Draft Minutes 5-11-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINC► PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. May 11, 2010 T'UESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting c,f May 11, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA, by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairper;;on: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissionet : Marty Miller
Commissioner absent: Commissionei: David Kaneda
Staff present: Community Development D rector: Aarti Shrivastava
City Plvmer: Gary Chao
Senior P: anner: Colin Jung
Senior P anner: Piu Ghosh
APPROVAL OF NIINUTES
Minutes of the April 13, 2010 Planning Comn iission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Kaneda
absent; to approve the Apri113, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
Minutes of the April 27, 20I0 Planning Comr�:ission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and carried 3-0-1, Chair Brophy
abstained, Com. Kaneda absen t; to approve the April 27, 2010 Planning
Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Non�;
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM C.�I.ENDAR None
ORAL COMIVIUNICATIONS None
CONSENT CALENDAR None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. U-2009-09 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 sq. ft. daycare facility to
Cindy Cheng (Cupertino operate at an e�sting commercial building. The application also
Investment Partners, LLC) includes a�iew outdoor play area in the existing rear parking
19870 Stevens parking loi . Requested postponement to the May 11, 2010
Creek Boulevard. meeting; P �stponed from April 27, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting; T�ntative City Council date: June 1, 2010.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 11, 2010
Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the application for proposed daycare use, which was discussed on
January 26, 2010 and continued with dire ctives for staff and the applicant to address traffic
related issues. The City Council has the fvial decision on the application because the proposed
daycare exceeds 5,000 square feet in size He noted that the applicant is proposing that the
facility open at 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., hcwever, stafPs recommendation is that the hours be
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., in order �o respect and address the residents' concerns to the
north. Parking and drop-off will be discus:ced at the meeting.
• The site plan has been revised by the applicant proposing a secondary entrance to the operation
from the rear of the property. At the last rieeting concerns were expressed whether a daycare
facility was the appropriate use for the site given its proximity to the adjacent retail space and
also that it fronts off Stevens Creek; there were concerns that the lighting not have a negative
impact on adjacent property owners, in p irticular the residents to the north. Applicant was
asked to address having an ancillary or sea�ndary entrance to the facility which has been done.
• The Planning Commission was concerne�i about general site circulation., parking, stacking
concerns of the daycare and directed that a parking analysis and traffic analysis be prepared.
Relative to a lighting plan, there is a condilion that addresses that, where the project is required
to adhere to the general commercial lightir�g requirements, that there not be any light spillover
to the adjacent residential properties; that appropriate cutoff shields be designed and that the
final lighting plan be prepared by a lightin; engineer and submitted to staff for review prior to
issuance of the building permit.
• Relative to public comments from the la: t meeting, there is a request from residents to the
north that a masonry wall along the northerly property boundary be built first as a matter of
construction management plan. The lighfvig impacts on the adjacent homes to the north needs
to be addressed and people are concerned about trafFic and circulation as it relates to the
proposed daycare. Also the owner's representative raised issues about wanting the traffic
study to look at queuing, stacking, potentially on their property to the east; and they have made
a request that a new masonry wall be constructed along the easterly boundary to help mitigate
any potential visual impact or noise impact.
• He reviewed the transportation/parking ar.alysis performed by Fehr and Peers as outlined in
the staff report. The conclusion of the report indicates the peak hour trips are within
acceptable range and that parking supply b�ing provided by project is adequate to meet the city
code at one space per siar children as well as the observed parking rate which is one space per
5.5 children. There are minimum impa;ts on adjacent intersections in that the general
circulation access are adequate.
• He reviewed the five recommended condit: ons from the traffic consultant, including:
• Applicant to provide delineated pick-up and drop-off spaces during peak hours;
• Driveway aisle along the westerly sic.e of the existing retail building currently is a two-
way driveway, to be striped for one-w�iy northbound only;
• A pedestrian path be delineated along the westerly driveway aisle to facilitate pedestrian
activities to and from the front to the ti ack of the parking lots;
• Employees shall park in the reaz of the parking lot;
• The southbound left turn pocket or� Portal be extended to allow sufficient queuing
vehicles as they make their way out onto Portal and attempt to make a left turn onto
Stevens Creek.
• Staff recommends that all daycare use rs park in the rear parking lot and appropriate signs
be posted at the entrance driveway; and daycare hours be limited from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of
the proposed project; and provide de�isions regarding the construction timing of the 8-
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 11, 2010
foot masonry wall on the northerly boundary should be constructed first; and also whether
there should be an 8-foot masonry wa:1 on the easterly property boundary.
• Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the project.
Eric Shanower, Land Use Consultant, rep�•esenting property owner and proposed daycare
tenant:
• Said there was a shortage of daycare spots in Cupertino; there are 35,000 children, aged 4 and
under in a 5.5 mile radius around Cuperti no; and the existing daycare centers do not fill the
need of the 35,000 children in the area.
• Explained the project improvements: vehi�;le circulation and pazking: reiterated understanding
and support of the traffic engineer's conclusions; showed where the vehicles would enter,
signage showing parking for daycare ancl drop-off for daycare is in the rear, people could
continue down the one-way pathway into the parking lot and there would be the designated
drop-off spots for parents. The parents ha ve been educated about the procedures for drop-off
and pick-up. He said they concur with thr, traffic engineer's conclusions and with city staffls
conclusions; it is clear the work of the traffic and parking consultant was conservative
estimations.
• Relative to Vice Chair Lee's questions ab��ut the parking, the parking consultant went beyond
applying the City's code standard to this use; they went out and observed an existing facility;
then added 9% onto what they observed t� prepare for a peak use and added 5% demand for
circulation, because if there is no empty sp�t in a parking lot, it functionally doesn't work.
• From a vehicle circulation and traffic stan�ipoint and drop-off, it is improved and will function
very well for the parents, and will function very well for adjacent retail use and community.
• Relative to the interface with the resident ial neighbors, the recommendation is for an 8 foot
masonry wa1L In addition, landscape plan� call for coast redwood trees to be planted along the
boundary which will create a significant screening; they agree to build a masonry wall at the
outset prior to any other improvements �n the site which was the specific request of the
residential neighbors.
• Another concern of residential neighbors �vas the lighting overflow, there cannot be a lighting
overflow; the lights must be shielded and �ipplicant has to ensure that the lighting plan will not
result in any light being shone beyond the property lines. He showed an example of the type of
light fixture which fully shields and com��lies with the city policy and should not impact the
adjacent neighbors.
• The last remaining area is the interface with the adjacent office use to the east which is along
this boundary line; we are hopeful that yo u will support our planned fencing along that route;
we are proposing a 6 foot tubular fencing with vines growing on it; we believe it is a superior
interface between the properties.
• The noise report conducted showed that there is no noise issue relating to the play yard and
adjacent dental office; it concludes that the interior noise is well below the standard. In
addition there are some challenges to co:istructing a masonry wall that attempts to address
noise attenuation; the building has parking underneath it and the finished floor of the offices is
elevated; in terms of line of sight, they are not going to be looking directly onto the play area,
they are going to be elevated. In terms of sound attenuation, it would need a 13 foot wall that
would possibly block the windows which are elevated; a 13 foot masonry wall would be
incredibly oppressive from an aestheti�; standpoint, and generate lots of heat on the
playground. He said in environmental tin�es they shouldn't be adding more hard surfaces if
they can prevent it; and the cost is signifi�,ant to engineer a 13 foot high wall that isn't called
for under the noise report or the noise polic;ies of the city.
• He requested support for the staff recom mendations; relative to the wall along the easterly
property line, he solicited support of a hea��ily landscaped fence approach for screening, and
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 11, 2010
with the approval of the project, help to sclve the child care needs in Cupertino which fits into
this center and the neighborhood.
• Said they agreed with staff's recommendation for hours 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., 5 days a week.
• He answered questions relating to the prc�posed project. He said they would work with staff
regarding the appropriate water tolerant trees to provide screening.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Catherine Sprinkles, representing owner of office building located on Portal Drive located to
the east of the applicant's property:
• Said they did not agree that the project would not have a negative impact on the client's
property. At the January meeting she ex �ressed her clients' concerns relating to circulation
and noise. They have had no contact fro�n the applicant with regard to either of the issues;
hence they haven't had any ability to discuss possible solutions. The current circulation
proposal increases their concern about cir�;ulation on the property. Currently, all egress from
the back of that property is going to be coining through their property, making their property a
driveway for the other property.
• Said it is not safe to assume that ingress to the property is going to be from Stevens Creek.
Once you get to the traffic light at Portal �nd Stevens Creek, you are most likely to go down
Portal and through that driveway into the property rather than between the two buildings on
Stevens Creek, so it is possible during the peak hours that there will be 80 trips per hour over
their property, both in and out, which �:hey feel creates some serious concerns for their
property, regarding safety and also com��atibility. She said compatibility with their use is
something to consider when approving or iiot an application for conditional use permit.
• She said they have an agreement with the ��ity which requires them to open their property as a
driveway over which the adjacent prope��ly has rights, only when all of that area between
Blaney and Portal is open at the same t: me. She said they feel they aze not obligated to
provide that access under the circumstances; and with the amount of traffic being directed over
their property, they would have to look veiy hard at enforcing that condition to their obligation
to provide access.
• With regard to the visibility and noise coiicerns, the windows in the building built in the 80s
are single pane, floor to ceiling windows, �o that the supposition that you don't actually reach
window level until 10 feet is incorrect. If we thought that the noise generated from the
daycare play area was in excess of what is permitted, we would have a different discussion
than what we are now having. Our conce�n is not that there is an excess of what is permitted,
but that it is going to be detrimental to our use.
• Said that Attachment 6 of the original staff report may contain erroneous information about the
number of children and hours they will be in the play area per day. It presently indicates that
the children will be in the play area from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. except during lunch from 12 to
1:30 p.m., and clarification needs to be given on the play yard times. The noise they make
may not be compatible with the office u� es next door. A masonry wall would enhance the
appearance of the entire area, but they are � iot asking for a 13 foot wall.
Paul Yeh, Office tenant nezt to daycare cenler:
• Expressed concern about traffic and noise. Said that during the noise study, no one went into
the office to assess the noise level of the c ffice; it may have been based on the medical office
on the other side. He said that presently one can hear people talking outside, and if no wall is
erected, it will negatively affect his business; many of his employees have heavy phone usage
in the office, and his customers can hear cr ildren's voices in the background.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 11, 2010
Ruby Elbogen, No. Portal Drive:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said the neighborhood was not informed cf the project and the major impact it would have on
their streets; it is the only way in and c�ut for a huge neighborhood and will be a major
detriment to the traffic flow. The traffic circle is in the middle of the street and the street from
Wheaton to Stevens Creek is not a whole b lock and it has bamers in the middle. Said the
• In the parking lot if people are coming tl; rough that parking lot to get to Portal, their dental
patients and people coming to visit will not be able to get out. It is not a good location for the
daycare to be, and it is not a good place to dump all the traffic into the neighborhood. She said
more people would have attended the meeting in opposition if they had been noticed.
Gary Chao:
• Said notifications were sent to the neig}�bors within 500 feet radius of the project. T'he
minimum requirement is 300 feet.
Howard Trudeau, Merritt and Portal Drive��:
• Opposed to the project.
• Expressed concern about the traffic at Stevens Creek and Portal; and in the neighborhood as
the streets are heavily used. The peak hours for the daycare center pick up and drop off match
the peak hours for traffic from people goin; to and from work; adding the daycare center at the
proposed location e�cerbates the present traffic problems.
Louise Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Expressed concern about the location of tlie trash enclosures. There is a bad rodent problem
and Code had to be called who then called Vector. How would the trash collection truck get in
there; would it come on Portal; the odors are bad. Also more lighting should be in the area
where the trash is.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Recommended that the trash enclosure be relocated to its original site; and construct the wall
before the development begins; the applicant has agreed to that and also the lighting plan.
• Traffic will backflow onto Portal and thr��ugh the neighborhood via the roundabout that the
neighbors still have not figured out; perha� s the roundabout should be removed. For employee
parking they will take 22 of the 66 space�; if there is another business with heavy parking, it
will be very tight back there.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Miller:
• Said that the ideal solution would be if there was a shared driveway with the property to the
west, providing both ingress/egress throu€�h that shared driveway; there would be no need to
dump out onto Portal.
Gary Chao:
• Said that was stafF's desire as well; and 1 hey have talked with the real estate broker for the
office complex to the west and they wonld have to eliminate some of their parking stalls.
They said it may happen in the future, l�ut not at present, as part of this project they are
requiring a condition on this project site :o give a covenant for reciprocal access for that in
preparation for the future connection. T ie intent is that connection will be realized. (You
wouldn't take down that whole barrier beriveen the two properties; just have an opening so that
you go in one and out the other); it is designed to connect.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 11, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said landscape screening was prefened o� er chain link fencing. If planning for the future, it
would be a connected driveway with some landscaping.
Com. Miller:
• Suggested a possible solution of reversing the traffic flow so that it was only one way in off
Portal, and one way out onto Stevens Cree:c, which would ensure that 50% of the trafFic would
be coming through Portal and the other :i0% would have to go out onto Stevens Creek; it
would inconvenience some of the people who would like to turn left onto Stevens Creek, a
price to pay so that everybody else gets s��me relief. If the two-way was preserved, the issue
would be pedestrian traffic and there can't be any pedestrian traffic.
Gary Chao:
• Said they had not considered reversing the; traffic flow, and would have to discuss it with the
traffic consultant.
Com. Miller:
• That would go a long way to mitigating th�; issue, keeping it two ways as opposed to one way.
And eliminating the pedestrian walkway; as long as there was ingress/egress out of the
building from both sides, there would not be the need to park in back and walk around to the
front. You want to eliminate the pedestrian traffic, so that you allow the vehicular traffic and
you solve the issue of everyone's concern about the traffic. Said he heard the concems of the
office complex to the east, but was not con vinced; and asked the speakers for comment.
Ms. Sprinkles:
• Said they had not measured it, but accor 3ing to the report in the applicant's materials, the
grade differentials are 4 feet, so it would h.�ve to be at least 4; the windows are floor to ceiling,
so it is between 4 and 5
• She said they felt an 8 foot wall would suf�ciently baffle it so it was not problematic for their
tenants; they are not asking for a total blcck, just some help in dealing with the noise that is
going to be generated.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was not convinced an 8 foot wall ��ould accomplish that for them; the noise will come
over the top as it is above the ground, an�i also the attenuation factor in terms of how much
noise is actually going to reach that windo�v is significant.
Ms. Sprinkles:
• Said they were only 10.5 feet from the pla�� area, and could not provide specific details as they
had not done their own noise studies. Sh�; asked that the hours the children would be on the
playground throughout the day be included in the final decision.
Gary Chao:
• Said they raised the issue that they believe that the agreement their client signed with the city
providing egress did not come into effect until all the properties between Blaney and Portal
were connected; is that correct. (Respons�� from Ms. Sprinkles: Yes). From Ms. Sprinkles'
client's perspective, wouldn't that make t}iings even worse because there would be all of the
office traffic from the office building imrr ediately to the west; is that really something in the
client's favor.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 11, 2010
Ms. Sprinkles:
• Said they felt it would spread out the traffic among the various pazcels more easily; if some of
the people are going to Blaney and some are coming to their, in their opinion it would they
would get a disproportionate number bec,iuse the other property is closer to Blaney; people
will keep using Blaney and some of the chi ld care people would divide up.
Chair Brophy:
• Some of the daycare traffic would be goin�; west towards Blaney through the back way, but on
the other hand they would get their share of traffic from the fairly large office building and
from the retail space at the corner of Blane;� and Stevens Creek.
Ms. Sprinkles:
• Concurred, and said it was their opinion t iey would be less likely to come all the way down
the back to get onto Portal.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The agreements that we have and the ones that we will have, the existing property owner
recorded is to provide parking and access, ;;o it does not specify a condition under which it will
be granted, but that it will be granted. It d�esn't have to wait for a condition to happen before
access will be granted.
Com. Miller:
• Other suggestions from the neighborhood included not allowing a left turn out of the office
parking lot onto Portal, to force traffic to �;o toward Stevens Creek; also not allowing parking
on the east side of Portal up against the shc pping center to allow more room for cars to pass.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to the left turn, based on the traffic consultant's estimation, they don't expect a huge
number of people, in the entire hour they are looking at one car going that way; it is much
easier to navigate Stevens Creek. Said staff did not have an opinion about not allowing
parking on the east side of Portal; and note i that they hoped the traffic patterns are opposing.
Gary Chao:
• According to the applicant the most recent proposal for the trash enclosure is the one on lA;
we agree with the residents that it is not the ideal location given its proximity to the play
structure and the residents. We are happy ��vith the original location.
Com. Miller:
• Said that a speaker commented on the iss�ie of rodents in the school area, and asked if it had
been addressed.
Gary Chao:
• Said it had not been discussed previousl} ; in cases where there are restaurants proposed in
centers, there are conditions to require the .ipplicant to provide a vector control plan.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they talked to the applicant about maintaining that back parking lot and believe that is
part of this new development, especially �vith the daycare center, that the maintenance of the
parking lot will be significantly improved, because it would be in the interest of the daycare to
have a clean and safe parking area right ne:�t to the play area.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 May 1 l, 2010
• Relative to when the neighbor to the we:�t might consider opening his barrier, she said the
trigger for the city to require something would be if there is a project or a Use Permit
proposed; so we don't know when that niay happen; we have talked to the property owner
about it, they seem reticent at this point, but they do understand that is the expectation.
Mr. Shanower:
• Clarified time that the children would be in the playground area; 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and
1-1/2 hours in the afternoon. They are licE;nsed by the State to not have the children out there
all the time; there are other programs provided.
• Refening to the traffic analysis he illustraled the intersection of Portal and Stevens Creek and
discussed the directional turn movements ,ind the additional number of cars at different hours
during the day, and the impact on the neigt borhood.
• It is important that decisions be made ��n the expert's factual information not anecdotal
information, and the tra�c analysis is v �ry clear that if the peak hour in the morning or
afternoon, the number of cars coming to Portal and Stevens Creek and making their turn
movements is extremely minimal, virtually negligible from a person's experience on the street.
• He said the same case could be made for the noise analysis. Looking at the noise analysis
according to the expert, the perceived nois�, in the building will be less than the HVAC system
inside the building; which is insignificant.
Gary Chao:
• He said if they propose to have a two-way instead of a one-way to the rear, they can have the
traffic consultant study it between the Planning Commission meeting and City Council
meeting; after a recommendation it would �e validated with the traffic engineer if it is going to
work or not and what the other options are. He clarified that going back to the original
recommendation of one-way and northbc und, staff acknowledges that there is going to be
some incidental parking; people visiting the daycare for the first time, not necessarily parents.
While the primary goal is to channel folks to parking in back, there are going to be occasions
when they are going to be using the front p 3rking lot.
Com. Miller:
• Despite the traffic study which suggests that there are no issues; the way it is presently
designed where you can get entrance to th � building from the front and also from the back; if
they allow two-way traffic on the strip goir�g on the west side of the building, there isn't a need
for pedestrian movement along that side. He recommended that in the future as soon as there
is an opportunity to open access to the we:stern building that they take advantage of that and
allow the one-way traffic on one side and possibly the addition of pedestrian access and the
traffic the other way on the other side.
• Said it was a good idea to focus the drop-off just in the rear, which would likely free up the
front spots for the retail; the first a parent �nay come there, but the next time they are going to
know that if they park there in front they a re going to have to walk around the back and that is
a problem; they are not going to do that mc re than once.
• Given the noise studies, he did not see that it would be an issue for the next door neighbor; it
seems that you would have to build more :han an 8 foot wall to satisfy any concerns over the
noise. A suggested condition is to revisit it if the noise became a major issue; at this point it
doesn't seem to be the case. It is not clear :hat should be addressed.
• It is important to have the wall in the rear for the residents and everybody seems agreeable to
that; the trash enclosure should be moved back to the location on lA; the rear wall should be
constructed first. Said he did not see the b�;nefit of the masonry wall on the eastern wall; but if
it operates as a daycare center, if noise bec��mes an issue, revisit it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 11, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the traffic consultant said the drive or the western side was not perfect for two vehicles; it
has been operating for two vehicles all this time and is 18 feet wide. It could accommodate
two vehicles; typically it is 10 feet per l��ne; at the very least, it could alleviate a lot of the
traffic on Portal.
Com. Giefer:
• Said it was an interesting project and st�e would welcome Kiddie Academy to Cupertino;
however she felt the proposed location i s the wrong location. She said that although the
applicant did a good job in addressing thei - concerns, she still had concerns.
• Site location is a major concern; having a daycare fronting Stevens Creek as the storefront
sends the wrong message. If it was simil��r to some of the other sites in Cupertino where it is
in the rear of the development and more isolated in the back of the lot, she would not object;
however, one child was killed in a traffic accident at a daycare center in Cupertino, and they
keep going back and forth with regards to '�:he circulation for this facility.
• Said she was uncomfortable with either having the business to the east, support 100% of the
outbound traffic because we are only ent �ring off Stevens Creek. Regardless of how many
cars are passing on the west side on that c►ne traffic lane, people will walk down it. She said
she could not support a project that involvE;s children when she is concerned about their safety.
� Said her concerns with regard to the saf �ty and traffic flow for this project have not been
alleviated and they are the two primary c oncerns. Additionally, some times in the morning
and the afternoon, there will be stacking u�� and queuing of vehicles either on Stevens Creek or
on Portal; it may not be significant, pe -haps it is only five minutes in the morning and
afternoon, and they can learn to live with t 1at.
• She said because of her concerns, she would not support the project.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said that the traffic and circulation study were helpful; now they know to have the pick-ups
and drop-offs in the back and keep the reta il parking in the front. It will help with circulation if
they open up the drive aisle along the wes ;erly side of the building to be 2A running the entire
length of the building.
• It would be helpful if Kiddie Academy can have the agreement, have the parents be educated
on drop-off in the back. Parents going to the location several times a week would remember to
use the reaz parking.
• Said she studied the noise study carefully, looked up the traffic and circulation study carefully,
and the consultant said the dentist's office is not even open during the peak hour of trip
generation; that is significant. She said a s a dentist, she did not feel that the noise generated
from 28 children would impact her de Ztal office. She commented that Stevens Creek
Boulevard is very loud and the only distrac:tion during the day would be a fire truck's alarm.
• Said she did not support the easterly boundary 8 foot masonry wall for those reasons. She
does support the northern masonry wall to be constructed prior to any site improvements;
hours of operation should be 7:00 a.m. to ii:30 p.m. Said she was comfortable with the project
as discussed, but having a two-way street �'rom the front to the back.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he agreed that it was not an ideal loc ation for a daycare center; but was not as concerned
with the idea of having a daycare center c n Stevens Creek. The reason why daycare uses are
low paying commercial uses and the only reason they are discussing the issue tonight is that
they have a structure that is not an attracti ✓e commercial use for most private businesses. The
concern of trying to protect the remainder of this existing structure as a profitable retail use is
wishful thinking on the part of the city.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 1 l, 2010
• Said he was concerned with the traffic flow; the applicant and traffic consultant have worked
hard to come up with a method to solve the problem, but it does place a large burden on the
property owner to the east.
• Cars are coming through a driveway on someone else's property. However, the city has
already required that the property owner provide an easement, and at some point some use
could be put on this site that would gener;ite traffic far in excess of the daycare center, which
brings cars in for a couple of hours early ir the morning and a couple of hours in the afternoon.
• Said he would support the project; it is important that staff work with the applicant and make
sure they are confident that the detailed d �sign of the parking, the circulation, location of the
traffic enclosure is such that it minimizes 'he risk to the children using the daycare center, and
also to the adjoining neighbors.
• Clarified that he was suggesting the origiral traffic pattem. Said he would prefer the one-way
direction on the west side.
• Said he would rely on the judgment of the traffic consultant and the Planning staff if they feel
it can work it as a two-way road with appr��priate signage and any appropriate adjustments.
Com. Miller:
• It is narrow; keep in mind two car garage�, are 16 feet wide; so this is 2 feet more; the normal
street minimum width is 20 feet which is l 0 feet on each side, so you are losing a foot on each
side, but it still is doable and the history c�f the site has been always two way traffic there, so
we do have experience to say that it is wo - king now. Does that provide further concern? The
other thing is we might want to put a sign up there saying 5 mph or something; would that
make more sense.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, secon�� by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3-1-0, Com.
Giefer vioted No; Com. Kaneda absent; to approve U-2009-09 with the
following changes to the model resolution: Allow two-way traffic in and out of
the western ingress/egress area; trash enclosure be moved back to the site on
Sheet lA; construct the northern wali prior to site improvements; also the
recommendation that there is n�► need at this time to build the masonry fence on
the eastern wall.
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
2. U-2010-01 Use Permit to erect a personal wireless service facility
Bradley Head/Clearwire consisting c►f three panel antennas and three microwave dishes
20900 McClellan Road mounted an d screened on the rooftop of an existing church with
(Cupertino Church of the a grade level base equipment enclosure. Planning Commission
Nazarene) decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the s�:aff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Use Permii: to erect a wireless service facility on the rooftop of
an existing church, as outlined in the staff �eport.
• Reviewed the location/setback of the a�itennas and microwave dishes; and visibility and
design, and noted that all the antennas and mounting equipment will be completely screened
from view on the rooftop of the building. The equipment will be located on non-residential
property, on an existing vertical structure, with antenna setback from the nearest residential
property line of 180 feet, where 75 feet is 1he minimum.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 11, 2010
• He reviewed the radio frequency energy assessment provided by the applicant. Exposures
were compared against Federal safety sta�►dards for such facilities. Ground level exposure is
0.67% of public limit; and 2° floor exposL re is 0.40% of the public limit.
• The Technology, Information & Commun ications Commission (TICC) provided comments in
the staff report; and recommended approv�.l of the project.
• Notices were mailed to a 1,000 foot radius and two telephone calls and five emails were
received from the public. Concerns were �;xpressed about potential health effects and wireless
communications interference.
• Staff recommends approval of the facility ��er the model resolution.
Bradley Head, NSA Wireless (for Clearwire):
• Said they worked diligently to fmd a location suitable for Clearwire's radio frequency
engineers along with the City's guideline;s for the facilities. He requested approval of the
project.
• Said he would be agreeable to a cor. dition regarding monitoring the emissions after
installation.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Pastor, Cupertino Church of the Nazarene:
• Explained the reasons for considering the use of the church facilities for the wireless service
facility. As a lease deal it would provide inoney for the church, and part of the stewardship of
the property is to make use of the prop�;rty. Currently the church is having maintenance
problems with the cross on top of the roof, and the skylight has been leaking for some time.
Providing a tower would help solve the prc �blems of the maintenance of the cross and the leaky
skylight. A third reason is that there are a lot of technical people in the church with a high
regard for the ability to communicate. 'Che idea of having a city where there is wireless
internet everywhere available in one fo�m or another, is a good thing for residents and
business. In order to do that with this teclu�ology requires many of these kinds of towers, but
they all need to be in a place that has a higli enough building far enough away from residential;
and the church property can provide that.
• He commended the Clearwire people and � sked for consideration of approval of the project.
Female resident: (Name not provided)
� There is no question that children are more susceptible to radiation and other mutagenic forces.
Bradley Heads has an application to set up a personal wireless facility that includes three panel
antennas, three microwave dishes and th�,y were very thorough in looking at the proposed
amount of potential electromagnetic radiation. What has been ignored in this presentation, we
need to search our souls as Com. Giefer said, there is a place for everything. What is not
mentioned is that this church is also the home of a pre-school; children are present at the
school for a ma�cimum of 10 hours a day, 5 days a week; in addition it is also the site of a
school for children of Cupertino who a tend after school Chinese school. The personal
wireless facility is being put on top of a prf; school.
• She said there is evidence in peer review jc>urnals of the significant risk to children. While not
permitted to deny the application based on health, she asked the Pastor to explore his soul and
see if this is the right thing to expose chilclren to electromagnetic radiation. If the application
is approved, there should be full disclosure: to the parents who are sending their children to the
school, that there is a potential risk and f iere is some evidence in the literature that there is
concern that the current federal regulations may be lowered; that they are currently too high.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 11, 2010
Nina Kim, resident 200 feet behind the chur��h:
� Does not support the proposal.
• Said she talked to the pastor before the meeting about his support of the proposal for the
antennas and he stated the financial reason,; and maintenance of the cross on top of the church.
• She challenged the Pastor to think about the health issues first; and not to overlook the
important factor of the small children who aze present at the school all day; and not to put
financial issues before the health of this ge �eration and the future generations. She said if God
is willing, there would be some other source of fmancial help to maintain the cross and the
leaky skylight. She asked that Clearwire consider looking for another location; she realized
that it is difficult to find the right location, but the proposed area is mostly residential.
Nicki Hou, Cupertino resident:
• Said she concurred with previous two spe�kers who expressed concern about the health of the
next generation. She said if the main reason is financial gain, she said she would help organize
a fund raiser to repair the leaky roof, and n��t put the children's health at risk.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer;
• Asked the speakers who were opposed tc� the application, if it would alleviate any of their
concems if the Commission added a c mdition of monitoring to ensure that it was in
conformance with the emissions proposed �Nhich are well below the federal guidelines.
Female speaker:
• The issue at hand is whether or not if you ��dd monitoring to the amount of emissions, it would
be enough, and she responded "No." ShE- said the reason is because when you review the
literature, there is definitely some evidence to suggest that they may change the standards
which is fine; they are adults, but the concern is for growing children whose tissues are
susceptible to any kind of potentially mut�igenic agent. She said if the proposal is approved,
she would like the parents who send their children to the school be fully disclosed in writing
that there is a wireless service facility on tcp of the building that their child is attending.
Colin Jung:
• Said the measurements of radiation expos�xre taken were grade level measurements; any area
below the antenna itself regardless of wh�;ther it is in the building or outside, and the other
exposure would be at a higher second story elevation of the nearest building. He commented
that most parents wouldn't think twice abc�ut setting up a wireless baby monitor in the house,
which generates RF energy more than 10 � imes what the proposed PCS facility is going to be
generating.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Responded to a suggestion from the last speaker that a requirement for full disclosure be
conditioned. She said they would speak w th the applicant about the suggestion, although they
have not typically done it on other projects. The Planning Commission could make a
recommendation to require disclosure.
Pastor:
• Said that the building that the tower is on i s not the building that houses the preschool or after
school program. Those other two builclings are on the same campus, but they are not
underneath; the building underneath is usecl for worship.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 11, 2010
• He said he was not opposed to a conditic n stating that the participants in the preschool and
after school program be made aware that a wireless facility was located on the premises.
Female Speaker: (not identified)
• Said she had very poor cell phone covera;;e in her home and she uses her land line phone as
much as possible. She questioned putting ;i dish on top of the church when there is more than
enough wireless, wi-fi and radio activity al ready going on, exposing children.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Discussion of full disclosure to the pubtic of ��ell phone towers on premises:
Chair Brophy:
• Said they had been through the process be -ore with wireless communications. In this case not
only is it below the FCC maximum readir�gs that are below the 1% of the ma�cimum, even if
there was an adjustment for which they c�nnot judge anyway, he said he did not see how it
could be viewed in terms of the overall ris cs, as something to focus on. If there is going to be
a change in policy, he said he would prefe-r it happen on a general policy rather than doing it
on a particular application, when it hasn't l�een required of anyone else previously. He said he
was speaking as somebody who has had r ieces and nephews attend the preschool and would
feel just as confident saying it if they were attending this year.
Com. Giefer:
• Agreed with Chair Brophy, but said they n �ed to be consistent. Once the device is installed the
performance is verified, and if it is not pf;rforming as expected, it allows Clearwire to make
adjustments. Said she would like to incluc.e the condition as she felt it was in the best interest
of the school and church to have full disclo sure for people who are buying their services
Chair Brophy:
• For future, since a large percentage of the town live near cell phone towers, on any residential
application are we going to require that we tell people there are cell towers 300 feet away.
• Said he was not opposed to adding a clau:�e about testing it to make sure it works; he said he
understood that occurs just as a matter oi' standazd operating procedures. He said he would
prefer not to do additional ones.
Com. Miller:
• Cell phone towers disclosure has not been something that has been addressed; however, as
soon as the industry finds something that might present an issue, shortly thereafter there is a
piece of paper on it. Presently it is not add -essed.
Com. Giefer:
• The pastor said that he wants full disclo::ure to his congregation and people who use their
campus, and she felt in good faith that will happen now that it has been brought to his
attention. It has been brought to the Pasto�'s attention, who will make the users of the campus
aware of it.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he would not do it unless they are willing to do it on every future application; perhaps we
should go back and do it retroactively and �•equire people to send out notices.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 11, 2010
Com. Miller:
• He said they have had previous church a pplications which resulted in denial or the church
members putting pressure to withdraw the �pplication.
• He reiterated that federal law states they ��ere not permitted to deny the application based on
health reasons; the only justification for denying it is aesthetics. In this particular case, there is
nothing displeasing about the aesthetics; it is very unobtrusive.
• Said he was in favor of the disclosure ide� because everybody can decide for themselves, and
it places the responsibility in the right plac�;.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Agreed that disclosure was appropriate; ccmmented that gas stations have signs informing the
public of gas fumes and precautions to takr, when pumping gas. There is no aesthetic reason to
deny the application.
Com. Miller:
• Whether it should be done on all building:,, the proposed location is not all buildings, but is a
church and a school where children are pr�;sent. There is some logic that says it doesn't have
to be on all buildings but perhaps where there are large congregations of children, it makes
sense.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he had difficulty following the logic; theoretically a residential structure, people would
spend far more time there, why shouldn't �ve be notifying everybody in town that even though
they live in areas far below the limits set by the FCC, you should know that down the road
there is a cell tower. He said he felt outvoted, but felt they were going down a path where with
no limit to the number of theoretical discl �sures they are putting on applications on a hit and
miss basis, and may regret it in the future.
• Said he did not support disclosure; and would not require a single applicant to provide a
disclosure when it was not required of others.
• Said they did not have either the legal ri�;ht or the ability to judge what the appropriate RF
restrictions are; in this case they are deal :ng with an application that is less than 1% of the
m�imum allowed by the FCC. Even if tltere were to be an adjustment to the FCC limits, of
which to his knowledge there is nothing ��ending; he said he did no the direction they were
going with the issue.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she felt the majority has not come :o terms with what any disclosure might be. She
memorialized what the pastor said with re€;ards to disclosing that there is a wireless facility on
the sites; how they choose to disclose it and what the words are would be left up to their
discretion as long as they provided staff v� ith a copy of the letter they intend to pass out. She
said the verification is more formal; she would like the wireless provider to provide staff with
a copy of their test report after installation to make sure that it performs either at the indicated
levels or below; and they have that information as part of their standard installation. She said
she cared more about that than the disclosiire. As part of the informational packet given to the
parents, there should be at least a paragra �h informing them that a wireless facility is on the
facility; it is in the best interest for bo�:h the church and the families that support their
educational services.
Com. Miller:
• Said they have done it on other occasions and it is a good idea.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 11, 2010
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and carried 3-0-1, Chair Brophy
abstained, Com. Kaneda absent; to approve U-2010-01 with the following
additional conditions: That the applicant provide the Cupertino Planning staff
with verification after the insta llation of the device showing that it conforms to
the anticipated measurements or below as indicated in the staff report; and that
the property owner disclose tl�at there is a wireless facility on site to those
interested in their preschool or school services or after care services.
Decision of Planning Commission is final unle ss appealed to City Council within 14 days.
3. GPA-2010-02 General Plan ,�mendment to update the City's Historic
City of Cupertino Preservation � olicy and Historic Sites list. Tentative City
Council Date: June 1, 2010
Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the stai� report:
• Reviewed the background for the preparation of the Historic Preservation Policy and related
General Plan Amendments, as outlined in the staff report. On January 8, 2007, the City
Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of their 2007-08 work
program, since they were interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing
buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. On May 5, 2008
the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee (HI'AC) and
provided the committee with the four par� meters as set forth in the staff report. On April 20,
2010 the Council reviewed the framework resulting from the work and recommendations done
by HPAC and authorized staff to proceed �vith initiating the public review process and General
Plan amendments.
• The City Council prescribed the following
• The Council wanted the policy to t�e focused on public/semi-public sites, commercial
properties. It was clear they did not v�ant residential sites on the list.
• The Council wanted the HPAC an i staff to update and re-rank the existing historic
resource list currently in the General Plan.
• Define public hearing, review and nc ticing procedure process, including the involvement
of property owners.
• Define potential methods of preservation.
� The City Council wanted a proacti ve approach, clear guidelines as to what property
owners should expect when their pro �erties make its way onto the list.
• He reviewed the methodology that the HPAC used to evaluate and formulate the policy, as
outlined on Page 2 of the staff report, inc luding biweekly meetings from June 2008 through
November 2008, compilation of informati on, site visitations, evaluation of both existing and
potential new sites, reference to prior Cit✓ reports, and previous preservation efForts. In the
evaluation of the list collected, they use�i a set of historical designation criteria which are
outlined in the staff report; each site v��as evaluated against the criteria; and the HPAC
determined the level of significance (prese - vation/commemoration/honorable mention)
• The HPAC chose 11 additional sites, in addition to the 19 historic resources list in the General
Plan. The 3 categories recommende�i for the Historic Policy are Historical Sites,
Commemorative Sites and Honorable Merition Sites. The HPAC recommendation is to retain
10 of the existing historical sites currently in the General Plan and add the Miller House to the
list. If the site is owned by the City, the City will work to rehab and restore the structure in
order to retain its historic significance. If it is privately owned, the City will work in
partnership with the private or public entity to restore and preserve the site. The policy also
encourages and prescribes to allow public ;iccess to the site to foster awareness and
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 11, 2010
educational opportunities; and seek opp��rtunities to plaque and provide reader boards to
ensure that occurs.
• The HPAC suggested that 7 sites curre�►tly on the General Plan should be moved to the
Commemorative Sites list, in addition to those listed in the staff report. Four sites will be
moved or added to the Honorable Mention Sites in the General Plan; those sites are listed in
the staff report. The city will work with t1e property owner, whether public, private or quasi-
public to ensure that there are to be plaque s, reader boards or some feature that would be taken
or drawn from the existing facility or the L istory to be located on the site to educate the public.
He provided a sample of a commemorativf; plaque.
• Relative to the Honorable Mentions cat�gory, the HPAC is recommending that 2 of the
existing sites in the General Plan be mov�;d to the Honorable Mention category, as well as 2
additional sites. The category was created because all of the sites are not located in the City of
Cupertino and are outside the jurisdiction of the City, consequently even though they are
historic significance, the City cannot req�.�ire other cities to preserve the sites; the City will
communicate with the jurisdictions to woik with them to make sure they are aware of the fact
that the sites are significant and recommendations will be provided to them.
• Other recommendations include that the I�istoric Resource List be periodically reviewed and
updated and that the list of Community Landmark Sites be retained in the General Plan
unchanged.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Comniission recommend approval to the City Council and
adopt the Historic Preservation Policy and the General Plan Amendments. Council will
review recommendations at their June 1�` nieeting.
• Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the Policy.
Com. Miller:
• Referred to the summary table and questioned why the Union Church of Cupertino (which
does not meet any criteria whatsoever) �vas on the Historical list. Staff responded that it
embodied distinguishing architectural characteristics, which is in the description.)
• Pointed out a discrepancy that the Glenn � enning Barn was listed but then was shown as being
outside the city limits. (Staff clarified i: should have been the Montebello School Site as
opposed to Glenn Denning Barn; it is conf rmed not to be in the city of Cupertino.)
� Questioned why the Miller House was o;i the list; was it already designated a historic site.
(Staff responded that there was a Use Perniit at the time, there is prior approval; it was already
designated and required as part of the conc ition of that prior approval to be preserved.)
Chair Brophy:
• Discussed the language for privately ownE;d sites, "property owners would be encouraged but
not required to provide access to the publ ic".. . Asked if it was an instance where if someone
were to come in with a development ap �lication on that site, would staff interpret that as
meaning that the public access would be u�� for grabs as part of any development permit.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Discussed the interpretation of the word "encourage". Provided an example of a historic
building located a short distance from the main path; is there the ability to provide a plaque
and for the public to get to that building ar d view it; that would be one of the considerations of
the project. It is very clear that it is only an encouragement and not required; staff will look
for ways to see if it can be done, but it will not be a necessity. Looking at the current language
in the General Plan, it is very unclear abc►ut what needs to happen; staff wants to provide as
much clarity as possible into the process, so if somebody comes in, they know they have a
historic site, there are not too many non-pL blic sites; it is very clear to everybody what needs
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 May 11, 2010
to happen. Typically we only require thes� as part of projects, if they are existing sites, we do
not go out and have them do something in �ddition unless the city is partnering with them.
Com. Giefer:
• Pointed out that there was one California state site included, but the one in the parking lot in
Monta Vista was not included. Are existing historical markers in the community being
inventoried? If the one at St. Joseph's is included, shouldn't the one in the Monta Vista
parking lot be included also? (Staff respor se: It is included on Page 3-17 of staff report)
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the goal was to look at the e�sting sites in the General Plan to look at existing properties
in the City. The HPAC did an e�chausti�e review of sites, of past literature, of the existing
General Plan and what is shown is their rec;ommendation.
Com. Giefer:
• Asked if the classification for them and th � names were existing names in the General Plan or
were they newly minted names?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The General Plan addresses community la�►dmarks and there is some confusion because it puts
Vallco as a community landmark and not necessarily historic; staff tried to sort those out into
what is truly historic. Commemorative s tes are those where either the buildings have been
demolished or the buildings themselve:; do not have significant merit, but something
commemorative occurred at that site. The Honorable Mention category was set up to
designate the fact that they are not within the city's jurisdiction, but they played a role in the
city's growth and development. There w:�s a brief discussion about a more appropriate term
than Honorable Mention; suggestions inc1L ded Historic Mention and Historic Interest.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Suggested Historical Significance or Historical Honor in place of Honorable Mention category
title.
