Draft Minutes 03-23-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COr�INIISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. March 23, 2010 TiJESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of Mazch 23, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul
Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
CiTy Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
APPROVAL OF 1�INUTES
Minutes of the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to approve the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMU1vICATIONS None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
1. U-2009-09 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 sq. ft. daycare facility to
Cindy Cheng (Cupertino operate at an existing commercial building. The application
Investment Partners, also ineludes a new outdoor play area in the eausting rear
LLC) 19875 Stevens parking lot. Postponed from the February 23, 2010 Planning
Creek Boulevard. Commission meeting; Request postponement to the Apri127,
2010 meeting; another Public Hearing Notice will be issued.
Tentative City Council date: May 18, 2010.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 23, 2010
2. TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single
Z-2010-(EA-2010-012) family residential lots of approx. 11,737 and 13,982 gross
Pam Yoshida (Westwood sq. ft. with an exception area of 1,211 sq. ft. in the city of
Investors, LLC) Sunnyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet
10642 No. Portal Ave. in an R-1 zoning district where 60 feet is required;
Pre-Zone and Re-Zone 0.028 acres from City of
Sunnyvale to pre-R1-7.5 and 0.590 acres from A 1-43 to
R1-7.5. Postponed from the March 9, 2010 meeting;
Request postponement to the Apri113, 2010 meeting;
Tentative City Council date May 18, 2010.
3. U-2009-08 (EA-2009-11), Use Permit and Architectural & Site Approval to allow
ASA-2009-08; TR-2010-08 demolition of 95,666 sq. ft. of existing commercial space
Ken Rodrigues (FBJ and the construction of 146,458 sq. ft. of new commercial
Homestead Associates, LLC) space consisting of 4 new commercial satellite buildings
20580, 20620 & 20680 and 3 new major tenant spaces in an existing shopping
Homestead Rd (P W Market) center. T'he approval also allows a 24-hour drive-
through phannacy and a second drive-through at one
of the satellite buildings to operate from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 124 trees as part of
a proposed development application. Request postponement to the April 13, 2010
meeting; another Public Hearing notice has been issued. Tentative City Council
date is May 4, 2010.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to postpone Application U-2009-09 to the Apri127, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting; and Applications TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-(EA-2010-01)
U-2009-08 (EA-2009-11), ASA-2009-OS; TR-2010-08 to the Apri113, 2010
Planning Commission meeting.
ORAL COMMU1vICATIONS
Carly Cullimore, Secretary of the Student Health Services Committee, San Francisco State:
• Expressed concern regarding the operating days and hours of the Cupertino Farmer's Market.
She said that if the market was held on the weekends, not just Fridays, it would give more
people the opportunity to attend and have access to more local seasonal fruits and vegetables
and dairy products. More time to shop at the farmers market would be empowering to the
residents of the community; it gives them more opportunity to support the local economy and a
chance to talk to the farmers and learn more about the food products. It would also afford
parents the opportunity to educate their children about what they are eating and letting them be
involved in choosing foods which would go along toward establishing more healthy eating
habits. With the campaign that Michelle Obama has to stop child obesity, it takes families
and communities working together to educate children on healthy eating decisions. She urged
the consideration of change of operating days and hours to make it an even more successful
community event that more community members would have access to.
4. GPA-2010-01 General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map and
City of Cupertino language in the land Use/Community Design Element of the
Citywide Location General Plan for consistency with the recently updated Heart of
The City Special Plan. Tentative City Council date: Apri16, 2010
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 23, 2010
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use
Map and associated language and maps in the Land Use/Community Design Element of the
General Plan for consistency with the recently updated Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOC)
as outlined in the staff report.
• The City Council introduced an Ordinance to approve the updated HOC on February 16, 2010,
which included updated boundaries, policies and development and design standards in the
Plan. On March 16, 2010, the City Council conducted the second reading of the Ordinance
which will become effective April 16, 2010.
• She reviewed the General Plan Land Use Map amendments to incorporate the newly updated
Heart of City boundaries. The amendments are detailed on Page 4-2 of the staff report.
• The changes to the Land Use/Community Design Element were reviewed in detail, as outlined
on Pages 4-2/3 of the staff report.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the
General Plan Land Use Map and maps and language in the attached Land Use/Community
Design Element in the attached resolution.
• Staff answered Commissioners' questions and clarified reasons for amendments made.
Relative to the two church sites, Union Church of Cupertino and St. Josephs Church of
Cupertino has a quasi-public institutional land use designation; the new Heart of the City Plan
does not allow for a quasi-public uses except for the two churches. City Council specifically
made accommodations that allowed for those church uses to remain and still be consistent with
the Heart of the City Plan for as long as those particular uses remain. When they change over
to a different type of use, they will have to comply with the new Heart of the City Plan which
then opens up to allow for more uses than a quasi-public use would allow.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Clarified that the church property could be sold as long as the use is consistent; if they left that
property and it remained vacant for years, it would be difficult, but that is how uses are
grandfathered in. As long as they are consistent they can sell it to another church user and it is
not qualified as ownership, it is the use; it is all right as long as the use stays consistent and
constant.
• Regarding the churches, the land use is being changed to reflect the current zoning as well as
the Heart of the City; as long as the uses stay consistent, they will conform to the Heart of the
City and they can expand. If one or both the churches decide to move, and they wish to sell
their property to another church, this change in the General Plan will not preclude that. T'he
Heart of the City Plan which governs the zoning, does allow that to happen.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; there was no one present to speak; the public hearing was
closed.
Com. Giefer:
• Said it was a well thought out piece, and she was pleased to see completion of the project as
some of the Commissioners and staff have been working on the project for an extended period
of time.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to recommend approval of Application GPA-2010-01.
Chair Brophy declared a short recess.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 23, 2010
5. MCA-2010-01 Municipal Code Amendment to review and amend Chapter 14.15 of
City of Cupertino the City of Cupertino Municipal Code relating to the Xeriscape
Citywide Landscaping and Water Efficiency regulations. Tentative City
Council date: April 20, 2010
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• The proposed Xeriscape Ordinance (Chapter 14.15) is a result of the Assembly Bill 1881 Water
Conservation and Landscaping Act of 2006; part of the requirements directed the California
Dept. of Water Resources to update the State Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance
and directed local agencies to adopt either their own ordinance or by default the DWR
Ordinance as of January 1, 2010. The ordinance was developed through a process of
reviewing the different model ordinances one of which is the State's Model Ordinance.
• A multi-agency working group participated in developing the landscape ordinance. The
proposed ordinance is applicable to any new or rehabilitated landscapes, larger than 2,500
square feet, for both residential and non-residential projects that require a discretionary
approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Director of Community Development or
Design Review Committee. Projects under 2,500 square feet are required to complete a
checklist.
• She reviewed the submittal requirements of all categories, alternative methods of
demonstrating water efficiency; maintenance and monitoring; and changes between the
ordinances.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
Chapter 14.15 Landscape Ordinance.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Explained the philosophy; It appeared in working with the groups that the DWR ordinance
was extremely restrictive, and needed professional help at all levels to create the water budget
calculations. When they compared that with their original xeriscape ordinance, they realized
that commercial, multi-family, industrial buildings; everything except single-family had
similar, if not equal restrictions. Their goal, because this pulls in single-family was to make
sure that they had an easy way of allowing single family homeowners and small projects,
2,500 square feet or less, the ability to do something simple without hiring a professional.
Hence, they pre-prepared a budget, a checklist that says if you have a turf limitation of 25% of
the landscaping, you have met it. If you use the low water requiring plants, you have met it;
and you don't have to hire somebody. If you do make it easy at one end, you have to make it
stricter at the other end, which is what DWR means by saying you have to make it equally as
effective. All of the different groups realized that and where DWR cuts off those requirements
at 5,000 square feet, they reduced that to 2,500 square feet. That means more projects get
pulled in but they are easier. That is the overall philosophy they created for this ordinance.
They do not want to do monitoring for life and agreed upon the 30 month; and a maintenance
agreement that states it will be maintained.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed ordinance; how to monitor the
success of the program; accountability of users, how does the city know if the landscape is actually
performing, what information is contained in the report forwarded to the State on the success and
monitoring; which is outlined in the staff report.
Piu Ghosh:
• The ordinance says the report shall evaluate the condition of the installation which is the
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 23, 2010
monitoring report, and describe any maintenance needs and any action taken in order to bring
the landscape up to paz; it is not just reporting the actual water usage data.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jerry De La Piedra, Santa Clara Valley Water District:
• Reported that he was responsible for managing the Water District's overall water conservation
program; and he supports the adoption of an ordinance based on the regional template that was
developed by the working group.
