draft minutes 02-24-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
103 00 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLASINING CONIlVIISSION
DRAFT MIl~IUTES
6:45 P.M. February 24, 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO CO1~~TY HALL
The Special Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre. Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Lisa Giefer
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner: --
Lisa Giefer
Paul Brophy
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Winnie Lee
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Election of Vice Chair: Vote was 4-0-1; Com. Brophy abstained; to elect Com. Brophy as
Vice Chair.
New Commissioner: Com. Winnie Lee was welcomed to the Planning Commission, replacing
Jessica Rose.
Environmental Review Committee: Meets 1 S` and 3rd Thursdays at 9:30 a. m.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Brophy, that Chair Giefer serve
as ERC representatative. (Vote: 4-0-1; Chair Giefer abstained)
Design Review Committee: Meets 1 S` and 3rd Thursdays at S: 30 p. m.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Chair Giefer, that Vice Chair Brophy serve
as the Vice Chair of the DRC. (Vote: 4-0-1; Vice Chair Brophy abstained)
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Brophy, that Com. Lee serve as
the alternate representative on the DRC committee. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com.
Lee astained).
Economic Development Committee: Meets 2"d Tuesday, Quarterly beginning in February at
3: 30 p.m. 2009 Schedule: 2/4, S/6, 8/8, 11/4.
• Com. Miller agreed to continue serving on the EDC.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 February 24, 2009
Housing Commission:
Meets 2" Thursday at 9:00 a. m.
• Com. Kaneda agreed to continue serving on the Housing Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Brophy, to approve the
January 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
(Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Lee abstained)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: No additional written items were received.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL CO11~I112UNICATIONS: Steve Ting spoke on behalf of the Learning Game. His
comments are recorded with Item 1.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. U-2009-01, ASA-2009-01 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to allow
Eugene Sakai (Plautz) a 4,871 sq. ft. retail commercial building consisting of a
10212 No. DeAnza Blvd. 2,007 sq. ft. retail addition, conversion of an existing
2,864 sq. ft. former auto repair building into retail
commercial, and associated site improvements. Tentative
City Council date: March 17, 2009
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval fora 4,871 sq.
ft. retail commercial building consisting of 2,007 sq. ft. retail addition, and conversion of
existing 2,864 sq. ft. former auto repair building into retail building, as outlined in the staff
report.
• At the January 10, 2009 neighborhood meeting, the applicant presented a proposal that
included opening up the existing sound wall to allow employees of the development to park
along Parlett Place. As a result of a number of concerns from neighbors about the potential
traffic impacts into the residential neighborhood, the applicant has revised the site plan to
address the neighbors' concerns. The applicant's revised proposal shows that all the required
parking for the project is now contained onsite, with no opening into the sound wall and no
requirement for a parking exception.
• She reviewed the project description, architectural design, landscape plan boulevard treatment, _
General Plan allocations, signage and environmental assessment.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit and Architectural
and Site Approval per the model resolutions, and allocate the 2,007 sq. ft. of retaiUcommercial
addition.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions related to the proposed project.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 24, 2009
Scott Plautz, Owner of Learning Game:
• Provided a background of the business, stating it was a site specialty destination far from the
mass market; with the same requirements of the mass market Target relative to parking, with
much less foot traffic in regards to the square footage per parking.
• We don't anticipate having any challenges or parking onsite that is going to create any conflict
with the amount of business they do; we are also very well in tuned with the community, as
understanding that people drive to our business to conduct business with us, and find the
specialty types of products we offer, because they are not available in other places in the
community. They come to us, they purchase their materials and they leave; we are not as much
of a drop by type of a local retailer. We are going to try to find and bring other businesses that
have like demographics and specialty retail that would also focus on these specialty products
or children's clothing or other things that are going to create synergy between our businesses
to make us a more desirable destination place within the community. It makes no sense for us
to go looking at any. mass market type of company to bring in there; nor would they want to,
because as a business owner, I am as much concerned about parking for the success of my
business as the customers are to make sure they have a place to park.
Eugene Sakai, project architect:
• Echoed Mr. Plautz's gratitude for staff's assistance and .guidance toward the right direction
after multiple iterations and submittals. He said he felt they had a good project point that
balances the concerns of a variety of interested parties and constituents.
• Thanked the neighbors for their input-into the project.
• Reviewed the design of the project through a slide presentation; and reviewed the existing
conditions and the proposed conditions.
Scott Plautz:
• Said that feedback was received suggesting a play structur-e or piece of art be on the site to
create an appearance to the community that this is a child friendly or family friendly complex.
Other considerations also included benches out front for people waiting while family was
shopping in the complex. Com. Miller suggested that it be fenced off if it was a play structure,
because it is located on DeAnza Boulevard.
• Relative to the location of the trash enclosure, he explained that presently they have very little
disposable trash and food waste; the majority of waste is recyclables and shipping boxes are
recycled in a bin behind the Learning Game's present location. For other tenants, depending
on what type of business comes in, and what their trash needs are, they would have discussions
with the city about use of either the rolling 80 gallon containers currently used by the city,
with multiples set up, or some type of trash enclosures that would meet the needs of the
tenants coming in.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said the applicant proposed photo voltaic panels on the roof and there is mention in his
presentation about offsetting the energy use of the building and in addition, recharging stations
for electric cars.
Scott Plautz:
• Discussed things they were considering while addressing concerns about becoming an
environmentally friendly location. The current building onsite, we are going to reuse and
refurbish that building as much as we possibly can; it is a current redwood post and beam
structure that was built and it is sturdy and in very good condition. It will be refurbished
instead of putting it into a landfill and rebuild on the same structure, keeping the
environmental side of that in check, our goal is to use as much of it as we can. Outside of that
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 24, 2009
in moving through the process and understanding that we are trying to address other ways that
we can have green concepts on site; I know people in the community who work for companies
that manufacture charging stations and this is a very popular place for a lot of vehicles that are
electronic vehicles and in understanding that, that is something that may be of interest and we
could put a charging station in one of the locations or stalls to give our location an interest and
draw for those people that have electric vehicles. We are also looking at solar capacity that
would be able to produce the amount of electricity for our site in general and that is where you
see the solar panels on top of all the both the buildings and various locations.
• Said that although they had not done an analysis yet, they would like to generate enough
electricity on it. There is quite a bit of rooftop for the size of square foot of the building; we
are talking about between the entire footprint, about 4,800 square feet. With the amount of
rooftop and direct sunlight that the building gets, it should be able to generate its own
electricity on site. Said he would be willing to use cool roof technology. Noted that at their
Crossroads Center location they installed cool roof technology about 5 years ago and attested
to the favorable impact it had in both heating and cooling. Another side benefit is the upkeep
on the roofs in the Crossroads Center which had issues for years, which took care of many of
the leaks
Chair Giefer:
• One of the conditions currently in the model resolution and in the packet is the downlighting
from the parking lot; have you thought about how you are going to ensure that there is no
reflected light onto the adjacent residences:
Scott Corbey, landscape architect:
• Said they wanted to make sure that all the fixtures have a sharp cutoff fixture with them and a
house side shield, and are trying to direct all the light onto the parking areas. They also
planted trees along the south property line to help mitigate any of the minimal bleedoff that is
occurring from the parking lot lights.
Com. Kaneda:
• Would you be comfortable with us conditioning a certain amount of the electrical use being
offset by photo voltaics. He said he was not asking for a LEEDS certification, but asking
about proposing putting photo voltaics in. would you be comfortable with us conditioning that
a minimum of some percentage of your electrical load is offset by photo voltaics, and you are
saying that it is your intent to do 100%.
Scott Corbey:
• Said they were taking the best interests of all environmental issues on how to manage this to
the best of their ability and still manage the project in a cost effective manner. There are many
programs in working with electric companies that help us become environmentally conscious
and do it in an effective and cost effective way at the same time. We are looking at those
things; the reason we went through 3 submittals on this property is so that we would not have
conditions upon the property, because every other plan had conditions, and in going through
that plan, we continued to revise and meet the needs of the neighbors and meet the needs of the
Planning Department in order to get to a point where we could have an approval that had no
conditions on it. We would prefer not to have conditions, but we will do our best to meet the
needs of being as environmentally conscious as possible. Depending on what the restrictions
would be, I would be interested if it was a reasonable number.
• In response to a question if he would be comfortable with a minimum photo voltaic system
size equivalent to what one would put on a residence; he said they have unfortunately spent a
lot of time just to get to this part in the project, and haven't gone to that next, which would be
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 24, 2009
the next phase of the project. That is going to be built into those plans. He would not be
opposed to making some type of commitment; but did not feel he was the appropriate person
at this point and as far as talking percentages and making a commitment on the fly, did not feel
comfortable doing that.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Relative to parking, is there any concern that 19 spaces won't be enough even for your
business to work in an efficient manner, even if it does meet the zoning code.
Scott Plautz:
• The neighbors did not like that very much, so we made the changes. We believe that we have
more than adequate parking onsite. We are familiar with what type of traffic flow our business
gets, and depending on what other businesses come in there, it will obviously have some
impact, but you have to remember the requirements that the city is asking us to conform to is
the same as Target; we are a different type of business than Target and the amount of traffic
per square foot, when you look at 4 per 1,000 sq. ft., we are a very specialty focus complex
that is not on the beaten path.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• My concern is not to try to force you to put more, but to make sure that your business can
operate effectively and there is not a problem with the neighbors as there already is with the
Donut Wheel with surplus parking on Lazaneo and Parlett.
Applicant:
• I understand your perspective, but would have to say that I think they park off the street that
the Donut Wheel for other reasons; not because it is overflow. That is a separate issue and we
have had that discussion with the neighbors and understand,their perspective and respect their
opinion on the challenge. In regards to overflow for our site, we moved all parking onsite to
meet the requirements of the General Plan and I believe we have done that and we don't
believe there is going to be any overflow needs for the site.
Chair Giefer:
• You talked about your intent to try to recruit complementary businesses to your own and
seeing that you have no commitments to who they may be at this point, you don't really know
what there employee load will be as well, for employee parking. Would you be willing to
offer transit passes in exchange for people leaving their cars at home. It is something we have
done before with other areas that are potentially underparked to try to alleviate the parking
load in the area.
Scott Plautz:
• If that becomes an issue, I am interested in doing whatever we need to do. At this time we
have conformed to the General Plan. In regard to Com. Kaneda's statement, with the proposed
electric vehicle charging station, we put that on there to encourage people to use smaller
vehicles and to be more energy conscious. We also put multiple bike racks on there. In the
original plan, onsite showers for people to use to promote biking to work; we are trying to
fmd ways to incorporate these things into the site plan to be very conscious of any
environmental issue and how people use alternate sources of transportation other than their
personal vehicle and we are building those things into the plan once again, and we are
interested, if we run into any issues, we are more than happy to accommodate whatever we
need to do to make our site fit into the community.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 24, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• Said because of the small size of the project, he was hesitant to recommend LEEDS
certification; but would like some type of commitment to sustainable design. Asked how the
applicant would feel about a condition that the project is designed to LEEDS certified
standards which is a low hurdle without requiring the formal submittal, but design it to that
standard.
Applicant:
• He said the problem and one of the things that needs to be addressed in that for the future, for
the size site we have, to attain the certification is out of scope for the cost to get the
certification. It throws the investment you are putting into the site, a lot of paperwork, a lot of
time and energy,
• Said they would be happy to show their best intent to make that happen and we would go
through the checklist to make the city feel comfortable with where the site is at to make sure
we don't have that impact. We intend to do that and it is built into our plan. We just weren't
going to go through the formal paperwork process because it is so intensive and ineffective
and inefficient from a cost perspective.
Gary Chao:
• Said the Environmental Programs Manager Sherry Donnolly has looked at the plan
preliminarily and is relatively comfortable in working out a refuse plan with Scott Plautz.
There is a condition that speaks to that; the experts will work it out with the applicant. It is
dependent upon the tenant as well.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Steve Ting, Cupertino resident: (Spoke under Oral Communications)
• Congratulated Com. Lee on her appointment to the Planning Commission.
• Spoke on behalf of Tina and Scott Plautz, and their commitment to the community and acts of
volunteering on many events and the Educational Endowment Foundation. He said he
supported their project and wished them continued success in the community.
Marion Abney, Bethel Lutheran School teacher:
• Supports the application.
• Said a city shows its value by the businesses it showcases, and having the Learning Game on
DeAnza Boulevard really shows that Cupertino values education, and hold it as a priority for
the community. The owners are highly ethical and very concerned about the education for the
youth in the community. Parents of her students value the Learning Game as a resource they
can turn to help support their own children's education.
• Said she did not feel the parking would be an issue, as most patrons are focused on their needs
and go in the store, make their purchases and leave.
• She encouraged continued support of the Learning Game; as it is a value to the community,
Jeff Wurtz, Cupertino resident:
• Supports the application.
• It is a positive environment and provides valuable service to the families, teachers and students
in the community. The company owners volunteer in the community and are an asset to the
community.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 24, 2009
Sam Wood, Parlett Place resident:
• Said he appreciated that Scott Plautz worked with the neighborhood and listened to their
concerns.
• Voiced concern about the other building and potential uses in the future. If the other building
was used for a restaurant, food service, or medical building, it has different parking
requirements and would not trigger a public hearing unless it was a condition that the
development not be used as a restaurant or medicaUveterinary facility. He suggested that
something be put in place in the event an owner wants to change it to other uses; it triggers a
public hearing and the neighbors are notified and there is a hearing.
• He requested that it be made a condition of approval that no medical, food, or veterinary
development goes into those other unclaimed buildings.
• He said the applicant said that there is going to be a green screen put in between the
development and the neighbors. He requested that a formal condition similar to that of the
Sashi Corporation on a previous application was put on the current resident as well.
Bill Barthell, Cupertino resident:
• Said regardless of how many parking spots are allotted in front of the property, there is a
tendency for visitors to swing in and go around the corner and park on the street. It happens
every day with Donut Wheel and depending on what types of businesses go in, in addition to
the Learning Game, a similar situation could occur.
• He said there are pros and cons for putting in restricted parking, but he was not eager at this
time to initiate a petition but will be watching closely. He said he came to get assurance that
neither employees or visitors will be parking around the corner in front of his house and down
Parlett Place. It is a concern of the residents of the street; it is a high value neighborhood and
the Learning Game is welcome to come into that location, but we want to make sure that it is
done in such a way that it doesn't have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
• He requested that a condition be made regarding the types of operations permitted, that
prohibits food service operation. The Donut Wheel operates on a 24/7 basis, and the
cumulative impact of another food service operation would have a very negative impact on the
neighborhood.
Eleanor Watanabe, Executive Director of Cupertino Education Endowment Foundation
(CEIF):
• Supports the application; CEIF is the. community foundation that supports educational
excellence in Cupertino's elementary and middle schools and has been blessed with .Scott
Plautz's strategic outlook and collaborative leadership style.
• Scott and Tina Plautz are looking forward to being active community partners; they have
worked hard to build a business that addresses the long term educational needs of our children;
their business is just not about quick sales; they have done their homework, the Learning
Games carries only the best educational resources. They volunteer in the community and
schools. They will be good neighbors because as dedicated community leaders, they will
continue to strive to add value to our community.
Scott Stauffer, local business owner:
• Spoke in favor of the Learning Game. Sometimes when we are looking at what happens with
business community, we cannot fmd a better example of a small business doing what you want
to have happen in this community; somebody who comes in and buys a business, makes it
better, and gets really involved in the community. If we look at a lot of the different plans and
other issues that come before you, you would be hard pressed to fmd a business that fulfils
more of an active role in the community that the Learning Game. Looking at that impact
compared to some of the larger, medium sized and even larger corporate businesses that you
Cupertino Planning Commission
February 24, 2009
deal with on a much larger businesses with deeper pockets that can really develop big pieces
of land that you have worked on; I would like to say that they probably aren't nearly as
actively involved as the Learning Game; so we can't fmd a better example of a small business
that comes in, buys a local business, expands it, figures out how to make it more successful,
and serve the needs of our citizens and maintains that active role in the community.
• He encouraged careful consideration of what types of conditions are put on the project;
whether those conditions be what kind of stores can go in there, what kinds of
accommodations are made for neighbors, and what kinds of conditions you put on for other
kinds of energy or green things. It is a much bigger impact on a small business than it would
be for larger, medium sized businesses in the community.
• For a small business, the costs of some of these conditions can be very significant; if you want
to weigh that against what is the return we really get in terms of having a business come in,
bought a blighted location in our community and is going to make it much more than it every
was and ever will be if someone else comes along and it doesn't work out. I would encourage
you to think strongly about those things, to look at the overall impact this proposal is, and how
great it is and to limit the kinds of conditions you might put on it.
Maty Soha, Cupertino resident:
• Said the Learning Game will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. The back of the
building has a very unattractive wall, chain link and in addition the new structure will be
several feet higher; it will face the neighborhood.
• The two retail stores are unknown at this point, and it is possible that 19 parking spots will not
be enough and the overflow will go into the residential area. Is there any mechanism for the
city to control that; some limited parking or marking the streets in a different way? The trash
will be a concern; a large truck would not be able to enter the parking lot if cars are parked
there. It needs to be addressed.
Sridhar Ramaswamy, Parlett Place resident:
• Expressed concern about the traffic in and out of the cul de sac; and asked that the visitors and
store employees not park on Parlett Place.
• He suggested a condition that restricts the type of stores that would occupy the other
storefronts, because of the trash problem from other businesses, especially if they are eating
and food service facilities. Currently the trash from the Donut Wheel ends up at the end of the
street.
Suzi Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
• The Chamber supports thriving business growth in Cupertino; and generally believes that retail
growth is particularly helpful due to the revenue generated for sales tax and property tax. It is
aware of the Learning Company's generous and continued support of the non-profit
community, particularly in the education field. The owners have been actively engaged in the
Cupertino Community and are extremely generous with their time and financial resources.
• As with all developments of this type, the Cupertino's Legislative Action Committee requires
the opportunity to review and evaluate the project prior to making a recommendation to the
Board of Directors. She said it was important to keep the small business community thriving, _
particularly in difficult economic times. The Learning Game was named the Outstanding
Small Business in 2008 and the Chamber looks forward to having them in Cupertino for many
years.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
• Said she was pleased that the rear building which served as the original auto repair facility was
being saved; and commended the city if they did ask to have the building saved. It is
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 February 24, 2009
important as the downtown area is being redeveloped, particularly with the hotel going in, that
the history of Cupertino is remembered. Highway 9 is one of the oldest occupied roads; this
site is very close to the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 9; and it might
be appropriate someday to put historical plaques in. Said she was also pleased that the
sidewalks and trees along Highway 9 were receiving attention worthy of the attractive public
land. She wished the Learning Game success at the location.
Chair Giefer noted than an email letter of recommendation was received from Debby Stauffer
Stevens, stating that she was in favor of the project.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Addressed restricted parking, stating that usually if the neighborhood would like to consider
restricted parking, the first point of contact would be the Public Works Department. There is
a petition process if enough of the neighbors want such a restriction; the Public Works would
review and consider the logistics, with painting the curb red, or signs for permit parking only
for residents.
• He commented that the site was not considered a historically significant site.
There was no show of hands indicating the neighbors would like to have restricted parking.
Com. Lee:
• Referred to the corner of the building where it is L-shaped and asked if there was room for a
tree to be planted.
Aki Snelling: ,
• Said if it was public right of way area, the Planning Commission could require the applicant to
plant a tree there and have Public Works determine if another tree could be planted between
the eucalyptus trees. The distances are not known at this time, or if a tree could survive
between those two trees.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said the Learning Game has been an asset to the community. The proposal is fora 2,000 sq.
ft. addition; it is a small project and is fixing a site that in its current use, is one of the biggest
eyesores in town, and before putting together a wish list of things we would like to see
accomplished on this site; it is important to recognize what this project by its very nature will
accomplish.
• Given its small size, given that it is going to be for a small businessman and maybe one or two
equally small tenants, I am concerned about the whole process of wanting to put on conditions
that add costs to the business and builder. I am especially concerned on some of the
environmental areas where it seems to me that our policy has become that no good deed goes
unpunished. We have an applicant who is not in the environmental business, is not a real
estate developer; he is a retailer who is looking to construct a building for his own store and
one or two other tenants. He wishes to look at ways to incorporate environmental features and
I don't think we should view this as a way in which we can attach any and all conditions that
come to mind in this area. I would prefer, given the very small size of the project, and the fact
that it will help the appearance just by its construction; that we let the applicant do his best to
try and incorporate those features that work for him, rather than having either us as the
Commission, or staff trying to put together a list of things that they think is best.
• Other areas of concern are the question of the landscape boulevard treatment; and the city's
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 February 24, 2009
parking requirements of four per 1,000; that is less than what most businesses look for. I don't
want to add a requirement for additional ones, but I understand the purpose of the landscape
boulevard treatment where we would have a 9-1/2 foot landscape parkway, but feel that the
applicant and his architect should have the opportunity to look at whether or not it would make
more sense for them to put in two extra parking spaces rather than construct a landscape
parkway there. I like the landscape parkway that we have on No. DeAnza a great deal, but
given the small size of this site which is .12/acre, I feel that it might be an undue requirement
and be counter-productive. I would rather have additional parking if that is what the applicant
would prefer to reduce the stress with the neighbors.
The landscape screen on the south side is fine. On the east side, while there is a gap at the
trunk level, it is not obvious that you could squeeze in an extra tree because the canopies seem
to be touching each other. He said he was open to that.
It is a good project, and it should be recognized that it is difficult enough for a small business
person to go ahead with a project like that; in today's financial environment, it is in order of
magnitude harder, and it should not be the role of either staff or the Planning Commission to
add to that burden.
Chair Giefer asked for comments on the following:
• Staff has asked where we want the the commercial square feet to come from in the General
Plan. Are you comfortable with North DeAnza?
• Com. Kaneda suggested that the applicant design to certified LEEDS level but not go after
certification.
• Neighbors' request to request additional use permit for more parking intensive uses such as
restaurant, vets, or medical.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said that it was appropriate.
• Relative to LEEDS certification, he reiterated that it was a 2,000 sq. ft. addition; his proposal
would be to strike Item 7, and meet the requirements of the Code. If there was an attempt to
put in uses like that, they are subject to separate parking requirements and that no building
license could be issues if the parking was insufficient, and the proposal here is to meet the
minimum standards or based on my previous comment, at most there may be one or two than
minimum. It seems that issue was taken care of by the current standards in the zoning code.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported the Learning Game; and was pleased to see the applicant was making a long
term commitment by purchasing property and making improvements.
• Said he was confused regarding the parking and restaurant issues; is it correct to say that if a
restaurant wanted to move in, the parking would not work and therefore would come back up
again. Said his concern was based on other projects that have come before the Commission,
restaurants next to neighborhoods are always a big issue with odors, vermin and potential
noise in the evenings. He said he would like to have something written that it comes up for
review and the neighbors have a chance to at least be notified and comment on that.
Gary Chao:
• Said that staff was not saying that in the event if there is a restaurant proposal, that there would
defmitely not be enough parking because there are a lot of unknown variables. The Learning
Game may go away and the entire assignment be open up for just one single restaurant; that is
.not known. He said it was correct that in the event after Learning Game goes in, and there is
an additional proposal for a restaurant that the parking would be assessed, and go through a
parking analysis per code and apply the ratios, and if they don't have enough, and the
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 February 24, 2009
restaurant cannot go in.
The Planning Commission could require that some type of review would come back to the
Commission in the event of a more intense use such as a restaurant would be proposed. That
is common given the other .shopping centers reviewed in the past have had a lot of those
performance reviews. You can ask them to come in and either modify the existing use permit
or apply for a new use permit, giving directions for them to follow.
Com. Kaneda:
• Referring to the restaurant, he said he supported putting a condition in, that at least if some
kind of restaurant type operation went in, the public would have a chance to be notified and
respond to that, because it is a sensitive issue when food services are next door to residential
areas.
• Said he supported some type of landscape screening; and would be happy to have the Planning
Department take responsibility for figuring out 'what is the proper amount of screening
between the neighborhood and the site.
• Said he was comfortable with the square footage for the commercial coming from the North
DeAnza allocation; but not in favor of putting in a requirement for photo voltaics because it is
such a small project.
• He said he was pleased that the owner would do the best he can, but felt it would be onerous,
and he would like to see some kind of design to a LEEDS certified level which is the lowest
level for the LEEDS standard, but not a requirement for certification; which the owner said
they were amenable to.
• Said he was not concerned about the trash other than there have been issues that have come up
on other projects about the time of trash pickup as trash is picked up early in the morning.
(Staff said that language relative to a schedule for pickup would be added)
Com. Miller:
• Agreed with previous comments that this is the ideal business for Cupertino; there isn't a
better small business that would fit in there that is so supportive of education in the
community; is a good neighbor and it is already an established business in Cupertino at the
Crossroads.
In terms of allocations, it doesn't matter where the allocations come from, we have lots of
buckets where we can pull them from and I would leave it to staff to chose the one that is most
appropriate.
Relative to green requirements, he echoed Vice Chair Brophy's comments and voiced his
concerns. In the past they have not been applying green requirements consistently; and he felt
as a Commission, they need to talk about that and establish some rules or requirements that
can be applied consistently rather than individually at varying levels to each applicant that
comes in. Until that day occurs, he said he would not want to impose any of these conditions
on the applicant. It is admirable that the applicant wants to produce as green a building as
possible and energy efficiency.
Presently with all the support from various government agencies, it is fmancially beneficial to
put in photo voltaic. The incentives are in the right place, and I am always in favor of
incentives over sticks. The second reason is that this is a very bad economy and it would be a _
shame if we overburdened this applicant or any applicant in this particular economy where we
want the businesses to come to Cupertino. With too many conditions they cannot meet and
they have to go elsewhere to some other community, it would be our loss.
Relative to parking, he said it appears that the parking is sufficient and explained two ways to
meet the parking requirements; one is the standard that the city has and another is to do a
parking study or provide some evidence of the actual parking needs of the individual
businesses. If the owner is correct, I would suspect that the study which he might have
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 February 24, 2009
information on now at his current location, would indicate that his parking needs are very
modest and that whatever he is doing there is reasonable.
• I understand the concerns of the neighbors that they don't want parking on their street, I would
just point out to you that certainly with respect to the Donut Wheel, it is on the corner and very
easy for people to park around the side of the street there, and with the place like the Donut
Wheel, you are going to get trash which is unfortunate, and perhaps we should be doing a
better job of policing that, but this ~ business is a ways away from that. It would be very
unlikely that people who will be frequenting this business are going to want to pull around the
corner and walk the distance that they would have to do in order to get to the Learning Game. I
have seen it at other centers when there were no breaks in the wall, and it is really
inconvenient to get from parking in the neighborhood to the particular establishment. It
doesn't happen. If the parking is full, people may not stop there. I would not put requirements
on parking, other than to be assured that if there was a change in use, that staff would have
some way of assuring us that it would trigger a re-evaluation of the parking at that time if it
was a more intensive use that it would come back for further review.
• Said he agreed with Com. Brophy on deleting Item 7 and leaving it to the applicant.
• Eastern greenscreening - it looked like the only thing that the residents were looking for was
something to fill a single hole and I am not sure if you can put another tree between the ones
there; it isn't clear what you could put over there, but I would be willing to let staff look into it
and make further recommendations on that.
• Said he would not support adding language to the use permit under the development approval
which excludes restaurants, medical or veterinary uses.
Com. Lee:
• Pleased that the applicant is willing to work with the neighbors on several site modifications
and that he is willing to go through with the LEEDS standards check list. If a restaurant or
food establishment was willing to locate there, they would have to go through staff and go
through review process.
• Supports getting the allocation from North DeAnza; and it would be reviewed by staff again in
terms of trash. If there is a gap between the two trees, I am in favor of staff looking into see if
they could plant another tree there or if they cannot put another eucalyptus tree because the
branches are hitting each other, maybe an Italian cypress to provide more screening.
• Overall in favor of this project.
• Relative to green building requirements, it looks like the applicant is okay with going through
with the checklist, so just leave it.
Chair Giefer:
• Said the adjacent neighbors have talked about filling in the existing greenscreen and it appears
to have been done; there are existing red gum eucalyptus along there; so you are probably not
going to be able to add another tree; there might be an opportunity to add one or two shrubs
that could grow to a height of 15 to 20 feet. Asked the applicant if he was comfortable paying
for that if the city did the installation and maintenance and the drip for them.
Landscape architect:
• Said they would have to put in additional irrigation in to ensure that the new plantings take
hold, which is also what we are providing out there on the frontage of North DeAnza; where
we are trying to add a bit more planting underneath the existing eucalyptus to the south of our
property, so it can be achieved. I think the best approach would be to plant a vine on that wall
for help to reduce the old tired appearance of that area. Another tree in that area could
potentially grow if it was another eucalyptus. That would be the better bet, because they will
perform together well. A vine on the wall for the east wall of Partlett would be the best
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 February 24, 2009
approach for providing more screening in that section.
Gary Chao:
• If the Planning Commission desires a condition to that effect, we would recommend that the
applicant install the irrigation as well. It is always a problem when you require trees in partial,
quasi-public/public spaces. Some of the eucalyptus trees are mature landscaping and don't
require any water to exist; new planting -would require the regular irrigation and watering and
it would be prudent for the applicant when they are out there installing their irrigation system,
the new landscaping, that they provide additional taps to that area in the event it is appropriate
to plant more shrubs.
Chair Giefer:
• Said it was aCatch-22; they would like to help the neighbors and provide additional
greenscreening; the applicant doesn't have a planting plan that requires them; it would be
extraordinary expense for us to require them to provide irrigation to that area for plantings that
may or may not survive based on the maturity of the existing landscaping that was there. I
don't personally feel that is fair to require them to do it. If the city had the irrigation there
already that we could tap into and take advantage of, certainly spending $30 on two shrubs
probably they would agree to do, but spending $5,000 for drip irrigation, to install two shrubs
isn't a good investment.
• If there is existing irrigation, then I would be supportive of asking the applicant to pay for up
to two shrubs or vines to help screen that area if we discovered that.
Gary Chao:
• Suggested wording the condition that in the event there is existing irrigation, the applicant
work with staff to the maximum extent possible, with confirmation from a professional
arborist to whatever extent shrubs or vines be deemed appropriate by the arborist be installed.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported Chair Giefer's position that if there is irrigation there already, it would be
fine; if not, if a eucalyptus tree would work, fine; if not, it is not a good investment.
Consensus was reached regarding the irrigation issue.
Chair Giefer:
• I am pleased that the Learning Game is staying in Cupertino; I think it will continue to be an
excellent retailer for the community; It is a small development. I am pleased to see that you are
voluntarily moving ahead with many green enhancements to your project. I am concerned
with regard to the use permit because in the past we have added language to use permits, that if
there was a significant change; I am not worried about your current occupation and potential
sublets that you have in the center; but if for some reason you decided that you needed to go
into a national mall or something like that, vacate the premises and it turned into a food court
for example, then we would have a parking problem as well as a trash issue. Out of concern
for the neighbors I would be in favor of adding some language with regards to further review;
it doesn't exclude those uses in the future, but it would require additional review. Other than
that I think I am in alignment with the majority, I would keep No. 7 in with the voluntary
green building measures; I would take the allocation out of the North DeAnza area.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Relative to the landscape Plan, Item 6 (b) and (c), he said he was not sure he agreed with the
idea of requiring the landscape boulevard treatment; and would like to see what the applicant's
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 February 24, 2009
architect would propose. Said he understood its purpose and appreciated it, but felt it is more
important that the design of the very small center work in a way that is efficient for the builder
and builder/occupant as well as making parking work as well as possible for helping the
neighbors. He suggested striking (b) and (c) from No. 6.
Gary Chao:
• Explained one of the reasons the condition is in place, specifically relating to the front park
strip, that it is common practice along DeAnza Boulevard. The Donut Wheel and this property
at least in the North DeAnza. area, are the only properties that protrude beyond the streetscape,
because there hasn't been any developments that occurred in the recent years resulting from
the public improvements that normally would happen in front. This is consistent with what has
been done in the past with all projects along Stevens Creek and DeAnza. While it is not
mentioned in the zoning ordinance, it is not part of the North DeAnza Specific Plan, but the
General Plan does have provisions to maintain that streetscape. Staff is recommending it out
of past practice and it would be setting a precedent if you don't want to apply that type of same
landscape treatment in the front. It has always been that the property owner would enter into
an agreement with the Public Works Department to maintain it and to detach wherever
possible the sidewalk and such. It is past practice; not something special and Com. Brophy is
correct that there are no other properties as small as these two properties; but if you look at the
entire picture, there are not many properties left and this is the final part of the puzzle that
completes the transition of the sidewalk and the last piece of that edge.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• That says that there is not a precedent problem because there is nothing left for this to be a
precedent on; I understand the desire to have it aesthetic, and I have thought it went both ways
on it, but I feel that this project improves the last major eyesore that exists on North DeAnza
and I would rather see them be successful as an operating business and as a small retail center,
and in my mind the fact there are no other parcels left for the precedent issue to arise, in this
case I would make the exception by withdrawing (b) and (c) from No. 6.
• Said his objections to it were, that you are taking a substantial amount of the land away from
this parcel by; this is not a very big parcel, potentially, it may well be that the applicant
decides that this proposal is the way to go for the best appearance and operation of his parcel,
but I do feel that potentially the chance of getting two more parking spaces would allow the
center to work more effectively and reduce the likelihood of what I see as the main objection
of the neighbors, which is the problem of cars parking on Parlett. I would rather they park,
have two more spaces on DeAnza than having two cars parking on Parlett.
Chair Giefer:
• The other item that is in here is with regards to the landscape maintenance; that the applicant
shall be required to maintain the landscape boulevard per the maintenance agreement. Is that
part of your objection as well.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he would withdraw the proposal for (c), and strike (b).
Aki Snelling:
• Said because the applicant in the 2-1/2 foot strip had originally recommended planting those
trees in that strip, staff is suggesting diamond planters for more room.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked the applicant to comment on the proposal.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 February 24, 2009
Applicant:
• We have gone back and forth many times on the landscaping and where we are now it would
be appreciated to have the flexibility to find out what could best work for the site, but based on
the guidance that we have received from the community and the Planning Department staff,
we went down this path and came up with this plan because we felt it was optimized and to the
best of that ability. If we had the ability to have two more parking spaces and we could still
make it aesthetically pleasing, it would be of interest. We don't want to make it look like the
huge parking lot; we are trying to do as much as we can to add a nice green visual so it stays
consistent down the street. We have taken the other five parking spots that were behind the
building and put it onto the site and have still been able to attain that nice visual. For the
business I believe it does need to be as visually and aesthetically pleasing to draw people into
the site also, so there is a balance there and we haven't evaluated it; it would be something we
would appreciate having the ability to look into that, but we would have to see what that looks
like to see if it would be aesthetically acceptable to the issue at this point. I don't know if I feel
comfortable making that decision because we haven't evaluated that optional. We have
evaluated three other options, so I don't know the best answer to give you, the Planning
Department have been helpful in guiding us through that process and we did have a plan
previously where we left the sidewalk exactly as it is today and we have moved more parking
up there and there were some other parking considerations. With that in mind, the best way to
handle that would be if we could get a few more parking spots on there to alleviate concerns
and make them feel comfortable with it, but at the same time there is an aesthetic cost to that
and we would need to balance it out and run some diagrams to see what that would look like.
The diamond planters were recommended by the city.
• We believe that the trees that were gong in there with the two foot setback off the wall were
going to be more than adequate to support the trees that we had planted there. They have 15
gallon bulbs that are on those trees and that two feet is. adequate to support them. The
Planning Department recommended that we put some diamonds in there to give us a little
added space, remove the trees out and we made that concession because it was a
recommendation. That was another thing that we would like to look back and see what we run
into when we go through the actual development and see if that is what is going to look best
for the site.
Chair Giefer:
• With regards to the landscape plan; do we want to try to provide flexibility on Item B for the
applicant in terms of the sidewalk. Aesthetics are very important.
Com. Miller:
• I would be willing to allow the applicant to do a redesign if he chooses with the proviso that if
it changes from what it is today, it comes back to either- the DRC or Planning Commission.
We get to take another look at it to make sure that aesthetically it is acceptable.
Com. Kaneda:
• I have mixed feelings; I see the advantage of the additional parking and I also see where the _
Planning Department is trying to go, keeping that consistency, so I am inclined to agree with
Com. Miller.
Com. Lee:
• I don't see that there is room to put two more parking spaces; I feel that you would have to
move the sidewalk next to the street and then I don't think there would be an attractive
streetscape, so I would like it to remain as is.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 February 24, 2009
Chair Giefer:
• I am supportive of staff's position on this, and if we don't get it right now we will never have
the opportunity again and I acknowledge that, but I would not want to limit the parking
because of the sidewalk. We should change the "shall" in (b) to a "may" and send it back to
the DRC for review for aesthetics. I think it is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that
they have a pleasing site; we don't want it to be underparked.
• Expressed concern about the use for it and the effects it may have on the parking long term. If
we have a use that comes\ in 5 years, and we have seen this many times, where we have retail
abutting residential, where we have one use today and they outgrow and move somewhere
else, and we end up having a bagel shop and falafel house and something else move in, and it
still meets the parking requirement. That won't come back up for public review and I would
be concerned about that if I were a neighbor. It is the future use, not the short term immediate
use, because I feel comfortable with that. But I think that I would be more comfortable putting
some condition in on the types of uses that would not require Planning Commission review;
because we could have other uses that come in that are compliant with the parking and it
would not be reviewed by us. The uses that concern me are the ones the neighbors mentioned
and it is part of our parking ordinance, is medical; they also mentioned veterinary which I
thought was the same as medical in our parking, so I don't think we need to differentiate that,
but medical would be an underparked business as well.
• The biggest concern I have is food use and we already have in the model resolution that any
food uses must have ventilations system and odor scrubbers on them. Out of respect for the
neighbors, I would like to see some further review if the whole place goes to a food court to
service Apple and all the business uses. It is appropriate for us to notice the neighbors. I don't
see this being short term; I see this as being some time in the future. I would rather have it in
the ordinance than in memory.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• I have no problem with adding food service subject to Planning Commission review. I think
some of the others for the most part would be covered by the parking and business license
review. Add it as Condition 2.
Com. Kaneda:
• My concern is with restaurant; I would support adding language in Condition 2.
Coms. Lee and Miller:
• Support that also.
Chair Giefer summarized:
• As staff has recommended, the commercial square feet would come out of the North DeAnza
allocation in the General Plan; the majority is in favor of leaving No. 7 with regards to green
building in; there is a general opinion that if possible we would all like to have additional
greenscaping along the eastern wall but we don't want the applicant to have to install drip
irrigation at their expense to support that; if the city has existing drip there, then we would all
be in favor of having staff work with the applicant to try to plant a few shrubbery or vines
there that might screen that or an additional red gum eucalyptus to screen, but nothing that is
going to require additional expense for the applicant for drip irrigation. With regard to uses,
we agreed to adding something under Condition 2 in the use permit that requires additional
review for restaurant or food services on the site and noticing of public.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 February 24, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• Suggested that rather than saying put together the laundry list of green building for the
Director of Community Development, make it more consistent to say design to LEEDS
certified standards without requiring formal certification, which gives a long laundry list that
the applicant can choose from and a fairly low level of requirement, but still a level of
requirement for green building.
Chair Giefer:
• Before we poll one another, I would like to ask the applicant's architect if they are familiar
with the LEEDS certification process, is that something you feel would be onerous.
Applicant:
• Said they were comfortable with that. It becomes onerous when the actual certification is
required due to the time and expense of retaining a LEEDS accredited certifier; if the intent of
the Planning Commission is to work toward the standards with requiring a certification, that is
something we can fold into our construction documents process, keep staff apprised of the
green measures we are incorporating into the building and it imposes no extra burden on us.
Chair Giefer:
• I would support the language suggested by Com. Kaneda.
Com. Miller:
• I am still uncomfortable with it because we are doing these things without consistency or
without prior agreement as to what is the standard that we would apply to everyone. This is
the first time we have applied this to an applicant; we have gone further, we have asked for
LEEDS silver; in some applicants we have asked for LEEDS basic and now we are asking to
just meet the standards without doing it. I don't object to the idea in its essence, but I object to
the way we are arriving at it.
Com. Kaneda:
• I agree in that I would like to see the city have some type of more formal standards adopted;
but they don't and we can't put their standards in place as a Planning Commission, but I hate
to just walk away from trying to do what I view is the right thing. You are right in that we
haven't adopted the same standards on every process and this one, because it is such a small
project, I wouldn't recommend that higher standard that we have required other projects to
have. The Santa Clara County Cities Association is developing standards and the City of Palo
Alto has adopted standards as has San Jose; for smaller projects, they have less onerous
standards. We don't have a formal set of standards and I wish we did, but I hate to walk away
from that on a technicality. What I am trying to do, is until we do develop a set of standards,
try to be relatively consistent in what we are asking for.
Com. Miller:
• We haven't been consistent; I think that we as a Planning Commission can direct staff to begin
this as a proj ect that we complete in the next three or four months and we put standards in
place and then we won't be having these disagreements.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was agreeable with that.
Chair Giefer:
• I agree with Com. Kaneda in that we have been consistent; we did the same type of
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 February 24, 2009
requirement for the preschool on DeAnza; we asked them to design toward LEEDS certified
but not file for it, and we have done that before. I agree that we should not be the de facto
standards body on this; but we are trying. If the applicant felt it was onerous of us, then I
could understand that, but I support Com. Kaneda's position on this. I do agree with your
position as well, but on this particular project, I think we have the majority.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Brophy, to approve Application
U-2009-01, ASA-2009-01 with the following amendments: that no restaurant or
food service uses can be put onto the site without public hearing with the
Planning Commission; the square footage comes from the North DeAnza
allocation; that landscape screening on the east side of the property will be put in
and coordinated with the Planning Department if irrigation is available in the
public way; that the project be designed to meet the LEEDS certified standard
without being required to do formal ' certification through the U.S. Green
Building Council, that standard to be checked by the Planning Department; that
Item 7 be deleted; Item 6(b) the landscape treatment along North DeAnza
Boulevard change the word "shall" to "may" be installed with review by the
DRC. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS• None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANI~TING COMIVIISSION
Environmental Review Committee:. Meeting cancelled.
Housint Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners:
• Chair Giefer reported that the TICC is continuing to evaluate new technology; also have green
energy added to their charter, and will be assessing various technologies as they become
available.
• The Library Commission -Library is No. 1 in circulation.
• Housing Commission -The CDBG has given funds for senior housing.
• Teen Commission is hosting a Giving Tree Drive and high school dance; profits to charity.
• Parks and Rec currently in process of studying a dog park.
• Public Safety reinventing itself at this time; looking at number of safe routes to schools.
• Future Mayor's meetings will be held at 8 a.m., next meeting is March 10.
Economic Development Committee: Com. Miller reported the last meeting was a tour of the
city; Coms. Brophy and Lee also participated; visited the Mary Ave. bridge.
Misc. - Potential U cp oming Agenda Items
Chair Giefer discussed potential agenda items for future meetings. Relative to having business
signs on the public right of way; an application came to the DRC, at which time she said she felt it
would be precedent setting and felt that if the DRC was going to evaluate private benefit on use of
public lands, it is a policy that the entire Planning Commission should weigh in on. She suggested
staff include the policy as it comes up often.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 February 24, 2009
Gary Chao agreed that it was a good suggestion, to memorialize something in the sign ordinance
amendment to allow for, whether it is exceptions or terms defined to allow for the exceptions.
Com. Miller said when the sign ordinance was last reviewed, staff indicated that it would be
brought back to the Planning Commission.
Chair Giefer suggested that Erin Donnolly make a presentation on the green building policy, and
what she is currently working on.
Discussion ensued about the possibility of reducing the meetings to one per month, unless needed.
Com. Miller suggested that before reducing number of meetings, they explore if there are
opportunities to study where things can be approved. Staff will report back to the Commission
with a recommendation.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Gary Chao reported:
• City Council reviewed the Heart of the City Plan again; they have made some leeway in terms
of agreed upon changes; they continued the item to April 7 and asked staff to put together a
land use distribution map to illustrate the future trends or pattern of development and consider
shuffling things around to see where things made sense in terms of where mixed use should be
going; where residential should be limited to and the overall discussion of how the look and
feel of the Heart of the City should be.
• The Wireless Ordinance Amendment was approved by City Council with two modifications to
Planning Commission recommendations: the City Council increased the radius to 1000 feet to
all applications of wireless antennas and residential setback is 75 feet from wireless antenna
proposal.
• He reviewed a citizen's complaint about the HVAC at Yogurt Land in the Marketplace Center.
Staff verified the noise reading was within the ordinance allowance; however, City Council
has directed staff to continue to work with Marketplace Center to look at ways to further
mitigate the noise levels.
• Single family Rl ordinance amendment -City Council considered and continued to March 17.
• He reported that there were two green point certified single family homes in Cupertino; both
instances the builder said it was not a difficult process.
Com. Miller:
• Suggested meeting time to do forward planning and suggested reviewing the Crossroads
Center.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for March 10 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary