PC 02-28-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
February 28, 2006
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The study session and regular Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 2006 was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by
Chairperson Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taaghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Aki Honda
Eileen Murray
STUDY SESSSION:
1. Planning Commission 2006 Work Program
Tentative City Council date: March 7, 2006
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Presented a summary of some of the work program possible priorities, based on unfinished
projects ITom last year and also on City Council goals for this year.
· She referred to the Work Program Action List 2006 (Exhibit C) and said she would highlight
the ones that have the most effect on the Planning Commission as far as being larger projects
and taking more time ITom the Planning Commission.
· She reviewed the Council goals and provided an update on each, including:
· Crossroad Streetscaoe Plan: A draft was created at the time the General Plan was
considered and put on hold until the General Plan was completed. It will be calibrated to
any policies in the General Plan that may affect it, completed and a recommendation will
be forwarded to the City Council.
· The SÜm Ordinance: Was scheduled for review in 2005, but the Fence Ordinance
preempted it. It is next in line for review.
· The Fence Ordinance: The item may be finalized this evening if action is taken by the
Planning Commission.
· Nexus Study: At the February 27'" meeting, the City agreed to consider the fees for the
Nexus Study for housing mitigation to go onto the City Council fee program.
· Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing: It may not require much Planning Commission time
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
2
February 28, 2006
unless it becomes a project; it is being worked on in terms of trying to pull together some
parcels north of Rainbow and West of 85 in the Cleo Avenue area; not certain if it will
develop into a project. It will likely not be time consuming.
. Heart of the City Plan: This is also Stevens Creek Boulevard, just not the Crossroads; it
encompasses all of Stevens Creek Boulevard. It was adopted in 1994 and would need to be
compared to the General Plan; there are some clarifications which will need cleaning up.
It would be comparable to the Crossroads as far as being a bigger project.
o The Green Buildings urogram: The Council has directed it to be in the work program for
this year. There are some implementation measures in the General Plan related to this but
could be quite substantial. Some of the approved wording was to set standards for the
design and construction of energy and resource conserving efficient buildings and to
prepare and implement green building standards for all major private and public projects
that ensure reduction in energy consumption for new developments through site and
building design. It will be fairly involved.
o Relative to Vice Chair Giefer's inquiry about the possibility of reducing fees for people
who use solar energy, the Building Department has already been directed and working on
coming back to the City Council for some possible fee reduction. The implementation
read would likely be the implementation the Planning Commission would be involved in.
. Annexing Small Unincoroorated Pockets: There are nine pockets to move ahead on; the
County is giving some break to the cities, in terms of processing fees if action is taken on
some of the pockets.
o She reviewed the Planning Projects which are not Council goal directed, but projects ITom
other sources. The first one is a carryover ITom Council last year; there were some concerns
by residents that the Hillside (RHS) standards that are in Rl ordinance had not been fully
aware how this would affect their properties. The City Council agreed that they would bring it
back for hearing so that people would have adequate opportunity to address their concerns.
o She noted the Private Development Projects, of which some are a follow up, which provides
an idea of the kind of workload that may come through next year in order to budget the time.
Some of the projects are follow up on projects that are already approved and would be just the
building permit and construction overseeing of that.
o The Taylor Woodrow project is in the public hearing mode; there is a smaller project on the
former McDonald/Dorsa Quarry Site on Stevens Canyon Road. The former Any Mountain
site will be proposed for rebuilding as an office site; and some properties on No. Tantau
Avenue have come in, but have not been scheduled for a public hearing yet to convert some
industrial properties to residential.
Chairperson Miller discussed his suggestions:
o Shared his vision to address issues and projects ITom a planning standpoint in a more proactive
manner, that would benefit the Council and the city for 2006. He said he felt if they could
identify the areas in town that are going to come up for development in the near future and get
a head start, they would not be so controversial. It would enable the city to weigh in advance
rather than the developers, and it would provide the residents the opportunity to do so as well
and things would go smoother.
o He said that one of the areas he considered, was doing more proactive planning for key areas
in town that may come up for development in the near future. Staff has identified one in terms
of the Heart of the City and others are potentially South Vallco depending on what happens
with the Toll Brothers project; North Vallco and also the Homestead area, Villa Serra.
o He said those areas are worth considering in terms of doing advance planning, and when
deliberating on the General Plan, they agreed to do more proactive planning in the future, and
this is the first opportunity after reviewing the General Plan last year.
o There are a number of R&D buildings in town that are obsolete and some of them have come
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
3
February 28, 2006
up for a review and have worked out to be projects, some were approved, some were not
approved and some are still going through. It is clear that these buildings exist, and because
they are obsolete they are going to come up for development. This is an opportunity for a head
start on what is sure to be happening.
· He said a recent article in the Business Joumal said that the economy in the area is becoming
more knowledge based, and with R&D, production line things, and manufacturing going away,
it has left a number of buildings vacant around the valley that are not functional, totaling about
12 million square feet in the valley itself which is approximately one-third of the vacant space
currently in the valley. Other towns are in the process of tearing them down and converting
them either to retail or newer offices or residential.
· A top priority is the issue of providing affordable housing for people who work in Cupertino in
the major corporations such as Apple and Hewlett Packard.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the City Council has scheduled a study session on the conversion of industrial lands, and
conversion of all commercial industrial lands to residential. They want to look at areas that are
not functionally obsolete and remove the residential potential ITom them.
· While the approach had been to encourage residential uses in as many places as possible in
order to achieve the residential goals, perhaps the City Council would consider taking that
away ITom areas that are not appropriate to convert.
Chair Miller:
· Said he listened to the City Council study session on goal setting and came away with a
number of items that different council members discussed including improving the process of
streamlining permits; affordable housing, financing, proactive planning, and revitalizing retail.
Com. Saadati:
· He said proactive planning is the best approach. Concerning the issues that came before the
Commission during the last year, evaluating the conversion and identifying what the needs are
and even though some of the facilities are getting older and obsolete, hopefully evaluate the
entire city and see what the city's needs are.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said green building and energy conservation were a priority with her.
· She reported that the city is moving forward to eliminate fees and incentives for using solar,
photo voltaic and other solar systems.
· Said if there were other things they could identify to help design a program to put Cupertino in
the foreITont of green building and energy conservation, it would help future generations of
others who live in Cupertino.
· The housing stock inventory is made up of apartments, entry level housing, high density
housing, single family dwellings, and larger single family dwellings, etc. There is a need to
look at the conversion of apartments and allowing them to be replaced with single family
homes, because home purchases are down 24% statewide because of rising interest rates.
Apartments will be more in demand to provide housing for those who cannot afford to
purchase homes and need to rent.
· Said that the only issue she had with studying conversion and identifying obsolete buildings is
that they may inadvertently be manipulating the marketplace.
· If a commercial building is tagged as being obsolete and then it meets the criteria for
conversion, that land may increase in value; and someone may be speculating tearing down the
obsolete industrial and putting in housing. She said before getting completely on board with
that, she would like to have counsel weigh in on that and make sure they are not setting
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
4
February 28, 2006
themselves up for market manipulation
· She said she agreed that they need to have foresight and plan as best they can to help engineer
a community that meets their needs today and in the future.
· There was no action on the tree ordinance on the 2005 work list. It has become of greater
importance because of the many people complaining about illegal removal of trees, and trees
not being protected properly. There has been an execution issue, and as long as it remains on
the lowest priority for Planning and Building, the problem will continue. She said she would
like it to be included on the work list for staff.
Chair Miller:
· Said he would not call the process of planning in itself a manipulation of property values,
although it causes changes in property values.
He said there was no way to avoid shifting property values when planning and changing zoning or
uses. It has to be weighed against the value of planning in advance. He emphasized that they were
not giving the green light to anyone, but merely preparing in advance so that when someone comes
in, they have to fit those requirements, rather than waiting for the developer to come in and say
what he thinks the requirements should be.
Vice Chair Giefer: ~.
· Said she agreed that they needed special planning areas, but was not comfortable with saying
the Planning Commission was capable of identifying the buildings as obsolete.
· Said that they need to ensure they are preserving enough of the valuable commercial property
for the long term, and not sell tomorrow off today.
· Questioned whether a one story strip mall is the best use of the building, because at some point
the land will come in as well.
· She said commercial has to be preserved for the future and she was uncertain if they were not
directly manipulating property values.
Chair Miller:
· Said he did not feel the process conflicted with preserving commercial for the future.
· He said it was not his intent to suggest identifying buildings for conversion to housing; but to
identify buildings that have no functional use, and then decide what is best in that area.
Whatever the use, the next step would be to ensure the right policies are in place to encourage
that space to be developed.
· He said he was not a proponent of converting all office space to housing; it is a planning
exercise as to what is the best use and what they want to see in the space.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· She said she would agree as long as they preserve as much space as required by the General
Plan; because there is a certain amount of square footage that needs to be preserved as part of
the General Plan.
Com. Wong:
· The tree ordinance was on the work plan last year and staff did a good job in walking the
Commission through the process for the past three years.
· Agreed that the tree ordinance was a good ordinance and is an enforcement faction. He
emphasized that it needed to be enforced.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Agreed that the tree ordinance needed to be enforced; there are many species on the list that
should not be included as they are non-native and would not thrive in the area; and there are
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
5
February 28, 2006
numerous natives not included that should be on the list.
· She reiterated that the update needs to occur.
Com. Wong:
· Said it was important to be proactive in planning vs. reactive, relative to Vallco North, Vallco
South, and the Homestead area.
· Have a specific plan provided for the other potential areas such as Crossroads, North Vallco or
Homestead and let developers and property owners know what the city's vision is. It would be
easier to let people know what it is so there are not as many surprises or controversies and
people will be aware of what is going on. Presently, there are two or three major applications
going on and people are concerned even though we already have the Heart of the City Plan
there. He said he would support that ITom the Chairperson.
· He said he agreed with the Council that revitalizing the retail was important, as it went hand in
hand with affordable housing and mixed use.
· Agreed with Vice Chair Giefer about the need for protection of single family homes in
hillsides; and the need to determine areas along the center of town of the major infill projects.
· Said he would welcome a senior housing policy; it is market driven but as baby boomers are
aging, they need places to live in the Cupertino area. He suggested some type of incentive
plan for seniors be offered.
· Another important issue is public transportation. The County and VT A are suggesting a half-
cent sales tax, but as yet the benefits for Cupertino have not been seen. There has been
mention ITom VTA about high occupancy buses and the light rail ITom downtown San Jose or
a light rail connection ITom Sunnyvale; and a BART system in downtown San Jose.
· He said he supported the concept of asking the City Council if they are interested, to direct
staff to look into the possibility of bringing in light rail ITom downtown San Jose or
Sunnyvale, utilizing the benefit of the half-cent sales tax. The VT A 20/20 vision plan that has
marked that corridor to bring it through either Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road or Stevens Creek to
DeAnza College will encourage more infill and more smart growth and have more high
density at the center of our city vs. in a single family neighborhood. It is important to protect
the single family neighborhoods and hillsides. We need that direction ITom Council, and if we
get direction ITom Council, Mr. Piasecki did a successful job in implementing light rail in
Campbell.
Com. Chien:
· Said at this time he had no comments as it was his first Planning Commission meeting.
· Said that he appreciated the comments and feedback to bring him up to date on the projects.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she liked Chair Miller's idea regarding a housing incentive, and also suggested
consideration of a first time purchaser's incentive.
Chair Miller:
· Provided information on a program in Monterey County where they are addressing the issue of
providing work force housing. The current levels of affordable housing are very low, which is
50% of median income, and low which is 80% of median income, and moderate which is
120% of the median income. In Monterey County they defined two new categories; 150% of
median income, and 180% of median income, and they are experimenting with those programs
to address the needs of affordable housing for people in industries in critical areas where
employers are having difficulty finding people to work there because they cannot afford to live
there.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
6
February 28, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it came up last night at the Council meeting in conjunction with the Nexus study, which is
an analysis ofthe fees charged for non-residential on a per-square foot basis, and the types of
housing that can be utilized. The work force housing component came up and the Council did
not make a decision whether to move forward with it, but it is an option available to the city, to
be able to provide some of the above median income type housing.
· The Council will be making the decision in conjunction with the Nexus study of whether they
want to move forward. The Commission can encourage them to include that component, but
more information is needed before proceeding.
Com. Wong:
· Said that the Housing Commission is addressing the issue.
Chair Miller:
· Said that if they moved forward with the concept, the driver should be the City Council or
Housing Commission, not the Planning Commission.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said staff would provide the information to the Commission.
· He said they may want to decide in conjunction with the fees charged that they want to make a
recommendation on the fees relating to work force housing.
Chair Miller:
· He said obvious criteria is the value of the project to the city, and if it is known that a
developer is coming into a particular area, it would be of high value to the city.
· Weight would also be given if it is a high profile area that needs planning.
· The sign ordinance is on the Council's list and is compatible with the Council's objective of
revitalizing retail. He suggested that the Planning Commission address the sign ordinance.
Com. Saadati:
· Suggested that staff review the list and provide feedback on the projects, taking into
consideration the amount of time to prepare the information for the meetings.
· Said that proactive planning should be at the top of the list. Other items in green building that
been discussed in detail before may not take as much effort; the sign ordinance would be take
a couple of meetings.
Ms. Wordell:
· Explained that the projects listed as possible priorities were the projects staff felt they could
handle. She said some additions could be made and some projects dropped off the list
according to the Commission's preference.
Com. Wong:
· Relative to the Review Rl ordinance regarding RHS, he suggested limiting it to discussion of
the slope only, and not reopen the entire process.
Mr. Piasecki reviewed the projects and provided timelines:
· The City Council accepted the Nexus study last night and will now look at the actual fee
allocations. It will not come back to Commission at this point.
· Cleo Avenue will come to the Commission as a development application; and will likely take
one meeting to look at the development application.
· The Crossroads streetscape will likely take two meetings. It is done, and has to go back to the
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
7
February 28, 2006
commission to check it against the General Plan work that was done. It complies with the
General Plan; there is no housing component in the streetscape plan; the condo plan was
removed.
· Heart of the City Plan will likely take three to four meetings because there is a lot to discuss.
It is a priority for the Council.
· The sign ordinance may be three to four meetings.
· Green buildings program will take six to ten meetings. A consultant will be hired in next
year's budget.
· Annexation of small, unincorporated pockets will come to the Commission as they occur.
· The obsolete research and development projects would require a lot of outside input and would
take about three to four meetings. The time includes talking to property owners and gathering
data.
· Homestead and North Vallco, are of equal interests based on the number of calls they get.
They would require three to four meetings for each; the Council has study sessions scheduled
to discuss the issue.
· Said he did not object to adding more projects that were suggested, but they would have to be
prioritized.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· She asked for the definition of "functionally obsolete"
· Said it has been an issue since 1989 whether the buildings are up to code.
· She said she understood there were state and federal funds to retrofit buildings if there is
evidence of earthquake damage.
· Expressed concern about the Taylor Woodrow project. Is a lack of earthquake retrofitting
being used as a reason to take a building down?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that there may be state and federal funds for retrofitting education buildings; however
it does not mean the funds are available to private property owners for retrofitting.
· That alone is not what they would interpret as "functionally obsolete" in and of itself unless
you can demonstrate that the building cannot reasonably be marketed within reason. That is
why the improvement cost is so high that you could not reasonably install the improvements
and then charge for them in the marketplace and then expect to lease the building. Some of the
buildings have been vacant and unleased for five years.
· The property owners argue to the Council that there is no market interest and that is something
that has to be demonstrated. The public interest is the only reasonable use of property
industrial or office and is there another use that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. That is where the focus has been with cohesive office centers and commercial
centers.
· He cautioned the Commission about the risk of ITeeze ITaming to the 1970s to say that
Cupertino will look like the land use pattern ITom the 70s forever. There are opportunities to
take advantage of the market force; if the land in the 70s was always going to be orchard, there
would never have been a Vallco Park mall. It produced most of the housing that is in
Cupertino today.
Chair Miller:
· Said it was rare for a developer to say that a building is obsolete because it would be too
expensive to retrofit for earthquakes. They provide a myriad of reasons it may not work, such
as the lack of windows, it has high ceilings, the air conditioning and heating systems are
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
8
February 28, 2006
obsolete, and many types of things that may have worked in the 60s or 70s that are no longer
used.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Asked for clarification of definition of North and South Vallco.
· Said the residents of that end of town need a better generalization of terms pertaining to that
area. To them it is not North Vallco and South Vallco, but is Ridgeview, tech buildings near
Homestead Road, Hewlett Packard, Toll Brothers, and former Tandem buildings, etc.
Shilpa Joshi, resident:
· Shared a recent article ITom the San Jose Mercury newspaper, about the trend of business
condominium ownership, which is ownership of a condominium to run a business out of.
· She said it was a new trend in the area and was popular in the AsianlIndian community since
they value owning their property rather than renting.
· She suggested that Cupertino become involved as there is land available and no buildings
would have to be torn down.
· She said that Cupertino would have an excellent chance of success as other cities were not
involved except San Jose, and there is a demand for it.
Chair Miller:
· Clarified that Cupertino has already set a precedent for supporting the concept, and noted there
was a building across ITom city hall with an office condominium.
· He said it is the developer's decision to build an office condo.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
2.
TM-2005-14
V -2006-01
Jitka Cymbal
Jing and Roger
Low, 21988
McClellan Road
Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two
parcels (11,385 and 10,418 square feet in size) in a RI-7.5
zoning district. (The revised square footage of the lots is
10,197 and 11,807 due to the reconfiguration). Variance
to allow two lots that are 58 feet wide on a proposed
subdivision instead of the required 60-foot width.
Continued from the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot into two
parcels in a RI-7.5 zoning district, and variance to allow two lots on a proposed subdivision
instead of the required 60-foot width. At the time it was discussed previously, it was a
proposed flag lot and the Planning Commission was interested in looking at two conventional
lots where the ITontage was on the street, which required a variance because the required 60
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
9
February 28, 2006
foot lot width could not be met with that type of lot pattern.
· The lots conform to the density of the zoning minimum lot size and to the density in the
General Plan.
· At the last meeting, the city arborist identified three trees for protection.
· The applicant provided an outline of possible footprints for the single family residences to be
built on the lots.
· Staff is recommending the approval of the tentative map and the variance.
Jitka Cymbal, Applicant:
· Said she did not have additional comments on the staff report.
· Stated that the variance was a viable alternative and asked the commission to approve the
project.
Chair Miller opened public hearing:
Jennifer Grüfin, resident:
· Said she is proud of Cupertino for taking the effort to protect the trees. The trees have value to
the property, and provide screening for the properties.
· She said it will be an attractive subdivision for the neighborhood.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
TM-2005-14 and V-2006-01. (Vote: 5-0-0)
3.
MCA-2005-01
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28
(Fences) Tentative City Council date: March 7, 2006
Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· The item is a continuation of the Planning Commission study session on the amendment to the
fence ordinance held on December 13,2005. At that meeting, the Planning Commission
provided comments and recommendations on the fence ordinance regarding fence height,
electronic gates, fence post caps and fence materials as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council enact the
Municipal Code Amendment based on the draft model resolution.
Com. Giefer:
· Suggested that the language be changed on Page 3-6, to broaden it so that it is not just a
residential fence policy.
Ms. Honda:
· Said it was it was listed in the fence ordinance; and would pertain to commercial as well. If
the commission would like to further clarify it, they could add more language.
· Staff will make the change.
· Stated there was not a separate fence ordinance for commercial.
Com. Wong:
· Said that commercial properties will differ ITom residential and he was not in favor of
reinventing the work to have it commercial.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said there were situations where residential abuts to commercial and that commercial may
incorrectly use barbed wire and razor wire over a residential fence.
,t
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
10
February 28, 2006
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Chris Draper, Government Affairs Coordinator for the Silicon Valley Association of
Realtors:
· Thanked the commission for their outreach in the process, and said they were pleased with the
fence ordinance.
· Expressed appreciation for the commission's decision to put parity between electronic and non
electronic gates.
· He asked that the definition of safety and security be addressed. Safety encompasses a wide
range of issues not limited to vehicles, but included familial situations and children. There is a
wider definition to take into account.
· Relative to the definition of security, he said he understood the commission's desire to limit
security to those who have experienced crime, vandalism, and theft. He said however that it
seems counterintuitive to only people who have experienced those after the fact to put gates
into place as opposed to those who may be at risk.
· He thanked the commission for not taking up design review for fence post caps as they are
artistic in nature.
· He requested they consider allowing flexibility for lattices.
Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to clarify the definition; is it meant to imply that an individual in order to get a
fence exception had to have experienced vandalism on their property or is it just in the general
neighborhood?
Ms. Honda:
· Said in the past it has been policy that it has to be shown that it has been demonstrated on the
property rather than within the neighborhood.
· There have been past fence exception applications for gates and they had to prove that there
was a demonstrated security problem on that property.
Ms. Wordell:
· Confirmed that was the precedent; it they wanted to do otherwise, it would need to be
otherwise stated.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Expressed concern about the safety factor of electronic gates if there was a power failure or a
fire on the property.
· She cited incidents when a resident was unable to remove her car ITom a garage because of a
power failure, and a resident who was unable to get through her property gate because of a
power failure.
· She suggested that there be a backup plan in the event of a power outage.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· Supports staff recommendation.
· The manual override of the electronic gate is a good idea.
Ms. Honda:
· Said that the draft ordinance contained the language recommended that they comply with the
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
11
February 28, 2006
fire department requirements.
· The electronic gates would have to be approved by the fire department before installation.
Com. Wong:
· Supports staff recommendation.
· He said that one of his concerns related to the definition of security and safety for electronic
gates. He said he felt they should be more proactive about security, rather than reactive. By
stating there was a documented burglary, theft, vandalism, or trespassing incident, it is not
being proactive; it is reacting to something that has already occurred.
· He said security is in the eye of the beholder of the person living in the dwelling. He felt that
by having it demonstrated would defeat the purpose of having an electronic gate.
· Said that it needs to be clarified in the document that the gate will be set back ITom the house,
and not toward the ITont of the house. The safety definition as written is rather narrow, and
does not allow for any flexibility. He said he would re-interpret the safety definition to ensure
that the premises are secure for that purpose. It is not acceptable to have demonstrated
experience. He added that there should be another criteria on security.
· He referred to the issue offence lattice. Currently the ordinance allows a height of up to 8
feet; if you want to exceed 6 feet, the owner of the adjacent lot has to agree. If the adjacent
owner objects, it could go through DRC. He suggested that the wording be revised in the
ordinance, Page 3-716.28.040, Paragraph A, "with an option of one foot lattice in addition to
the six feel without going through the DRC."
· He said the electronic gate was an important issue, as he heard through many different
applications that security and safety were concerns. He said he understood the concern that it
not be a gated community. As written, the gate has to be set back to the house, and it meets
the fire standard details.
· He suggested a separate paragraph regarding backyard and side fencing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Complimented staff on the excellent work on the fence ordinance.
· She illustrated slides showing a variety of electronic gates throughout the a city.
· She said she did not want to have people put electronic gates across their driveway. aRI! Rat
ka"¡e feRees aFe.ad the IJFOpeFty.
· Expressed concern about taking a suburban neighborhood with tract homes and people
'mansionizing' the homes in different ways.
· Recommended changing the language to stipulate only one electronic gate per family.
residence.
· Said she did not want to see gates; if they have to have them, she recommended that they open
and close them themselves.
· Said most of the people with homes on the hillside have one electronic and one manual gate.
· Suggested correction to Page 3-7, last line, change "nom property owners" to "from adjacent
property owners."
Com. Saadati:
· He suggested requiring that a gate be an exception; property owners would not be able to put
up a gate unless they apply for it and get an exception.
· He said they waRll! have there would be some control in the ordinance by making it an
exception.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Concurred with Com. Saadati, and noted that there were many electronic gates in the city that
do not have permits.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
12
February 28, 2006
· When they come to the commission they can be regulated.
· Said that she supported the ordinance language; however, she felt they were headed down a
dangerous path.
· Said she felt that with Cupertino's low crime rate, gates are not needed.
Com. Wong:
· Asked Com. Giefer's opinion about having more than one gate on larger properties. He said
he felt on a larger property it would defeat the purpose of having only one gate if the other side
of the property was not secure.
· Said he felt gates and fences were positive.
· Noted that Cupertino's crime rate had increased lately.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Supports stafrs language on security and safety.
· Suggested language for the 8 foot fence "eight foot fences should only be approved to ensure
adequate screening and/or privacy."
· If they are coming to DRC, it would be helpful ~or DRC to have some basis for approval or
denial.
· Generally if someone wants a higher fence the two neighbors have already got together
because they are both paying for the fence. She suggested that they not charge a fee for
applicants coming in where there is a neighborhood dispute. Request the neighbor bring
photos because there may not be access to the yard, and they need to know what the potential
privacy invasion is.
· Supports no fee for fence exceptions to DRC for height.
· Does not support the section on electronic gates.
· Her recollection was that they were coming to the commission because of their concerns about
their safety since their car was on hill.
· Said you do not need a three foot fence ànd an electronic gate to make your lot secure.
· She suggested that minimum fence setbacks be 20 feet, 30 would be better. She said the
further the electronic gate was nom the street so that it was not visible, the better it would be.
· Said she did not visualize why only one extra foot oflattice would be needed on the side and
back fence rather than two feet.
Com. Wong:
· Said he felt a two foot lattice defeated the purpose of being neighborly. It provides privacy,
yet you can still see through it.
· No requirement to go to the DRC.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she does not have a strong preference; but would support it if the majority of the
commissioners did.
Com. Chien:
· Supports what has been presented; is satisfied with the defmitions of security and safety.
· He supports the lattice, he is supportive of it not being counted as being excluded nom the
fence height requirements. It is artistic and adds value to the property and the home.
· Opposed to having a fee for individuals going to the DRC for a fence exception in regards to
the height.
· Cupertino should not be a gated community. He is optimistic that what is written in the
ordinance will help the cause.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
13
February 28, 2006
· If they want an electronic gate they should come before the commission and apply for an
exception.
Com. Wong:
· He asked Commissioner Chien ifhe was open to the applicant coming to the DRC for an
exception for the electronic gate.
· Suggested allowing flexibility in the definition in the event it goes to the DRC.
· Said he wanted to be more proactive in security and safety.
Com. Saadati:
· Said they could put an alarm in their residence.
· Random theft does not necessarily mean the gate would be approved.
Com. Chien:
· Said that if a resident determines for whatever reason they need to install a gate, they should
be able to go to the Commission and ask for consideration of the gate installation. They
should not have to wait until something negative has occurred to warrant it.
· With respect to the ordinance, it is clear that it includes, but is not limited to, those situations.
All reasons presented should be considered; and there would be the flexibility to do so.
Com. Wong:
· Asked staff how they arrived at the definitions, because after a robbery, what is the reason for
putting up a security gate. The whole idea of putting up security is to protect the residence.
· He would rather have an electronic gate versus a security alarm.
· Recalled that residents came before the commission to override this section of the DRC and no
finding could be made. The finding was denied because they could not document there was a
burglary, vandalism, theft or trespassing within the vicinity of what staff recommended.
· The electronic gate was denied and brought forward to the commission. He said it was time to
amend the fence ordinance.
Chair Miller:
· Agreed that no fee should be charged.
· Questioned why make a distinction between electronic and manual gates; it remedies the issue
and makes it more consistent.
· Is supportive of the other language.
· Supports the definitions of demonstrating security and safety.
· Said he was not opposed to going to eight feet as an exception. He does feel that it is a good
neighbor fence and the neighbor who wants the fence should get agreement ITom his neighbor
and apply for the exception.
· If it just lattice and they don't have to go through the DRC, both neighbors should agree on it.
Ms. Wordell:
· If they do decide to go above the six foot height, even with the lattice, building code would
still require that they obtain a building permit.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Asked if the majority felt it needed to go to the DRC for over six feet ifthere is not
agreement?
Com. Saadati:
· Does not have to go through DRC if the neighbors agree.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session and Regular Meeting
14
February 28, 2006
· If it is a situation that cannot be resolved, it may have to go to the DRC.
Ms. Honda:
· Said the definitions would have to be demonstrated in order to request the electronic gate.
Com. Wong:
· Limit of two gates.
· Relative to having no fees, is there a fiscal impact on the city's budget?
Chair Miller:
· Said he supported Com. Wong's concern, and would change his vote.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application
MCA-2005-01. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Wong voted No.)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· No meeting was held.
Housinl! Committee:
· No meeting was held.
Mavors Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
· Meeting is scheduled for 7 a.m. Wednesday, March I".
Economic Develooment Committee:
· No meeting was held.
Reuort of the Director of Community Develooment:
· No additional report.
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting
'~2~
. ~
Elizaheth . Ellis, Recording Secretary
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved as amended: March 14, 2006