• Said that the DWR mandated that every city and county in the state is required to update their
landscape ordinance by law based on the model that DWR developed. The working group that
was developed felt like the DWR model was very cumbersome and complex with many
requirements, and it would not be easy for the developers to be in compliance with, nor was it
going to be easy for city staff to administer and implement; therefore it was decided to develop
a local template and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) was
the first to start a process to develop an ordinance. They had a lot of input, many meetings, a
lot of stakeholder input and comments and Santa Clara County's working group followed
BAWSCA. He said they thought BAWSCA did a good job and a great first step in developing
something easier and simpler for everybody, not only the developers, but also the Planning
staff. He said that ordinances such as this are consistent with the Water District's overall
mission of supplying a reliable water supply, not only now, but well into the future. He said it
was important to have things like this and another reason the working group got together was
they wanted consistency throughout the County. Other cities in the county as well as the
county have started the process and they are using the local template for their service area;
Cupertino may be ahead of some of them; but they are in the process as well.
Mr. De La Piedra answered Commissioner's questions about the proposed ordinance:
• The 2,500 square feet was a recommendation from the working group. The DWR model
ordinance had three thresholds: 2,500 sq. ft. for developer installed commercial; 2,500 sq. ft.
for developer installed single-family; and 5,000 sq. ft. for residential installed. Anything
exceeding those had to go through a cumbersome and complex process; so we thought to
simplify the process for the bigger sites; but in order to be as effective as the State's version,
we had to include some other things and lower the thresholds for some other things. Staff did
an excellent job in explaining many things; the general rule of thumb is it is 1/3 for the
footprint for the home; 1/3 for hardscape, patio; and 1/3 for landscape. He said he felt 2,500
sq. ft. based on countywide needs is a fair number.
• DWR made the distinction if it is residential installed, it means homeowner installed as
opposed to developer installed. According to the DWR version, if the homeowner is doing it,
and it is less than 5,000 sq. ft., he does not have to do a water budget and water monitoring. If
the developer is doing it and selling it to a homeowner, it is reduced to 2,500 sq. ft.
Com. Miller ezpressed concerns:
• Said he was concerned that the numbers chosen were subjective; could another number be
chosen; staff has said they tried to justify their including more people, but don't know whether
2,500 includes three times, four times the number of people, everything is totally subjective
here and that concerns me. We are picking numbers out of the air.
• Monitoring is going to be extremely difficult; if you tell someone they have to give an estimate
up front of how much water is going to be required for that, until a body of evidence is
established to establish a rule of thumb, nobody really knows. It will be almost impossible to
enforce. The city does not have the resources to chase down people who are not managing
their water usage properly.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 23, 2010
Mr. De La Piedra:
• Said he did not think the local template required that; it is looking at what the plans are, what
is installed; there is some monitoring for the bigger sites in terms of a maintenance plan but
other than that, it does not require a lot of ongoing chasing down the site to make sure they are
under budget.
• In the county template, the only ongoing requirement is a maintenance prep plan; they have to
submit a report three times over a 30 month period; it relates more to how the site is doing,
what maintenance is needed on an ongoing basis.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested that staff provide an example of a single-family home that falls within the
ordinance; and describe from beginning to end what they would need to do under this
ordinance. T'hey could always choose the more difficult water budget calculation.
Piu Ghosh:
• For a single-family homeowner if they are doing landscape more than 2,500 sq. ft., they
complete the checklist which has certain criteria, which is they have only 25% of the
landscaped area as turf, 80% is drought tolerant or low water use plants; they are hydrozoning
their plants as in the lower water using plants are being watered by the right kind of sprinkler
heads, and as they are grouped together that the water is low volume irrigation, the soil has
been tilled for 8 inches of compaction, they put in the mulch. That is what a single-family
homeowner would have to provide to the city; the calculation that they are putting down turf
that is 25% of their landscaped area. The city will not require anything else from that
homeowner, even if they are over 2,500 sq. ft.
• It is the easy way to achieve conformance. It is the lesser of the 25%, or 1,250 sq. ft. It is
being used as an acronym for the 1,250 sq. ft. of turf; it is whichever is lesser of those two, that
is what they are going to be putting down as turf. That is all a homeowner or a commercial
property owner would have to do in order to comply with the ordinance, and they would not be
required to be monitoring, or prepare plans for the city to review, not have to do soil testing
and they would not have to do a maintenance agreement.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they created a workflow so people have an easy way. The difficult way is, they want to
have 80% turf, and will do a water budget calculation and will sign up for everything; that is
the other approach. She said they have worked hard to give them an option to stay out of the
monitoring.
Com. Miller:
• Said he struggled with what is the average size lot in Cupertino and if it is 7,500 sq. ft., and
you build a two story house, it seems likely you are going to have more than 1,250 sq. ft. of
turf.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It is reasonable to say that if there were such a site under the new landscape ordinance, they
would have to take a different look at the way they landscape, and that is the intent of the
DWR ordinance.
Piu Ghosh:
• Pointed out that if plans do not indicate any landscaping work being done, the project
requirements don't apply.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 March 23, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Someone could build a house and then minimally landscape it, and tl�en sometime later go in
and do their own thing and the city would never know.
Com. Kaneda:
� Even the DWR model acknowledges that there may be some cases where that is going to be
weak and most of the homes regardless of lot size, typically have landscaping at the most in
front. In the e�mple of 7,500 sq. ft. lots, it is a two story home with some front yard
enhancements, in which case it would not trigger and later on they could do the back yard, not
associated with any discretionary permit and they wouldn't be triggering this permit, just this
ordinance.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the State goal is to reduce water consumption; we have an additional goal to say water
rates are going up, you might want to start thinking about it, and at some point, water pricing
will probably level the playing field that people will realize they have to pay a lot for water
and they would rather not water grass with it, but we are trying to make it easy for them to
plan for it.
Com. Miller:
• Said his preference would be to allow the water rates to go up and then you wouldn't have to
deal with all this matter because the market would take care of it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were just trying to make the best with the DWR ordinance.
Chair Brophy:
� Pointed out that the reason DWR e�cists is to provide water to millions of acres of crops such
as cotton and rice in the middle of the desert; for them to be worrying about the landscape
plans of individual houses is somewhat disheartening.
Mr. De La Piedra:
• Explained how the plant palette would be kept updated. The report card WLJCOLS (Water
Use Classification of Landscape Species) is included in the ordinance and contains every plant
possible and is separated by zone throughout California. It ranks low, mid and high water use
plants and has a crop coe�cient for each plant and depending on what zone, that is the one
used for the calculation.
• Said he was not involved in the negotiations relative to the Green Building Code, but there is
presently a movement to do something with the Green Ordinance. The Green Ordinance is a
lot less restrictive than the Landscape Ordinance; if you have a Landscape Ordinance in place
you won't have to worry about the Green Ordinance for landscaping.
Com. Kaneda:
• Pointed out that in the Green Building Code cutoffs are 2,500 sq. ft. and 5,000 sq. ft. for
landscape areas.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Is there a landscape and irrigation form or checklist; also is a certified landscape auditor
needed to prepare one or who does that and how? Page 18; I understand that it is submitted to
the Director of Community Development about 3 times in a 30 month time period.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 23, 2010
Piu Ghosh:
• That is the landscape professional, the person who is maintaining the landscape. It is not
required if you do just the checklist. They keep a log of the maintenance activity that is
involved with maintaining the landscape; it is basically routine inspection, pressure testing etc.
Mr. De La Piedra:
• Some cities are developing educational materials; this is one of the things that will be covered;
handing out materials that show what should be included in the maintenance plan; hand that
out to new projects so that they know what they should be submitting.
Vice Chair Lee:
• For implementation it would be easier; it seems like it doesn't need to be done by somebody
certified, but a landscape person, who would be able to do the pest control, replant, fertilize.
Com. Kaneda:
• One of the key issues is the water use and likely the reason for the 30 month time period is that
the water use initially is much higher to establish the plants and then once the plants are
established, you can ratchet it back and get the ongoing water use for the system. Presumably
somebody adjusts that; is that the thinking; early on you are in plant establishment mode and
the water turned up and at some point it goes back to the designs amounts of water that they
design professionally for.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said the irrigation schedule would take into account the establishment period.
Com. Kaneda:
� In that case it is important that the designer of the system has some amount of control over it
so they can dial the water use back once the plants are established.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said the new and existing cemeteries were notified by mail.
• Said there are specific stormwater requirements; for front yards, for a lot that is 60 feet or less,
you can pave up to 50% of it; if the lot is more than 60 ft. wide, you can pave up to 40% of the
front yard area, which can be the first 20 feet, which can be impervious material.
• Said the Stormwater Ordinance, a C3 Ordinance would prevent paving the entire lot in order to
reduce total water usage; there are specific requirements with regulations with regard to single-
family homes that are in the pipeline to take effect as the end of the year or 2011.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the limitations of this ordinance are that only if they need a city permit would they need
to comply with the ordinance; if they don't need a city permit, they could landscape their
whole entire area and it wouldn't be subject to the ordinance, which is a pity, but that is how
the ordinance is written.
Com. Miller:
• Com. Giefer brought up a good point, and that is the issue of unintended consequences and
you could envision in fact that when someone is designing their hardscape, softscape,
landscape, etc. they will take this new ordinance into account and push the hardscape to the
limit because they have to do something with their property.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 March 23, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
� C3 requirements require that you capture all of the water on your lot so you have that
limitation and then you want to make sure that the planting you have does not need more
water. You have different controls to get you to (a) capture water on your own lot and (b) to
make sure that if you are watering plants, you are not using high intensity watering plants.
Com. Miller:
• That is a nice requirement, but capturing all the water on your lot and if it rains heavily one
year, there is no way anybody is going to capture all the water on their lot, and so you are
always doing it to some kind of standazd and the techniques that are used to capture water on
the lot are subject to failure over time unless they are constantly maintained, e.g., using dry
wells or whatever they are called are some of the other techniques. They tend to get clogged
up with debris and homeowners do not maintain them. All the techniques being used are great
for the first year or so, but over time they diminish in usefulness and effectiveness.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• We are struggling with all the state mandates trying to find a good way to do it. I think our
goal is to try to make it as simple as possible and yet meet the state mandates.
Com. Miller:
• Said in terms of collecting water, there are systems on the market that can collect rainwater; it
is captured and stored and run through the irrigation system, and to the extent they work, that
would be very effective, but there is nowhere in this ordinance that allows you to account for
that because that would presumably allow you to ha�e a larger landscape area and still not
impact the water usage.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said a water budget could be prepared and it could be called a special landscape area.
Mr. De La Piedra:
• Responded that he was not certain it would be considered a special landscape area; credit
might be given for it in the water budget calculation. They have looked into rainwater
harvesting in terms of whether it is a feasible program for the Water District to offer rebates in
Santa Clara County and based on weather patterns, getting rain in a 3 or 4 month period; the
rest of the year is when they need to irrigate, so in order to capture enough rainfall to make it
feasible to use that in the rest of the year, you need huge underground tanks that cost $ l OK to
$20K and the cost of water doesn't make it cost effective.
Com. Kaneda:
• When doing many green building designs, rainwater is an issue that comes up repeatedly. If
there was rain and then didn't have rain for three weeks, then got more rain, it would make
sense to do a catch system. What ends up happening is if you capture water like that, you use
it for toilet flushing rather than for irrigation, because the storage tanlcs are so huge, it becomes
onerous.
Com. Miller:
• That is an interesting point; the objective is to reduce overall water usage; so whether you use
it for landscaping or you use it internally in your house, if you are using it you are achieving
the objective.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 March 23, 2010
Chair Brophy opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Com. Kaneda:
� Applauded the staff for all their efforts and meeting with other organizations to try to
coordinate it; it is an issue where you cannot just do it in your own backyard and figure out
what you are going to do; it has to be coordinated. It is a regional issue which has to be
coordinated regionally.
• With this type of thing, there will always be many questions; I think this is as well thought out
as it reasonably could be. My sense is that as we implement it, things will come up and it will
need tweaking at some point and that is fine. As long as we approach it with that in mind, then
when the time comes we need to go back and tweak it.
• Said it was a good first pass and he supported it.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she concurred and added that it is consistent with the General Plan Sustainability Section,
Water Use. Said she was pleased they were adding more green building measures and was
certain they would continue to improve upon it.
Chair Brophy:
• Said there is confusion of what green means. You can either apply the term to whatever your
pre-conceptions are; Com. Giefer's point about the one way to solve this ordinance is to pave
over your entire yard; while that is covered by stormwater limitations, the fact remains that it
is not clear what is the best way to go; for example in the City of San Carlos they are
discussing this presently. The school district wishes to replace all their fields with artificial
turf and the school district argues that in addition to having fields that will be available during
the rainy season, this is a green step because it reduces the water consumption of the district,
and whereas the neighbors who are opposed to this feel that replacing grass with artificial
fields is the opposite of green.
• Said that it is cumbersome even though staff has made a yeoman's effort to simplify the
process as much as possible, but he is not sure there is any way to dramatically simplify it
given the mandate that has been set by the state. He suggested a change for residential
properties to 3,500 sq. ft. or 3,750 limit just for residential that would at least reduce the
number of homes that would be subject to review by staff.
Com. Giefer:
• One clarifying question; I thought that the average lot size in Cupertino was 7,500 sq. ft. which
is why I wasn't concerned about that number.
Chair Brophy:
• That means that half the lots aze subject to it; I am saying we should go a little further out on
the right hand curb; because in terms of total water consumption I would think it is much more
likely to be in the large commercial projects and multi family projects and the large homes. I
don't know where you draw the line, but I would skew it towazd the equivalent of a 9,000 or
10,000 ft. lot.
Com. Kaneda:
• I am not sure I have a strong feeling either way but one way to think about it, is I understand
what you are saying about commercial uses, but we have got more square footage of land in
Cupertino, residential or commercial.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 March 23, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• The existing homes are not subject to the ordinance; we are refemng to somebody who does a
teardown in Monta Vista where the lots are 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. If you did a teardown in
Garden Gate or Rancho Rinconada where the lots are 5,000 to 6,000 they wouldn't come
under the ordinance. The attempt is to try to reduce the number of permits you can process
each year without having a significant effect on total water consumption. That is where I am
trying to draw the line.
Com. Kaneda:
• It is something that needs to be looked at. There is likely more water going into residential
imgation than there is in the commercial irrigation because there is a lot more square footage
of residential land around here than there is commercial for Cupertino.
Chair Brophy:
• Most of that is already built, so the ordinance won't affect that.
Com. Giefer:
• Does it really matter how small or how large; if it is not going to apply to many of the
residential?
Chair Brophy:
• We are talking about how many houses do we process in terns of the number of permits
processed; they are disproportionately residential and to the eatent we have a few less
residential lots that need to go through the more cumbersome process, then focus the stafPs
time and effort on the larger consumers of water. To reduce the hassle factor that exists in
terms of individual owners dealing with the development process; it may not be a big burden
for a professional home builder, but I think we have seen in the time I have been here, we
seem to have had a fair number of cases of homeowners coming in saying that the process of
working through the ciTy, or even prior to this kind of ordinance, is already burdensome.
Com. Miller:
• Said he preferred Chair Brophy's proposal, because he felt it was a very subjective thing; it is
burdensome and there are many ways around it and people will take those ways. It is difficult
to monitor and enforce and it is not likely going to affect so few people in the city; it is not
likely to produce the desired results. I forced to do it, it should be particularly for home
owners, because those are the people who are coming in for a remodel or tearing down a house
and building another house, and we are just adding more to the burden of doing that and
rebuilding in Cupertino, and I would like to see it as loose as possible.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said her personal preference was to leave it at 5,000 sq. ft.
• It had to be stricter somewhere else, any solutions would be welcomed and she would be
happy to make any change. What that means is everybody else does the water budget
calculation and you don't have to check which option; BAWSCA worked it out with water
budgets and proved that this package gets to the goal; we don't have a way unless we hire
someone to redo everything to prove that this package gets to the goal.
• Said the package they arrived at is one that meets DWR objectives, it simplifies it the best way
` without hiring somebody to go do something else. If you make it looser at one end, you have
to make it stricter somewhere else, and we didn't see where they could do that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 March 23, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Said he did not see how it could meet any goal if there are only a few houses per year coming
in for something that is going to be effected.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they were not arguing that point, but arguing the difference between the DWR ordinance
and the city's ordinance. Said she understood the intent and the overall picture; and was
looking at how to get to DWR's ordinance to make an ordinance as effective or be subject to a
DWR ordinance.
• We are trying to find an easier way and we felt this was one that could be justified. If we want
to simplify things for single family owners, which is entirely where I would like to be as well,
I don't know where we make it stricter on somebody else because our goal is to try to make it
simple for everybody and the way we try to design this is to say if you are a single family
. homeowner, if you need a permit, you fill out a checklist; and there is an easy way to achieve
it and it is not monitored. That is about as easy as we can make it and we can extend that to
everybody, and that meets the goal and BAWSCA has proven that. If we reduce it somewhere
then we have to strengthen it somewhere else, and we don't have the expertise to tinker with it
to that extent.
Com. Miller:
� Would it make it more stricter if there were more requirements with respect to the plant
selection, calling for more of it to be drought tolerant.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It would, but it puts a huge burden on other people and we wanted to make it easy for
everybody to do the right thing; that is the ultimate goal. (Who would it make it more difficult
on??) The DWR ordinance says you can have a 5,000 sq. ft. cutoff for single family installed
by residents themselves if everyone does a water budget calculation; there is no checklist. That
is an option we can choose. That means everybody else has to do a very onerous checklist by a
certified professional; that is an option, but we felt it was onerous. BAWSCA worked out the
other thing and along with hiring experts to do water budget calculations, they came up with a
middle ground and we are somewhat looser than BAWSCA because BAWSCA is a little
higher, so we are trying to achieve that 20% water efficiency and we feel that knowing what
we know, we are trying to make the best of the situation. We could go to DWR and say the
cutoff is 5,000 square feet; we go with DWR, everybody else water budget, monitoring and all
that good stuff. That is an option. Only single family, 5,000 square feet of landscaping or
greater get this break, otherwise 2,500 is the cutoff for developer installed single family and
developer installed everything else; commercial, multi-family, industrial; they all do water
budget calculations and it becomes a very onerous process.
• Said the monitoring clause was required by DWR, and it has been simplified to 30 months;
they don't have an end date. They also require that the city do audits.
• Said that 2,500 sq. ft. and 1,250 sq. ft. were not arbitrary numbers, but were numbers
developed by BAWSCA, and they have done water budget calculations on it to prove that they
are at least achieving DWR's goals.
• Said she heard all the comments and they asked themselves the same questions when they
went for the process. They aren't starting from scratch, but are starting from the DWR
ordinance. If there was a leeway, they would have found it, and she is seeking any and all
ways to make it easy. The underlying goal is to make it easy to do the right thing, and not
make it any harder. We think it should be easy and we are trying to pave the way for people to
understand and do this in a very simple way.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 March 23, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Asked staff to again clarify that in terms of the Public Works Department asking for
permission to chazge a fee to review, that they would not be reviewing any checklist projects,
or not intending to collect any fees for checklists.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• They would not need to review and therefore would not collect fees. This is a proposal; the
Council will vote on the final fee. We are not requesting a fee because we think we want to
make it as easy and inexpensive as possible.
Com. Miller:
• When you are over the 2,500 sq. ft. and on the 30 month time clock, would they be charging
$1,000 or not? Commented that he felt they were already charging a lot for fees, and some of
the fees that they charge for a plan check actually cost more than the actual activity being
checked. To some extent the fees are not totally what can be considered reasonable; and in his
opinion rather than charge an upfront fee, he would rather have them monitor it and see what it
is costing them, and then charge a fee later rather than charge an upfront fee.
Piu Ghosh:
• You could still just do the checklist which is pick your 25% turf or 1250 sq. ft.; if you checked
"yes" on every single item on the checklist, even though you are over 2,500 sq. ft., as long as
you are under 1.250 sq. ft. all these things kick in when you do the water budget calculations.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said when first reviewing the ordinance, she assumed it would be applied to mostly bigger
projects; a 7,500 sq. ft. lot is basically like most lots, so that would apply to everybody.
Advise people to make sure it is the 80% and 20%, make sure it is native species, so that they
could do the checklist. If I was going to go through a building process for a home, I would do
that to avoid this and make sure the native species and make sure there is not a lot of turf and
just go under that threshold. We don't have any options; either we go with the DWR which I
like the 5,000 sq. ft. number better for landscaping; it make more sense; it is a lot of landscape;
but by going by the DWR it seems like it is confusing and complex; the other option is to go
with the proposed city ordinance which applies to more people but any size landscape you
have just as long as it is not a lot of non native plants, it seems like you can get around it and
go through a checklist.
• Said she supported the city ordinance.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he appreciated staff's detailed explanation, but felt they were being forced into a corner;
the effect of bringing the number down is going to have minimal at best affect on water
consumption, and given the limitations set by DWR, by the legislation it sounds like they will
just have to live with that. Staff suggested considering putting together a document that is
understandable by landscape contractors and families, in simple terms people could see that, so
that it would encourage the kind of development that would lead down the checklist path. He
said he would defer to staf�s argument, and the only change as suggested by Com. Miller,
would be to include an addendum recommending that the Council not add an additional fee for
review.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• In response to Com. Miller's question what the consequences would be if the city decided to
go to 3,500 sq. ft. instead of 2,500, she said they would have to work out a way to make it
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 March 23, 2010
stricter on somebody else, which might reduce that threshold further for non-single family, or
have people to water budget calculations. Because the DWR is an option, the cutoff is 5,000;
but everyone does water budget calculations.
Com. Kaneda:
• If Com. Miller is thinking of anything other than one or the other presumably implies that
somebody has to go in and analyze it; staff doesn't have the in-house expertise to do that
analysis.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she did not know what it would take to revisit all of that; they have years worth of
meetings and are trying to stay within those thresholds because they prefer it to DWR.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt it would be ineffective and a waste of time, and more burden on people. He said he
wanted a way to minimize what he considered to be mostly negative impacts from it.
Chair Brophy:
• Theoretically you could raise the limit to 3,500 sq. ft. which would get it over the 10,000 ft.
lot, and it would cover many of those lots higher than 7,500 sq. ft. Staff is saying they would
have to go and prove that it was efficient and it would involve far too much.
• With any change we make we still have to prove it, even if you made something more stricter.
• Said he agreed with Com. Miller that the effect of the ordinance would be far less than what its
legislative authors intended, but given the position they are in, the best they can do is approve
it as staff recommends or recommend that they not insult to injury by making homeowners and
builders pay a fee for it.
Com. Kaneda:
• One other issue that may be as pertinent; I know quite often in these types of discussions when
we are doing it for the Santa Clara County Cities Assoc. the other issue that came up is that if
you can have a model ordinance that many cities adopt the same verbiage, it makes it easier
for the developers that aze working on more than one jurisdiction.
Com. Giefer:
• To clarify Com. Miller's point about making sure we are enforcing it and having a great
success with the overall objective which is to reduce water usage, if we had everybody do the
water calculation with monitoring which is the DWR approach, wouldn't it then have greater
effectiveness although it would be much more onerous.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• If you want to be more effective, you have to be more onerous; I think our goal is to stay
within DWR's limitation and make it as easy as possible.
Com. Giefer:
• If we really wanted to ensure that it is effective, we could recommend that that is the route to
follow, and then everybody would need to comply with monitoring and we would be assured
that we are meeting those objectives.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• That is an option, but not one that staff is recommending.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 March 23, 2010
Com. Miller:
� Said he was not in favor of that; and was considering another alternative and what staff said,
is that they have to make it stricter on someone else; presumably the commercial developer.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• And the developer installs single family which DWR has a threshold of 2,500 sq. ft.
Com. Miller:
• So if we go to 3,500 sq. ft. that would only apply to residential installed; it wouldn't apply to
developer installed?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It could be anything; I don't have the expertise to tell you where if you make it stricter you are
going to achieve the same goal.
Com. Miller:
• Said that if they look at commercial projects; if they are small commercial projects, they are
going to have minimal landscaping to begin with and they could meet a smaller threshold; in
all likelihood they do. If they are larger projects, whenever there are commercial projects
there is far more hardscape than landscape because we have to have parking, and we have to
have walkways and so making it more difficult on the commercial may not really be making it
more difficult on them.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Would you then require water budget calculations for all commercial? It gets closer to DWR.
Com. Miller:
• He questioned whether just reducing the amount of landscaping they can't have without the
water budget would work.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• She said she did not have the expertise to provide an answer. She said she reached the
conclusion that unless they hire their own water budget consultant, they would not be able to
get those answers.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Giefer, and carried 4-1-0, Com. Miller
voted No; to recommend approval of Application MCA-2010.01 with the further
recommendation that there be no fee established for Public Works landscape
review until there is a track record and idea of how much that number is.
OLD BUSINESS None
NEW BUSINESS None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COIVINIISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No Meeting.
Housin� Commission:
• Com. Kaneda reported that Nicky Borocco was elected Chair of the Housing Commission;
Harvey Barnett Vice Chair.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 March 23, 2010
• A new process is in place with electronic analysis and point scoring system that the housing
commissioners are using to assign points to the different projects to help them allocate funds.
• Going through the process of providing funding for a number of different projects related to
health care services and homeless shelters, senior day care, Housing For Humanity, some of
the West Valley Community Services projects.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin� With Commissioners: Report will be given at next meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DII2ECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Written report submitted.
• The Planners Institute Conference will be held March 24, 2010 through March 26, 2010.
Reports will be provided following attendance.
Adiournment•
• The meeting was adjourned to the ne�ct regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
April 14, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary