MinutesCITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. November 24, 2009 THURSDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The special Planning Commission meeting of November 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:
Lisa Giefer
Paul Brophy
Winnie Lee
Marty Miller
Commissioners absent: Commissioner:
Staff present: Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Associate Planner:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
David Kaneda
Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao
Piu Ghosh
Minutes of the October 13, 2009 Planning Commission meetiizg: Approved as presented.
Minutes of the October 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Approved as presented.
Minutes of the November S, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
• Page 3, Bottom of page, Chair Giefer: Delete: "our carbon" and insert "carbon footprint"
• Page 10, Bottom of page, Chair Giefer: Delete: ", and also if it is amulti-family, it is
.04 cents per square foot" .
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Miller, and carried 4-0-0, Com.
Kaneda absent, to approve the October 13, 2009 and October 27, 2009 Planning
Commission minutes as presented; and approve the November 5, 2009 Planning
Commission minutes as amended.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
November 24, 2009
2. U-2009-06 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare
Cindy Cheng (Cupertino facility to operate at an existing commercial building.
Investment Partners, LLC) The application also includes a new outdoor play
19875 Stevens Creek Blvd. area in the existing rear parking lot.
The applicant has withdrawn the application.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Lee, and carried 4-0-0,
Com. Kaneda absent, to withdraw Application U-2009-06 at the request
of applicant.
4. GPA-2008-01 (EA-2009-OS) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing
City of Cupertino Element update. Postponed with no new hearing date.
Citywide Location
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Lee, and carried 4-0-0
Com. Kaneda absent, to postpone Application GPA-2008-01 (EA-2009-OS)
(No new hearing date specified)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Recommendation on the Green Building Ordinance Scope and Process.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Lee, and carried 4-0-0,
Com. Kaneda absent, to approve the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARING
3. TM-2009-04
Terry Brown (Marci Properties)
10056 & 10058 Orange Avenue
Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel into three*
commercial condominium units, one residential
condominium unit, an one common area lot.
*The application has been revised to subdivide
one parcel into two commercial condominium
units instead of three
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Tentative Condominium Map to subdivide one mixed use
building into two commercial condominium units and one residential condominium unit, as
outlined in the staff report.
• Staff supports the application because of the location of the project and other similar approvals
in the neighborhood.
• Answered questions about the application.
Terry Brown, Applicant:
• Said that there were two addresses because there was one set of commercial building permits
and one set of residential building permits for that particular building.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 24, 2009
• At the time of the original approval in 2007, the development had not been approved, and as
done in other projects, they came in later once the building was approved and they saw tl~e
size, shape and general configuration of the building they would build.
• Discussed how the structures would be maintained through the homeowners' association since
one was residential and two were commercial. He said the CC&Rs would address how repairs
and maintenance would be handled.
• Said the units would likely be sold to users because the concept was to make then affordable
sized buildings or units for individuals who want to open small businesses or live on site and
have a small business on site.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak. The public
hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he was concerned with the concept of a three unit condominium, two commercial
buildings and one residential building.
• He said he had mixed feelings about the project; if there were no similar projects in the
neighborhood, he would be opposed to it. He was concerned how the three-u-Iit -nixed use
project would work in terms of how it would be maintained long term, notwithstanding the
applicant's comments and reassurance that any future repairs would be taken care of. He said
he heard comments from others that it is difficult enough to make that happen in three and four
unit residential projects, but in a project with a single residential tenant on the second floor and
two commercial users on the first floor, he was skeptical of the long term effect of that kind of
legal structure for buildings. Based on that, he said he would be opposed to the project, but
given that it has been the pattern for the past, he wanted to hear the opinion of the other
Commissioners. He emphasized his concern that the project was only three units with the
unusual combination of one residential and two commercial condo-niniu-ns.
• As stated by Chair Giefer, when you see projects go on for 15 to 25 years, the problems that
are theoretically solved aren't always the case and he said he felt conflicted about that issue.
Com. Miller:
• Said he did not have a problem with the project, and asked the applicant to clarify if there had
been maintenance issues on the other similar buildings in the neighborhood.
Terry Brown:
• Responded that they were fairly new buildings and he was not aware of any maintenance
issues. He commented that he worked on the other four projects in the area and was in contact
with the neighborhood and had not heard of any problems. The projects all have CC&Rs; a
consultant has determined how much each party has to contribute each month in order to keep
everything maintained; all of the items are itemized in the budget for the homeowners'
association.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported the project; there are examples in town that appear to be working, and a
precedent has been set in the neighborhood.
Com. Lee:
• Said she visited the site and saw other buildings with the same layout, and she felt the concept
was favorable for residents. She said she felt the project would be successful in tl~e
neighborhood and she supported it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 24, 2009
Chair Giefer:
• Said she shared Vice Chair Brophy's concerns, and stated slle has always been concerned
about condominium business projects; in particular older projects where there are maintenance
issues because of the escalating costs of maintaining older buildings and delivery of those
services. The fees collected now don't generally keep up with the cost of delivering the
services in the future. She noted that it would be a significant assessment when the roof needs
repairing or when the parking lot needs repaving; and she would like assurance that the project
is going to be successful and not be a nuisance in 30 years, similar to the run down, mixed use
condominium project in Monta Vista.
• She asked staff to explain what could be done to ensure that the project is maintained in the
future, because as Vice Chair Brophy pointed out, there is the potential issue of a residential
owner and an owner of commercial real estate downstairs who isn't currently leasing, who
would not want to invest in a new roof because he cannot occupy the property.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that relative to the CC&Rs, staff would consult with the City Attorney to ensure that
those specific concerns could be handled; making certain there are enough funds ahead of time
to be able to make the payment, assuming a certain number of years are required with money
collected for the next time the roof has to be repaired. She said it was possible to prepare those
kinds of estimates and update the dues accordingly.
Terry Brown:
• Said he understood that the homeowners' association is required by law to maintain the reign
of contribution on a monthly basis to protect the other owners in the development, and he
would ensure that to be the case when the CC&Rs are finalized. The amount of the monthly
assessments in the CC&Rs has to be updated annually, which is one of the conditions of
approval. He also discussed the reserve funds for larger projects which may arise.
Chair Giefer:
• Summarized that the options were to vote on the project, which may result in a split
vote/failure; get more information on how to ensure for the future on the issue of how to
future-proof this project; and lastly, to have staff work with the City Attorney to ensure that
the CC&Rs correctly address the issue to future-proof the project.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he would support the project with reluctance if the City Attorney reviewed the CC&Rs to
ensure that there were sufficient reserves being established for future long term projects;
although it was not a guarantee since there is nothing to prevent the future homeowners'
association from changing the reserves. He said that the neighborhood has had similar projects
and he would support the project with the understanding that he would be opposed to any
future development applications that hinted to be future condominium projects.
Com. Miller:
• Reiterated his support of the project.
Chair Giefer:
• Said she concurred with Vice Chair Brophy to add the condition that the City Attorney review
the CC&Rs to ensure that they were worded to ensure sufficient reserves were available for
future large scale projects.
• She said she would support moving forward with the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 24, 2009
• Condition No. 2, added sentence: "The City Attorney will ensure language in the CC&Rs that
provides adequate funding for major future repairs. Any changes to the CC&Rs must be
reviewed and approved by the City.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Miller, and carried 4-0-0, Com.
Kaneda absent; to approve TM-2009-04 with the model resolution as amended.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee:
• Com. Miller reported that Cupertino Square has been sold to new owners.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Discussed the State required Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which all communities
will be subject to effective January 1, 2010. The Department of Water Resources has prepared
a model ordinance which is being reviewed by staff to Customize for the City of Cupertino.
Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for Tuesday, January l2, 2010, at 6:45 p.m. (The December 22, 2009
was previously cancelled.)
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary