive background in school facilities planning. The fee was originally intended in
1987 when it was enacted to provide temporary housing or portables while the state backfilled
the hole that was being accumulated with growth with funds for new construction. It took a
long time for the state to step up to the line and be able to be in a position to address that issue.
· He said the developer fee that is charged was never intended to provide anything more than
temporary housing. In the school district's case, a portable classroom costs about $100,000 for
about 1000 square feet, $1.00 per square foot. They are collecting $.65 per square foot from
development; over the project, will generate about $2.3 million in developer fees and the cost
of housing for the same impact will be about $2.7 million and that is just portable housing.
· Said he was not certain they should inform the commnnity that their answer to growth and the
impact on the schools is to place portables on the campuses. More discussion on that issue is
needed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
January 25, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the EIR Mr. Flory referred to was sent out to the different agencies for their comments.
· Staff will continue to try to refine them before we bring the EIR to you because the purpose of
the report is to get these comments and you will receive all the comments and the responses to
them; this is the beginning of the dialogue with the school district.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
· Said he understood from this evening's comments that they need to meet the ABAG objectives
and he was responding in a negative manner to the statement. He said it was his opinion that
they needed a plan and to be flexible primarily because those numbers were taken in 1999 and
2000 and possibly staff can respond. He said he heard a rumor they were revising the ABAG
numbers, and he wanted to ensure they were flexible with the requirements since they weren't
told that in the City Council meetings; but were told they could plan, but not necessarily have
to meet them. He urged the Planning Commission to be flexible since they were now being
told they need to meet those goals now.
· Said he heard the words commercial and industrial properties for overall housing requirements
and expressed concern that once you take away the properties, they are gone forever and never
come back. They are not saying don't use mixed use, but are saying, be smart and be
controlled on how you use those properties.
· Expressed concern that he felt there was a credibility problem in that there was a General Task
Force set of hearings in July, August, September and October 2003; votes were taken, there
was a forum, and votes for the most part were set in the way, they weren't even close. The
reason for that contention, the reason for possibly the initiatives, is he felt that they are
working against a system that was set in place.
· The goals of the Planning Commission and City Council should be the same goals as the
citizens have; please hear them.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· Said that Cupertino will eventually reach 60,000, possibly 65,000. With the advent of the
development of the Valleo north and south properties, that is probably one of the last big
chunks of land in Cupertino to be transposed into a future development.
· In terms of discussing what the future of the city will be in terms of commerciaVindustrial,
residential, you have to try to keep a good mix for the city; technology has had a down time in
the last 4 to 5 years, and they anticipate it is coming back quickly.
· Said she hoped that the technology parks in Cupertino are not going to be sacrificed this year
for other uses when there is a great need for eventual use by technology when and if it does
come back. Cupertino has a very valuable resource in its technology, Hewlett Packard has had
development here, Apple was founded in Cupertino. She said Cupertino needs to remember
its technology past and future.
· There is a good mix of residential and apartment use; a lot of people forget about rentals; one
of the things that could be used is rent control in Cupertino which would allow affordable
housing.
· She urged the Planning Commission to remember that they need to have a very diverse mix of
housing, commercial and retail in the city, but eed to look forward and make sure not to
sacrifice its technology parks at this time.
· Also need to make sure to look at the future of the size of Cupertino and plan appropriately; it
is not going to be 100,000 population; it may hit 60,000 in ten years.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
January 25, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Said he wanted to discuss the revised General Plan schedule and appreciated staff's
suggestions and also Vice Chair Miller's suggestions.
· If additional meetings are needed, a study session can be added; it is important to have a land
use wrap up at the end of the third segment of the land use on February 8th, which will means
an extra meeting on February 14th to give a summary to the Planning Commission from staff
and also provide direction after this meeting.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she supported having additional meetings in study session format; and suggested
comparing the three documents referenced, with a study session dedicated to reviewing the
documents as part of clarifying what should be included in the final document recommended
to City Council.
Com. Saadati:
· Also in favor of having additional informal meetings in a location where there is room to
spread out the documents for comparison purposes.
· Also need more study sessions regarding land use before closure.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Supports holding additional meetings at a location suitable for videotaping.
· Com. Giefer's point is a good one, said he was not clear on the differences between the
alternative and the buildout numbers that the task force put together. Going over those
numbers would be helpful for everyone.
· I also think that for key areas in town that we should actually discuss those in more detail and
make sure that what we are doing there and our objectives there match the current land use
designations.
Com. Chen:
· Supports having as many study sessions necessary; and asked if they were considering a study
session above and beyond what staff already recommended.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the fIrst option for a revised schedule was to hold two extra, one land use meeting on
February 14th and March 14th for the remaining elements of circulation, public safety, and
environmental resources. Land use implies housing; hence it would be land use and housing
for February 14th and the remainder on March 14th.
A brief discussion ensued about a suitable time and date to hold a study session. It was suggested
to use the documents including the marked up copy, strike through copy from the task force, which
has the original language and the replacement language in one place, the General Plan, the task
force draft and the minority report; as well as the Hot Topics, and review section by section to
come up with language all are comfortable with, to recommend to the City Council.
Chair Wong:
· Said it was a good idea and he concurred.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to explain the city's requirements relative to ABAG, what are those numbers and
where from staff s perspective should they be headed on that particular issue.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
January 25, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:;
· Said Mr. Whitaker was correct, that the State Department of Housing Community
Development who reviews the housing element and the housing element requirements,
stipulates that the city is required to identify adequate sites for X number of units.
· The city is not in the business of building housing, other than assisting with several affordable
housing projects, they do not build market rate housing, but rely on the market place. The city
is only required to identify adequate sites and they have done that well.
· Staff encourages the Planning Commission to think of it in those terms and also think of it as
achieving commnnity objectives such as encouraging commercial in some cases or providing
the right type ofland use in the right locations; there are some mismatched designations in the
community.
· So far the General Plan is flexible in terms of allowing a mixture of uses and the market can
come in and make a suggestion about what the market thinks is currently the highest and best
use. The Planning Commission needs to think about for the long term what is the highest and
best use, and staff can help guide the Commission through that process. Some of Vice Chair
Miller's suggestions about site specific or area specific are a healthy exercise to go through,
and the study sessions will help reach that end.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Clarified they need to identify the sites, but in identifying the sites in effect they are saying to a
property owner or developer that ifthey come in with a project that does housing in that
particular area, the city is obligated to go ahead and approve that project.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If it is a high quality project that meets all of the other objectives of the city, there would be a
commitment on the part of the city, because it is indicated as one of the permissible land uses.
· There is a lot of flexibility and there is an opportnnity for the city to not just be as generic as in
the past, they can sculpt the land uses to meet the objectives and needs of the city and they
need to be protective of that and do well.
· He said ABAG would publish their next numbers in the near future as the current ones expire
in 2006; statewide the due dates for the updates to the housing elements vary from the
southern cities to the northern cities. It will likely be 2007 or 2008.
Com. Giefer:
· That was one particular point with the task force because our current ABAG numbers were
created at the top of the dot com boom and there was ill will from the task force that we were
having to live today with numbers that all of us knew didn't make sense because we have lost
a million jobs in the Bay Area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is almost an academic discussion because the numbers are inadequate in terms of meeting
the housing needs; it is irrelevant whether ABAG's numbers, they under-estimated if anything;
even with the dot com implosion we still have many more job opportunities, and some people
would like to reserve the opportunity for those jobs to backfill those vacant sites and that is
what ABAG looks at.
Com. Saadati:
· It would be ideal to have the summary of what is vacant in the city offices and how to go about
encouraging commercia] development; in the past sites have been left vacant for commercial
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
January 25, 2005
development; is it the right decision to deny housing projects and leave the site vacant for 20
years? That practice needs to be addressed.
Chair Wong:
· Said they were discussing the housing element tonight and have the North DeAnza area,
Apple, Val1co south, Valleo north, and those numbers which were done in 2003.
· Asked staff to come back and discuss how they want to reallocate them and why, since it
makes sense that in some areas it should be denser vs. where industrial area should remain
industrial.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said those numbers are included in the new option in the Hot Topics document where they
have compared all the different options and proposed a new option trying to address some of
the task force concerns but address other concerns as well.
Discussion ensued regarding the availability of meeting room for the study sessions. Ms. Wordell
indicated that the community hall was not available on February 14th. She said she would contact
the commissioners individually to set a meeting date.
Chair Wong thanked the public, Fine Arts Commission and Housing Commission for their
participation.
3.
TM-2004-05, U-2004-06,
ASA-2004-09 (EA-2004-08)
Wayne Aozasa (CA Water
Service), Greenleaf Drive
Tentative Map to subdivide a .95-acre parcel into four
lots ranging from approximately 6,430 square feet to
8880 square feet, plus a remainder lot of 11,500 square
feet. Use Permit for 4 two-story single-family, two-story
residences in a planned development. Architectural and
site approval for 4 single-family, two-story residences in a
planned development.
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a Tentative Map to subdivide a .951 acre parcel into 4 parcels ranging from
approximately 7,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet, plus a remaining lot of II ,500 square
feet.
· The ASA and Use Permit Applications are not being considered as part of this approval as the
applicant has decided to proceed with the Tentative Map approval first.
· The project is approvable at the Planning Commission level.
· He reviewed the site analysis, private road, California Water Service remainder parcel, tree
removal, as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Tentative Map application in
accordance with the model resolution.
Noted that the title of the resolution should be amended to read "the Planning Commission is
approving the Tentative Map application."
Vice Chair Miller:
· Noted that there were two unattractive structures on the water company land and questioned if
the streetscape would be enhanced when the view is open to the public.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
January 25, 2005
Mr. Chao:
· That is why staff is suggesting some landscaping strip along the wrought iron fence along the
private drive, to screen the use ofthe pump areas. The applicant will plant shrubbery and
landscaping in the fIrst 25 feet of the property.
· There is a condition that requires the water service company to clean up their existing lot.
They are encouraged to plant more shrubbery to cover the pump station if desired by the
commission; it can be made a condition of the project.
· Lot 4 is actually a lot, but it is a lot to be designated as a private cui de sac; it will be
maintained and incorporated into the CC&Rs of the project ofthe HOA.
Com. Giefer:
· Questioned ifthe pavers were ADA compliant.
· Asked what appeared to be either a capped off well or a water storage well underground.
· Questioned the contradiction in the staff report, Page 3-3 and the resolution Page 3-6 regarding
tree preservation.
· Disclosed that the developer was present when she was on the site.
Mr. Chao:
· Said the Building Department would look at the pavers when the project comes in for a permit.
Not necessary to be stipulated in the model resolution.
· Said the experts from California Water would address questions about the equipment.
· Relative to the language in the model resolution and the staff report about the trees, said the
intent of the conditions so that tree Nos. 7, 56-58,71 could be removed at the discretion of the
property owner in the future because they are not specimen trees. Any other trees shown on
the map to be preserved aside from the specific numbers are to be recorded as covenant on the
property to be maintained and preserved.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked who would maintain all the landscaping around the iron fence and the front.
Mr. Chao:
· The HOA for the project will maintain the landscaping under the CC&Rs. Staff recommends
that the landscaping area in front of the water company site be made part of the HOA so that
they can maintain and upkeep the area. It will be confirmed with the applicant tonight.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to the building envelope I, 2 and 3, especially No.3, asked what the size of it was;
and stated that Lot 3 looks narrow.
· Said the applicant can address that when subdividing this lot in the future as the city grows.
Will there be enough capability or capacity for a city; do they need the extra space?
Mr. Chao:
· Don't know the specific square footage ofthe actual buildable envelope; the lines being called
out on the site plan shows that it conforms to setback standards; applicant can address that.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Disclosed that the applicant was present on the site when he visited it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
January 25, 2DDS
Wayne Aozasa, agent for the developer:
· Application was a 4 lot subdivision, and through working with the Planning Department
resolved it to a three lot subdivision; the 4th lot is the road which makes it a totalS lot
subdivision with the water company lot being the remainder site.
· Relative to the building envelopes, we have had some elevations and some architectural
drawings done, and the cui de sac and the wrap around and the Water Company dimensions
got jostled around a little, so that we wanted to get the subdivision done fIrst and then come in
with the homes after the subdivision was accomplished.
· Relative to the landscaping maintenance in the front area, the Water Company has provisions
to maintain their own site and I believe the Water Company has a lot of sites in the area that
are in the middle of residential districts and there is a provision that they maintain their own
sites and have a front yard provision or policy to maintain their properties.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked what the large concrete object was in the center?
· What type of station is it, is it a pumping station or a drinking water pump.
· As part of the Homeland Security Act, asked if they were required to harden this particular
pumping station or their drinking water storage tanks. Expressed concern that additional
security measures may have to be installed in the future.
· Introduced Ron Richardson, California Water Service Company and Shawn Hefner, California
Water Service Company:
Mr. Ron Richardson, California Water Service Company:
· Said the object was a cement foundation for a water storage and aeration tank.
· Stated that the station was a well station that pumps directly into their distribution system for
drinking water for the residents of Cupertino.
· At this time there are no specific plans to increase the security of the site. The site currently
has two locked fences.
Chair Wong:
· Asked if, expanding to this area as the city grows, did they need to expand on this particular
site.
Mr. Richardson:
· Said it was a question for the water company, but said they do not intend to expand other than
the lots they are subdividing. He said he assumed that the aquifers and the wells at which they
are drawing the water from have the capacity to do so. He said he could not assess the future
needs, but noted there were large pipes underneath there and that is the main service for the
city of Cupertino.
· He said he shared the concerns about the security systems for the water supply for the city of
Cupertino. They are attempting to enforce the non-pedestrian or non-entrance no trespassing
type of environment for the water company and the water company has a public conscience to
deliver and keep the water supply safe for the city of Cupertino.
Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern that as the city grows or the metro area grows, this will be three lots they
will lose.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
January 25, 2005
Mr. Richardson:
· Said they had the capability if the subdivision would be approved to be able to improve or
introduce additional facilities at that site which could potentially allow them to drill an
additional well once the life span of the current well has been exceeded. They would also
. potentially be able to add facilities that would enable them to boost the disinfection of their
water supply in that area as well.
· Despite the potential for the subdivision and not having the entire amount of land, they would
still have the opportunity to make improvements to the property.
· In Cupertino they currently have three wells that provide water to the residents of Cupertino
along with one interconnection with the wholesaler Santa Clara Valley Water District.
· There is also one well at the Greenleaflocation.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if there is any danger of contamination of the aquifer from the construction of homes in
that area; and how deep is the aquifer.
· Asked if there had been any incidents of that at past sites where similar developments were
done, of a leak in one of the sewer lines or something similar that contaminates the area and
then the well.
Mr. Richardson:
· Said he did not perceive the possibility of any contamination as a result of the building of
homes in areas that are immediately adjacent to their wells.
· Said he did not recall any incidents of that nature around new developments, and said the
aquifers in the area are typically quite deep.
Mr. Aozasa:
· The water company plans over a hundred year period of time.
· The aquifer is likely hundreds of feet deep.
· Said the turf block or interlocking pavement to be situated at either end of the driveways or on
the cui de sac, is an alternative and not a prescription. He said he wa~ unable to fmd other cui
de sacs that were subdivided or made with an interlocking paving or turf block paving
sequence.
· Said he wanted to ensure that the Commission was aware that in the findings for an
interlocking pavement or turf block pavement application, it was an alternative to be looked
up for drainage not a prescription for them; they would like to amend that finding for the
interlocking pavement and also either delete or amend the condition of approval on that
interlocking pavement sequence..
David Lee:
· Canvassed the neighbors; many had no objections to the project; two neighbors objected, one
had tree issues and didn't want the trees cut down. They are cooperating with the city and will
work with the arborist; the area requires a lot of landscaping, especially trees. The back and
side of the lots abut the commercial real estate and side of the lot which is an area that cries
out for landscaping. He said they will not back away from the needs of the community.
· Talked to a neighbor residing across from the lot; desired some trees up front, and will make
provisions for trees as well.
· Third neighbor expressed concern; resides across the street from the lot, tentative map shows
the private street, opening of the private street faces their front door directly and they are
practitioners offung shui. He said he arrived at three concepts, none of which are mutually
exclusive; his desire is to help mitigate the impact of the private street to their home.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
January 25, 2005
Discussed possible mitigation. The first possibility is to move the street over to the east by five
feet which puts the mid-section of the street facing directly into the side yard. The second
possibility is to reduce the opening of the private street to twenty feet, but keeping the street
inside at 28 feet. It narrows the opening and should not cause a safety issue, 20 feet is the
typical opening of the driveway. If the opening is narrowed to 20 feet, they can reduce the
exposure of that opening facing their home and also maintain the 28 feet width of that street in
the cui de sac area.
· He said he offered to bear the cost oflandscaping needs at the front of the Wong's home,
planting and developing a hedge so that it would obscure the street ÍÌ"om their perspective and
would satisfy some of the blockage of the fung shui.
· He said he felt the proposed mitigation and offer to pay for the landscaping would address the
fung shui concerns.
· No matter when you put the street, it is going to offend somebody.
· Said it would be built into the CC&Rs that the HOA would maintain the landscaping around
the Water Company perimeter.
· Said the water company would maintain the area around the wrought iron fence, such as debris
collecting under the wrought iron fence.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern about rubbish collecting in the area of the fence in a residential area.
Mr. Chao:
· To address the Planning Commission's concern about maintenance of the ÍÌ"ont area of the
water company's property and the existing water pump station property, staff suggests that a
condition be placed requiring, prior to final recordation of the map, that a maintenance plan or
program be submitted to staff for review and approval.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Cathy Helgren, Greenleaf Drive:
· Read the letter she submitted to the Planning Commission expressing her concerns about
safety issues relative to possible contamination because ofleaks in the sewer pipes on the
water company property, causing health dangers to the nearby residents.
· Also mentioned were concerns about the loss oftrees, impacting the view and beauty of the
property; and diminishing property values on some adjacent homes because of the impact of
the two story homes on the existing homes.
· Opposed to the project.
Lei Wong, Greenleaf Drive:
· Opposed to the proj ect.
· Expressed concem also about the possible contamination of the wells.
· Illustrated photos which showed various views ÍÌ"om his property and the impact the project
would have on his home and privacy.
· Recommended that the Planning Commission reconsider the location of the proposed street
because of the impacts it would have on his property.
· Said that the applicant's offer to pay for the landscaping to screen the front door was
acceptable, and narrowing the street to 20 feet rather than 28 feet was appropriate.
Deborah Hill:
· Opposed to the proposed project and the removal of the trees.
Cupertino Planning Commi.~~ion
l&
!al\\lar)' 25, 2005
· Said many of the neighbors are opposed to the project.
Lynn Carter, Greenleaf Drive:
· Resides directly across from the water company.
· Expressed concern about the wrought iron fence, and suggested a more appropriate fence with
landscaping in front of the water company property.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Clarified that the house behind the pumping station would not be visible because there would
be a six foot wooden fence on the other side of the property.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chao:
· Addressed the contamination issue; said the water district has specific standards relative to the
distance a fence, foundation or roadway can be from their piping system or underground pipes.
· Said as part of the project, a condition can be placed that prior to final map recordation, all the
utility companies review the project to ensure the placement of any new sewer system, or that
any underground facilities will not be too close to the water company's site or their equipment.
· Relative to alignment of the street to Mr. Wong's house, by reducing the width of the road, the
Fire Department has to be involved again, since 28 feet is the minimum standard width for a
cui de sac for single family homes.
· Staff felt the pavers were an important element of the project, especially since they are
removing a large number of trees; visually it offers a relief from the asphalt or concrete. It
also may offer Mr. Wong some visual relief.
· Staff may suggest the road be shifted by 5 feet, since it would not change much of the project.
It could be considered as a condition and work with the applicant to shift the road 5 feet to the
east of the project.
· The wrought iron fence provides a pleasing view to the trees on the water company property
and is more appealing than a wooden fence. Staff is encouraging the water company to plant
trees in !font of their front yard.
Com. Saadati:
· Relative to the driveway, suggested narrowing the !font portion to 20 feet; fire trucks can still
get through; their main concern is to be able to turn around. By narrowing the !font portion up
to the landscaping area, additional trees could be planted on the other side to maintain some
greenery.
· The applicant also agreed to plant additional trees along the side which would keep the area
green and satisfy the concems of the neighbors.
· Relative to potential contamination, he said the project would not have a negative impact
because the water table is so low and the aquifer is a few acres in area.
· In favor of the project, with the conditions set forth, including narrowing the road with more
trees; and planting additional trees next to the adjacent neighbors to address their concerns.
· Suggested planting shrubs against the wrought iron fence would improve the appearance and
prevent debris from flowing inside the fence and be visible.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern that narrowing the opening to 20 feet, and moving it 5 feet to the right,
would remedy some of the residents' concerns; however, by doing so, it reduces the size of lot
one.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
January 25, 2005
· Said she would prefer to continue the application, until it is understood what the impacts are of
narrowing the driveway and shifting it to the right, so that it is not a problem for the neighbors
across the street; since both the measures are necessary.
· She said if a vote was taken, she was in favor of the pavers provided they do not create an
ADA problem, and any trees retained be recorded in the CC&Rs so future owners could not
cut them down. One of the primary concerns heard is the green screen currently present, and
tree removal.
Mr. Chao:
· Said it would reduce it by 500 square feet if the opening was shifted 5 feet.
Com. Chen:
· Said she would like the neighbors' issues to be addressed before a final decision is made.
· Suggested that a condition be added that the water company be part of the plan review process
to ensure that every tree planted and all construction work done would not impact the water
lines or pump station on the security side, and impact the water quality side.
· Include a condition that the water company clean up the site and maintain the site.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Concurred that the water company should sign off on all plans prior to installing sewer lines.
· . He noted that the water company pointed out that the aquifer is a substantial distance below
the surface which also minimizes the potential for contamination.
· The issue across the street is a real financial issue because as the resident said, the fung shui
does impact the value of the property, and it an important issue that needs to be addressed. On
the one hand, the 5 foot move-over may have worked; that impacts the owner of the property,
reducing what he can develop. It also creates the problem that it is a Rl 7,000 zone; that
particular lot would be below the zoning level and you would have to shift the boundary lines
between the lots.
· Another possible solution is narrowing it to 20 feet at the opening; 20 feet is the minimum
requirement for the fire department and if it widened up after that, it may be a reasonable
solution.
· Another possibility is shifting the road to the left and meandering it back. It may make it worse
from a fung shui standpoint.
· Another possibility, at the opening, the applicant suggested that he could block the neighbor's
front door with landscaping, but another alternative may be to block part of the opening with
landscaping; and the neighbor would not be impacted.
· Said there were solutions available; he preferred to work at the staff level.
· Com. Saadati's suggestion of more shrubbery would solve the problem of seeing through to
the property. The wrought iron fence does make a better presentation as long as the lot is not
open to a visual eyesore.
· A property owner does have the right to develop his own property; it is not reasonable that the
city not allow the property owner to do that so that neighboring residents can have the benefit
of looking over the fence to attractive trees.
· The pavers enhance the street and the view into the property, and are important in terms of
mitigating runoff of groundwater and the potential for doing that.
· In favor of the project if the issues can be mitigated.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
January 25, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the neighbors for attending the meeting; the applicant worked hard to address their
concerns.
· Said he concurred with fellow commissioners, and supports moving the road 5 feet to the east,
narrow it at 20 feet and open up at 28 feet; staff recommendations on the review checks of
utilities; ensure that vegetation is planted in ftont of the wrought iron fence.
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM-2004-05, including the
condition entitled Retained Parcel Maintenance, stating that the applicant shall
record a covenant and deed restriction running with the land obligating existing
and future property owners to maintain the retained water company parcel and
fencing free of debris and graffiti. Additionally, landscape materials and existing
retained trees shall be professionally maintained in a healthy, trimmed condition.
The property owner shall retain a property maintenance service to visit the site
on at least a monthly basis to ensure compliance with this condition. Said
covenant and deed restrictions shall name the city and the adjacent three new
homes as third party beneficiaries and shall include some surety or other
guarantees subject to the review and approval of the city attorney. Also include
narrowing the street in front to 20 feet, and moving it over 5 feet; and include
wording that the water company sign off on all plans for sewer lines.
Second: Vice Chair Miller (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Chen abstained)
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
4.
Z-2004-03, TM-2004-11,
U-2004-09, ASA-2004-12
(EA-2004-1O) Greg Pinn
(Oak Park Village) 10745
No. DeAnza Blvd.
(former Santa Barbara
Grill)
Rezoning of a 1.37 acre parcel from P (CG, ML,
Res. 4-10) to P(CG, ML, Res 35). Tentative Map to
create 46 residential condominiums. Use Pennit to
demolish a vacant restaurant building and construct
46 residential units. Architectural and site approval for
46 residential units. Tentative City Council date:
February 1. 2005
Mr. Chao
· Clarified that the tentative City Council hearing date is February 15, 2005; and the proposal is
for 46 residential nnits, not 45.
Mr. Chao presented the staff report:
· Application is for a use permit to demolish the former Santa Barbara Grill and construct a 46
unit condominium building on a podium garage.
· A tentative map and architectural site approval is also requested to allow for the 46 units.
· Applicant is also rezoning the property to be consistent with the General Plan in terms of
allowable density up to 35 dwelling units per gross acre.
· Reviewed the following, as set forth in the attached staff report: Project description, General
Plan and zoning, North DeAnza Conceptual Plan, Architectural Design, Median
Improvements, Traffic Analysis, and Parking.
Christy Ann Choy, Fehr & Peers Associates:
· Reviewed the Trip Generation Analysis conducted, based on the trip rates from the Institute of
Transportation (IT), resulting in the determination that the trip generation for the residential
project would be 270 new daily trips, 20 a.m. peak hour trips, and 24 p.m. peak hour trips. The
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
January 25, 2005
proposed condominiums are not expected to significantly affect operations at any of the
intersections on Valley Green Drive or DeAnza Boulevard.
Mr. Chao:
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following: Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Use Permit application, Tentative Map application, ASA application,
and the rezoning application.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to review the history of why the particular property was zoned 4-10 residential
instead of 35.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was a cleanup problem when the housing element was redone in 200 I; at that time they
put the densities in for the different areas and did not go back through the zoning map and
make everything conform.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that when the North DeAnza Boulevard Plan was adopted in the late 70s, the 10 units
to the acre maximum was put on the property. In subsequent amendments to the Plan when
they allowed the greater densities, they did not go back and change the zoning, anticipating
that as projects came in, they would need to do it on an applicant-by-applicant basis, and it was
not done comprehensively.
· He said that 10 units is consistent with the zoning; and the applicant's request is consistent
with the General Plan.
Vice Chair Miller:
· He said one part of the application led him to believe that the reason for the lower zoning was
an incentive to encourage commercial, staff is asking the applicant to do an in-lieu fee. He
asked staff to address the issue.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was an issue raised by the General Plan Task Force, and discussed earlier when talking
about non-retail uses replacing retail uses in the commnnity, and shouldn't they preserve every
retail site possible just in case the market may want to respond and reopen a restaurant or build
a hotel on this site.
· As also discussed, there are numerous sites in the commnnity that have remained dark for 5
years and in this case turned into an attractive nuisance, and it is not necessarily the best city
policy to sit back and wait for however long it might be and hope that retail is actually viable.
· The applicant was required to retain Randall Mackey with the retail real estate group to
evaluate the retail feasibility of the other site he is proposing to develop in the community,
which is the former Adobe Lounge property, which has been vacant for a long time. They
indicated that while the Adobe Lounge property he believes has viability for retail, this site
does not because of the lack of access.
· He suggested to the Planning Commission when evaluating the question of non-retail
replacing retail, two issues should be considered: (1) Critical mass; does the site contribute to
the critical mass of a retail environment. (2) The revenues to the city.
· Said they are projecting the reasonable period for paying in-lieu fees is 20 years.
· Said that if a hotel was being proposed for the site, they would prefer a hotel on the site; even
though it generates more traffic, it is a solid revenue source for the city, and could fimction as
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
January 25, 2005
a gateway building. The city's plan allows alternate uses. If the city does not want to allow
this, they need to be clear in the Plan; options should not be allowed if they are not going to be
honored once they meet all the community objectives.
· Many options for the site have been considered, including a mixed use project.
· He said BJ s has been successful because of the close proximity to Apple Computer employees
and access off DeAnza Boulevard, and it is highly visible; whereas the present site is not
accessible to customers.
· The present site is doomed to businesses moving in and then out, and marginal retail if
insistent that it be a retail site.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if within the North DeAnza Conceptual Plan region, where there other sites that could
utilize some of the residential units.
· Asked staff to clarify the fiscal impacts.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the sites next to the apartment complexes near a recently approved church and also
where the temporary library was located could be potential sites.
· The suggestion is for a development agreement to backfill the potential opportnnity for retail
in this location. A 20 year upfront payment would then give the city the option of either
banking it, or collecting interest on it, whatever option the City Council may chose.
· Apple has no intention on putting residential on their site and no one wants to force that on
them.
Mr. Chao:
· Answered questions from commissioners.
· Said the potential highway noise was addressed in the Plan; noise analyses were performed
and the results are attached to the staff report.
· One of the main issues analyzed was the traffic noise on the exterior and interior of the units
and it was determined that as long as they maintained certain sound transmission ratings
throughout the project, the sound noise would be under the requirements of the building code.
· Said the units were 'for sale' units; and below market rate homes are included.
· Ordinance requires 2 parking zones for each condo unit; no requirements for guest parking.
· Applicant is proposing 103 parking stalls; the ordinance requires 92. Fifteen of the surface
spaces could be allocated for guest parking; there is overflow parking in the area for extra
guests.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that in the 2 to 1 ratio, it is anticipated that guest parking is being provided; there are 10
or II more spaces than are the minimum required by the ordinance. There are a number of
one bedroom units that may only have one car.
· If the applicant desired, they could put in a covenant deed restriction limiting the number of
vehicles people could bring to the site.
Chair Wong:
· Referred to a school district map and asked why the project would feed into Homestead High
School.
· Asked staff to address the funding to the high school district.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
January 25, 2005
Mr. Chao:
· Said the information was received from the high school district; and because Monta Vista was
full, it was not uncommon to route the students in the new project to another school. This
particular project is also more convenient to Homestead High School.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was difficult to address the issue of the funding to the high school district on this
particular project. He said he felt they were over-estimating the number of high school
students coming from the development based on actuals in the field project.
· For the General Plan they will need to have examples of what comes out of the projects and
they need to have a sliding scale so that the developer is not penalized with an average rate
coming from predominantly single family neighborhoods.
· Mixed use or lower density environment is not suitable for the site.
Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers:
· Said the development would create the least amount of impact to the traffic than a restaurant or
hotel would.
· Felt the units would be sold to young executives, empty nesters, single people.
· The project has easy access to the freeways for those who work in other cities.
· Pre-existing conditions exist relative to cut through traffic, stop signs and needed traffic lights;
and the applicant will work to mitigate where possible.
Chip Pearson, Dahlin Group Architects:
· Reviewed the site plan and the architectural imagery from the surrounding area.
· Illustrated the various floor plans and elevations of the units.
· Answered commissioners' questions about the architectural design of the units.
· Illustrated the location of the trash enclosure.
· Said the price range at today's price range would be $380K to $680K, although the units
would not be for sale for another two years.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Joe S. Barraza, Acadia Court:
· Expressed concern about the present traffic situation on Valley Green Drive, and cars exiting
from the Outback Restaurant and the gas station.
· Recommended that the present traffic problems be addressed before building the new project.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· Reviewed the history of the previous restaurants at the site.
· Primary reason for the failure of the businesses was location of signage, and non-access to the
site.
· Recommended that the height and density of the proposed project be reduced.
· Said the site was in an industrial center, and the site is ideal for a business site. Expressed
concern that once it is broken up for residential, other vacant areas will be filled with
residential, and there will be decrease in getting businesses to come into Cupertino.
· There are no parks in the area for residents.
· On a positive note, it serves lower cost housing because of the type of units available.
· Recommended less three bedroom units and more studio and one bedroom units.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
January 25, 2005
· Expressed concern about allowing changes in Cupertino especially in the areas designated that
way to become something different than they were. Once you get rid of commercial areas,
there will be no place for businesses.
Joseph Cena, Greenleaf Drive:
· Thanked staff for holding the recent neighborhood meeting.
· Supports the project rather than the previous proposed hotel.
· Expressed concern about the traffic in the area presently and the safety factor.
· Said that suggestions for traffic mitigation were considered at the neighborhood meeting; such
as moving it down to one of the Apple access roads, and have the traffic unload further down
Valley Green toward the Bandley Street area.
· Net Manage Building is currently vacant and the traffic was not considered in the studies
conducted, or the conditions in that particular area now. Once the building is occupied, there
will not be overflow for the project.
Deborah Hill, resident:
· Supports the residential project rather than a hotel.
· Fills a housing need in Cupertino.
· May have traffic impacts.
Tom Huganin, La Roda Court:
· Expressed concern about the height and density of the project.
· Questioned if it was the right project for the time; as there will be an issue on the November
ballot relative to the style of development; heavy density and height.
· Noted that there was a Metro PCS tower close to the project that does not have an RFR study.
· Suggested moving the antenna to the top of the building with Metro PCS permission.
· Questioned how many young couples will move into the nnits and have children later. Studies
do not address the issue and more children may result in the project.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chao:
· Noted that Garden Gate was presently at capacity, but Lausen Middle School will take a
portion of Garden Gate's sixth graders starting next year, which will ÍÌ"ee up some open slots
for elementary students. If not, they will be publicly bused to Nimitz if it is over capacity.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to the location of the Metro PCS tower close to the project, he said staff has no
jurisdiction over it because they met the federal standards.
· Relative to shared parking between the residential units and Net Manage in the evening hours,
said that the applicant could work with Net Manage on an agreement on a voluntary basis, but
staff had no control to require them to cooperate.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he originally felt they may be jumping the gun as they were in the middle of the review of
the General Plan with different opinions on the density of development or if it should have
residential.
· Said he felt initially they should postpone discussion until further along in the General Plan
evaluation in terms of the specific need to rezone the property.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
January 25, 2005
· On the positive side it represents an opportunity to generate more affordable housing in the
city because of its close proximity to the highway and the noise impacts.
· Traffic needs to be addressed in more detail for the safety factor.
· The building is of high quality design and works well as a gateway building; the applicant has
worked hard to fit it into the neighborhood.
· Relative to alternative uses, since a restaurant or retail will not work well in that location, the
only choices are a housing project, hotel project or an office project. The project provides the
opportunity to add affordable housing in the city which is a major goal of the city.
Com. Chen:
· Said she welcomed the project as it provided an opportunity to develop a lot that has been idle
for some time.
· Some General Plan related issues that need to be addressed include the student ratio, the unit
allocation of 150 for the large area and how much should be allocated to this area if this area
takes 35% of the total units allowed; what is the impact to other potential lots not considered
and studied.
· It is a good opportnnity to add more affordable housing in the area.
· In the General Plan community meetings, the need to address senior citizens and single small
families was discussed. Should more smaller nnits be built in the area to address those needs?
· It is a great opportunity with potential of the lot, but since they are so close to the General Plan
process to address some of the land use issues, she said she was not comfortable supporting the
project at this time.
Com. Giefer:
· Said there were many things right about the project; she complimented the architect on the
design, and the time and effort in creating a landmark building for the city.
· The need for affordable housing is key in the city and the project addresses the need.
· It is not good common sense to put housing on a major freeway regardless of the noise
mitigation created.
· Said she could not support the project as it was rezoning and putting housing along the
freeway. It is a significant portion of the housing allocation; if it were another structure such
as the Any Mountain site on Highway 9, she would support the type of project at that site or
other places.
Com. Saadati:
· With the high tech industry, many people are working out of their home offices.
· Said he liked the project as it had a diversity of affordable units.
· It is difficult to visualize another development in that location such as a restaurant because of
the location and access.
· Relative to traffic, Public Works can evaluate and mitigate some of the issues raised.
· The building height is comparable to the adjacent properties.
· Can visualize many people working in the adjacent offices living in the units and patronizing
the local restaurants.
· Supports the project.
Chair Wong:
· Commented that the Pinn Brothers had successful projects in the city; he commended them on
the Adobe Lounge project.
· All of the commissioners support housing, but in this particular area it is surrounded by
industrial area and a freeway.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
January 25, 2005
· Said he did not feel comfortable putting a residential project in the location. Said he would be
open to it if it was lower to the zoning of ten units.
· He concurred that the architectural design was attractive but in the wrong location.
· Does not support the project.
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
5.
Motion by Com. Saadati, to approve EA-2004-10 per tbe conditions stated.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion by Com. Cben, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application
EA-2004-10. (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com.
Saadati No; Com. Miller Abstain).
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny Application
Z-2004-03. (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com. Saadati
No; Com. Miller Abstain)
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application
TM-2004-01. (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com.
Saadati No; Com. Miller Abstain)
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny the Use Permit.
(Vote: 3-1-1; Coms. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com. Saadati No; Com.
Miller Abstain)
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny Application
ASA-2004-12 (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com.
Saadati No; Com. Miller Abstain)
1l-2004-18, TR-2004-07
EXC-2004-01,
V-2004-03, Greg
Richmond, 10495
Scenic Boulevard.
Residential Design Review of a new two-story
residence with RI exceptions for reduced front
setback, second story area exceeding 35% of the first
story, a second-story wall without the required
offsets and a second-story deck exception. Tree removal
Permit to remove one 24-inch diameter specimen oak
tree. Parking exception to allow one driveway apron stall
that is less than 20 feet in length on a single-family
residential property. Variance for a second-story deck
with a side setback less than 15 feet. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Said the constraints on the site were the topography and a mature oak tree.
· He reviewed the application as set forth in the staff report.
· Illustrated the site plan and noted the tree proposed for removal; the location of the second
story deck and the area of the parking exception.
· Applicant is also asking for an exception for a second story that is 45% of the first-story area.
Staff feels the applicant has made many improvements in the design and the detailing that
should help reduce the mass and bulk of the second story.
· Wood siding would be more consistent with the neighborhood; however, in talking with the
applicant, there may be other options to add some detailing to reduce the mass of the second
story without having to use wood siding.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
January 25, 2005
· Staff is recommending changing the condition calling for siding to a condition calling for
additional detailing and materials to be agreed upon by staff and the applicant at the building
permit stage.
· To address Com. Giefer's concern that the adjacent site on city property could possibly end up
being where the Stevens Creek Trail is; in the event the property is sold at a later date before
the trail is put in, it was suggested to put a covenant on the site to inform future property
owners that the adjacent site is city property and could be the location of the trail. The
applicant has no objection to that.
· Staff supports the entire project, but recommends the variance be denied; with the added
condition about the covenant and a change to the condition relative to the siding, that staff and
the applicant will work out additional details prior to the building permit.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that she would be concerned about putting a pool under the drip line of an oak tree,
because extensive cuts to the root system would be made even though it is elevated.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· In response to Chair Wong's question about the variance in the back, she explained the
difference between variances and exceptions.
· In a variance, exceptional circumstances must be shown; three findings have to be made before
granting the variance: (I) That there is an exceptional circumstance; (2) Without the variance,
the property owner cannot get the full use and enjoyment of the property, which likely could
not be found either; (3) That the project isn't injurious to the surrounding properties, which in
this case likely would not be. If there is an exceptional circumstance here, the property owner
might point it out.
Chair Wong:
· How many feet smaller, or what does he need to do to get what he wants?
Mr. Gilli:
· Approximately three feet.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Provided an example ofthe textbook condition that usually qualifies for a variance; if there
was a large rock out cropping on the property and he could not locate or build the house unless
he was granted a variance ITom the setback rules. It is a substantial property right to be able to
utilize the property in a reasonable fashion. A deck is rarely considered a substantial property
right.
Greg Richmond, Applicant:
· Addressed the setback; stating that staff covered the reasons why they designed the house at its
current location.
· The distance ITom the garage to the curb on the exception stall which is 17 feet instead of 20;
adding the 17 and 14, the minimum distance is 31, but the average to the garage door is 34.
· A quick check of some of the houses indicated that the houses across the street was 34, on the
corner is 32, and three in sequence down Scenic Circle is 34, 32 and 31.
· With regard to the second story deck variance, it has been discussed that it is at the back of the
house; is there a reason to require it to be there where we wouldn't be able to have an activity
that we feel is mandatory. Said he moved the house to the left to try to stay away ITom the
smaller oak tree; they wanted a small deck at that location since it is a private deck off the
Cupertino Planning Corrurussion
28
January 25, 2005
master bedroom; the remainder of the deck is common to the back yard and other doors exiting
onto the deck.
· Regarding the stucco vs. the siding, he said he could add details in stucco and still make sure
the house does not look out of place in the neighborhood.
· At the time the neighbor's house went through design review, they were concerned about
parking on Scenic Boulevard because there was a curve there; they agreed that No Parking
signs should be put there during construction for the safety of the neighborhood.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Com. Chen:
· Said it was a straightforward project and she supported all the major elements.
· Supported the variance.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Said the applicant did a goodjob on the design; 45% on the second story is in line with the
change in the ordinance. Noted that it allowed him to have a smaller first story,
· No reason to require wood siding; stucco is not inconsistent with the neighborhood.
· If there is a way to grant the exception the deck, he said he was inclined to do that; because it
is not impacting anyone and allows the applicant to enjoy his property more.
· If there is a way to grant the variance, he supports it.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if after the second reading of the RI ordinance at the next Council meeting, would the
deck ordinance be part of the RI as opposed to the accessory structure.
· Seeing that the 45% second story is also part of that future approval of Rl, could part of the
exceptional finding be that it is a mute point after about one week, and it would not require a
variance next week. Therefore he could be granted four feet this week.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said the deck ordinance would be part ofthe Rl.
· Said the applicant is doing everything possible to get on file before the new ordinance takes
effect because there are other aspects of the revised ordinance that will affect him in a negative
manner.
· Said that the applicant was informed that if he did not get the variance at this time, as he is
working on the building and doing the construction, he can come in for an exception after
March I" which will go to the Design Review Committee. Staff has no concern with the
distance, it is a matter that it is a variance.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked the attorney if they could make the case in their findings that it is an exceptional
circumstance, because they know the law is changing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the exceptional circumstances were not the biggest problem with the variance findings;
but the substantial property right aspect of it. To cut three feet of a deck is not a substantial
property right on anyone's definition. That is where the precedent is set with a baseless
substantial property right based on wanting three feet extra.
· The applicant does have an option.
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
January 25, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· Said she supported staffs position with the change in verbiage regarding the horizontal siding.
She said she was confident that the applicant and staff could work on a mutually agreeable
façade.
· Recommended that the covenant be added relating to the trail access, so that it is recorded as
part of the property and it will move forward with the property over time.
Com. Saadati:
· Supports staff recommendation regarding approval of variance.
Chair Wong:
· Concurred with the commissioners in support of the application.
· Applicant did an excellent job in working with staff for an exceptional plan; elevation is ideal.
· There is no need for wood siding.
· Agree with Com. Giefer that there should be an easement regarding the trail.
· Expressed concern about the variance, that next week the applicant can ask for an exception;
and has to pay for the exception; government should be user friendly.
Mr. Gilli:
· Clarified the trail issue, stating that it was not that the applicant is providing an easement on
his property; he is just providing a note saying that the neighboring site, which is the city land,
might have a trail on it.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application R-2004-18 with the addition ofthe covenant on the trail and the
removal of the requirement for wood siding. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application EXC-2004-11 per the model resolution. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application
TR-2004-07. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to deny Application
V-2004-03. (Vote: 4-0-1) Vice Chair Miller, Coms. Saadati, Chen and Giefer
Aye; Chair Wong Abstain)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
6. Consider changing Planning Commission meeting start time from 6:45 p.m. to
6:00 p.m.
Ciddy WordeD presented the staff report:
· She said that consideration of changing the time came to the Planning Commission because
the City Council was considering going to a 6 p.m. meeting; however, at their last meeting,
they decided that they would not accomplish it.
· People testified that it would be more difficult to attend the meeting at 6 p.m.
Cupertino Planning Commission
jO
January 25, 2005
· The City Council decided to hold the Closed Sessions at 6 p.m., with the regular meeting to
follow at 6:45 p.m.
· It is recommended that the Planning Commission meetings remain at the same time.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Tom Huganin:
· Said that he agreed with staffs recommendation to leave the meeting time at 6:45 p.m.
Dennis Whitaker:
· Said he would like the time to remain the same as the residents are familiar with the 6:45 p.m.
time and it accommodates persons on flexible work schedules.
· Expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission and staff for their hard work and
staying to such a late hour to complete the agenda.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to keep the meeting time
of the Planning Commission at 6:45 p.m. (Vote: 5-0-0)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Com. Chen reported said that she missed the last meeting.
Housinl! Commission:
· Com. Giefer reported that the Housing Commission met last week and discussed what they
should be presenting to the Planning Commission this evening.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl!:
. Mr. Piasecki will report on schedule.
Economic Develooment Committee:
Vice Chair MiUer reported on his attendance at the EDC:
· There was some discussion on topics discussed at the Planning Commission meeting tonight,
such as how to encourage commercial development in the city.
· Also some further discussion about doing their best in terms of making commercial
development work throughout the city.
· Discussion about differences of opinion about the Toll Brothers application for Hewlett
Packard, There was discussion about the Chamber's support of that vs. the other side of the
equation.
Chair Wong:
· Explained that the EDC was a committee that met once a month together with the Chamber of
Commerce and the City of Cupertino senior staff members. They recently added a Planning
Commissioner; Com. Chen will represent the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Reoort of the Director of Community Develooment:
· The Mayor's State of the City is scheduled for January 26,2005.
· The City Council has a goal setting session scheduled for February 4,2005, from 2 to 5 p.m.
· A Land Use discussion will be held on February 7th; to communicate and educate themselves
on the rules currently in effect and look at given where we are with the General Plan, discuss a
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
January 25, 2005
number of detailed questions about where should residential go; how to protect retail; how to
calculate density with vertical mixed use, etc.
. Mayor's Meeting will be held quarterly; following the rotation, next commissioner to attend
will be Com. Giefer, Chair Wong, Com. Chen, Com. Saadati, and Vice Chair Miller.
Discussion on the rotation to be followed will take place at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned at 12 midnight to the regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 8, 2005.
~~
Elizabeth . Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: February 22, 2005