• Said she was pleased that Cupertino has forged ahead in going into the realm of establishing
the Historical Preservation Policy. She sai 3 she has spent a great deal of time at historical sites
around the country, seen many different t.istorical monuments and traveled to Europe where
they have plaques everywhere. Cupertin�� has some incredible history including the Monta
Vista area alone where the Monta Vista parking lot has a monument from 1776 when the
DeAnza party went through and almost 20 � years to the day, Apple had their first buildings on
Bubb Road.
• Said it is difficult to try to preserve and acknowledge the history of the city, but historical
preservation begins at home, and that is ��vhat needs to be done. Cupertino will have some
fabulous history in the years to come and by laying the groundwork by how to preserve and
document sites in the city, when you are up against something 50 years from now and the
President of the United States is from Cupertino, they will undoubtedly know how to preserve
his/her home.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Recommended removing the language "for privately owned sites". He said it was a foot in the
door and his understanding is that the Council was clear that they did not want the City to get
involved in trying to use its leverage; if there is different language to make it clear that this is
not a tool of leverage, he said he would support it. The City has a right to demand public
access to private properiy but he did not think any of the sites are of a sufficiently important
nature to justify that power. Said he was concerned that the language could be interpreted to
mean that the City at the time of the develc�pment application could say the policy asks them to
ask for public access when that is clearly n�t what the Council intended.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she would prefer to have the City Council sort that it out on what they intended.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was willing to send it to the Council, as red-flagged so they recognize it as an issue. It
is not required, but is a bargaining chip, an example of a development application on a site that
includes a historical site; one could go do�Nn the checklist and say this is a historical site and
we would like to add public access to this as one of the conditions. You can say the applicant
can always say No, but when you are ne;;otiating a development agreement presumably the
city has an inherent advantage; it is not simply a request; it is done with the idea that it
potentially can be done witl� the idea that a development application is considering this.
Com. Miller:
� Said he did not necessarily disagree witY� Chair Brophy, but was looking at the language;
another way is to view it as a protection be�;ause it specifically says it is not required.
Chair Brophy:
• Suggested changing the language; from "biit not required" to read "but in no way required".
Com. Giefer:
• Said she preferred it as is; and pointed out if it is something they have so few of on the list of
historic sites, why not give it that consid �ration. She said they are not requiring that it be
maintained, but giving it thoughtful consid�;ration.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that Cupertino does not have that many historical sites but wants to preserve what they do
have. The list includes such sites as the U�iion Church of Cupertino, and a tack house inside a
gated community. He said he did not see them as sites in which the City has a reasonable
expectation that they should be open to the public without the property owner's consent.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed; and said that if you remove the statement you are removing a protection.
Com. Giefer:
• Said it did not change her opinion; as wri tten it meets her needs. It makes one stop to see if
there is something important about it that might be preserved at a later time; but it also does
not obligate the owner to take that action. The goal is to make people pause and think about
what they are doing and it achieves that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Questioned if it puts the City in a positior. where if a development request occurred on these
properties, it is one more thing that the Cir� can ask as a condition of development approval.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that the City did not have a track re�;ord of doing that. She said in her opinion it may
change in the next 50 years, but not chan€;e politically in the nea�t 10 years. The benefit is if
they further define things, they have refined what those definitions aze so people understand
what they are working with more. When it involves private property, staff may use it as a
negotiating chip; she did not see it as a tusiness necessarily as a business inhibitor. It just
makes them stop and reflect on what they a re about to do, and give thoughtful consideration.
• She said Council provided direction and i f they chose to change the language to better meet
theu needs, she would support that.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked if there were any objections to a�proving it as is, but sending a notification to the
Council of concern about whether or not tt.is language protects the right of property owners to
decide whether or not they wish to provide public access.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported Chair Brophy's first ch��nge and would support the second change as well.
He said he was in favor of the protection, however worded.
Chair Brophy:
• Requested that the sentence remain, chan,;ing the wording "but not requirec�' to "but in no
way required." Chair Brophy and Com. TZiller concurred; Vice Chair Lee supported change;
Com. Giefer opposed to change.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, seconc( by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0-0; Com.
Kaneda absent; to approve Gl'A-2010-02 per the model resolution with the
change suggested by Chair Bropliy.
4. CP-2010-01 Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and
City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services
and organizati��nal efficiency. Continued from the Apri127,
2010 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
Date: May 18 201 D
Gary Chao presented the staff report:
• Reviewed that the item was discussed on A pril 13, 2010 and Apri127, 2010 and was continued
to the May 11 meeting when a full Commi�,sion would be present to provide comments.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The ordinance requires that any comme�•cial building above 5,000 square feet has to be
approved by City Council and office building above 10,000 sq. ft. is approved by Council. We
were looking at possible changes to that as part of the streamlining process.
• Said the goal of the present discussion wa�, to get the broad concepts from the Commission to
the Council so they could review them and provide direction on which ones to follow up on.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said the Matrix process is predominant y focused on professional developers, architects,
engineers, and contractors, and for the r�ost part they were reasonably satisfied and they
identified areas for improvement.
• Said he understood the Council may ha�e some interest in the eausting ordinances and he
preferred to stay away from some of the ar� �as where they have struggled in the past and if they
really feel strongly about some of those a� eas to move those as a separate process rather than
have them tie up the Matri�c, where they could move on the more technical issues to make it
easier for the applicants.
• There have been issues of daycare centers and churches, and they made them conditional uses,
but make elder care projects and churche � permitted uses. He said he felt they could work
well with what staff drafted; and that is the direction he would prefer rather than spending a lot
of time on the issues that are of more concE;rn to professional architects and larger developers.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed they should address both g°oups; but not sure they should emphasize one over
the other. In reading through the report there are a number of things that appear to address
concerns, i.e., Attachment 1 where staff i:. proposing more review at the staff level and then
making the appeal or exception process g�� to review board. Some of the other things in the
report included holding classes and also ��utting more information online including step-by-
step procedures for going through a process. There are a fair number of things in the report
with recommendations to that effect; are there some missing at this point.
Chair Brophy:
• Said at a previous meeting there was a disc ussion about fees and the recommendation that they
be frozen. One area to look at, to the extent that they will be looking at green building issues
that independent of any increases might l�e proposed to cover technology improvements or
cost of living, is the use of fee structures tc encourage more green development; perhaps lower
cost and to encourage more affordable iousing by keeping the overall structure revenue
neutral. There could be lower fees for the first 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet of a residential home
and higher ones thereafter; things such as� hat to look at if there is interest from the rest of the
Commission.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt lowering fees is a worthy objective.
Chair Brophy:
• Sid that he was referring to a revenue neutral one, but one that would help with affordable
housing and perhaps also encourage peo �le to talce a second look when they design their
homes at how they might get a more effective home in less square footage; the so-called not-
so-big house that works well. He said lie was a believer in setting up fee structures that
encourage people to do things rather than having to tell them what they can and cannot do.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed. Staff proposed a number of things to make staf�s operations more efficient
and hopefully would result in a lower cost that could be passed on in terms of lower fees. If
doing a small building, they would defmi:ely want to go through the fees and make sure that
there is a nexus between the cost that the applicant is bearing and the benefit that the applicant
is getting.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 May 11, 2010
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that as a member of the public and a resident of Cupertino for 10 years, she found huge
problems with the document. The public was not involved at all; it looks like someone is
trying to take over Cupertino and say how it should be run. She said she was concerned about
the focus groups that the Matrix Consulting Group came up with; the identity of the focus
group members remained anonymous; hc wever, after reading the document it appeared the
focus groups were composed of builders, large land owners in the city and no one from the
public. They made suggestions about hov�- to run businesses in Cupertino, and were supposed
to be the expert people at what they do; h��wever no one knew their identity, which discredits
what they said in the meetings. Why should the public believe them; the public is the one that
remembers why we do things the way wE; do; it sounds like the focus groups are not happy
with how we do things in Cupertino, but who are they and what do they do in Cupertino?
Perhaps a city historian should be hired to ensure they don't start changing policies; why is the
balcony notification being eliminated? S}�e reiterated that the public was not involved in the
study and report and the direction of the ci�y is changing.
Chair Brophy:
• Said on some points Ms. Griffm raised, he felt some of those areas were areas where it would
be a mistake to get involved at this time. If it is desired to reopen the balcony issue or the
process dealing with R1, it should be dealt with as a separate matter and it would be better to
focus the Commission's energy on areas tliat have not been the subject of discussion, and find
areas of general consensus where they can make or find processes that will move smoother for
the applicants, especially smaller applica�rts without residents or adjoining properiy owners
feeling like they have not had a full chance to express their opinion.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the focus group process, he sa;d that is the way focus groups are run, it is not just
this focus group. The intent is to first ensu •e that the people in the focus group are stating their
opinions and are not holding back. The process in general should be one of separating the
source from the content, and that is the gcal. Although knowing the identity of those making
the comments would be ideal, if not known, the Commission cannot color their judgment, but
look at the comments for what they are �nd see if it makes sense to them. Many are good
suggestions and some of them as Ms. Grifiin pointed out, are not so good. He said personally
he saw nothing wrong with the process.
Com. Giefer:
• Suggested that they look for areas of comnionality in their approaches and thinking in terms of
what is acceptable and what is not with re�;ards to recommendations, and see if there are areas
where they are not in alignment that need further discussion, and try to consolidate around as
many points as are agreed upon.
Com. Miller:
• Said that he submitted comments in the la�t two hearings which have been incorporated in the
list under review process. If that is the e�tent of the input going to Council, perhaps there is
something more such as prioritizing the lis :.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said they did not discuss fees; but Chair B:•ophy and Com. Miller talked about reducing fees to
provide incentives for affordable housin€;. She asked if bullet points should be added to
discuss it more.
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 May 11, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Responded that at this point, it would be �;etting into an area that is out of the matrix; that is a
separate issue discussed at the time of the shopping center project. They can discuss it in the
future, but this is not the place to do it.
Com. Giefer:
• Referring to Page 4-2, she suggested tilat reference to "Develop How To Manuals" be
reworded, since it implies that it is an instructional manual for using the website.
• Relative to the R1 notification, she said sr e was concerned about the "Don't Send Any Plans"
message as it was sending out a red flag and appears to be the beginning of the eroding of
noticing, and she had an issue with anyt zing that would undermine the amount of noticing
done. She said she supported sending out the site plan and elevations only with the weblink
but did not want to meddle with things that are known public issues because it undermines
their confidence in the Commission. She � uggested that it be rephrased to be more specific.
• She said Chair Brophy's suggestion abou� a fee neutral approach was a good one; if building
green or affordable, you pay a reduced f�e set for your first however many square feet the
project is; and then look at the overall fef: structure, so the larger the home is, the higher the
fees are, or something similar that encow•ages building more green, smaller efficient homes,
rather than large energy inefficient homes.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said for affordable housing projects, the City does not charge pazk fees, which can be cost
prohibitive; and it also does not charge construction tax on the building permits, so those
policies exist. She said she did appreci�te the revenue neutral. One of the things coming
down the pike and they are not adding fee s to it, with all the new regulations of Cal Green or
New Green Building Ordinance, is the ne�v landscaping ordinance. Staff plans to spend more
staff time on these applications than have'�een typically done; the number of hours per project
will go up, but in the interest of trying to t elp people do the right thing, there is no proposal to
increase fees.
• Relative to the appeals process, she said that the first appeal could be at the same fee; staff
does not have an opinion on this and the Planning Commission can take a stand one way or
another. Some applications have been appealed more than once, perhaps the second level of
appeal could be on a cost recovery basi� . The appeal costs between 50% to 100% of the
original application cost in terms of staff ti me; Council has chosen to reduce that cost to $100.
• Said that limiting the number of appeals w�s a question for the City Attorney to address. If the
Council makes a decision there is a recon:�ideration process where the Council could be asked
to reconsider their decision; starting frorr the Planning Commission or staff level, there are
many levels of appeals.
Com. Miller:
• The problem is that it is a political decisicn at the Council level and they have chosen to keep
the appeal price down because they do no�: want to discourage it. We could try to limit it, but
they are the ones making the decision. I�: is a good question, and if you did that, would it
always be to the City Council.
Chair Brophy:
• Suggested that they address the issue of R1 notification, as the intent is that everybody get
sufficient documents for review; that they have knowledge they can either go online or if they
are knowledgeable about plans, they need to know they have access to them if necessary either
online or come down to the Planning Departrnent. It needs to be restated in a clearer manner.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 May 11, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Said she rewrote it as R1 notification, "send reduced plan sets including site plan and
elevations with weblink information;" since most people don't care about an electrical plan.
What matters is what is it going to look lik e on the curb and how is it going to affect the house
next door.
Com. Miller:
• Said that is correct, and the remainder is unnecessary because residents do not have a right to
critique it and make suggestions which are out of the scope of what they should be evaluating.
• Said he supported sending out only the mii�imum set that provides the information they need in
order to make judgments on the aspects appropriate for them to be making judgments. A full
set of plans should be put on the website f�r people to see; that is public information. The goal
in moving forward is to try to reduce the :unount of paper, not increase it. Paper is one place
to reduce costs, and it does not diminish th� objective of notification.
Com. Giefer:
• How the interior of a house is arranged is �:he owner's business, but the issue of a second story
balcony looking into a neighbor's master bedroom are legitimate questions for neighbors to
ask. Some of them are unnecessary, but a 11 four side elevations are needed. If it is defined as
part of this, it puts the community at rest �ind continues the relationship and trust they have in
the Planning Commission.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Relative to website information, it will be done as soon as there is a good permit system up
and running. The site plans and elevation: will be sent out to everyone within 300 feet radius;
for two-story applications it is everyone within 300 feet. For second-story decks, extension of
legal non-conforming walls, minor things, it is to adjacent neighbors.
Com. Miller:
� Said that the side and rear elevations for ��eople living down the block should not be an issue
as it does not affect them. For those imm ediately affected, you want to give them what they
need, and there is already a distinction that for some things only the immediate neighbors get,
and some get a full plan set. He suggest�;d that the larger set be defined and given to those
residents who are immediately affected.
Chair Brophy:
� Said he agreed in principle, and asked if it was a battle they want to deal with at this time.
Relative to the R1 issue, the focus should l�e on getting the plan set to people and if too many
changes are made, it is counter-productive.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said all comments will be forwarded to Ci�y Council; staff doesn't have an opinion.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she concurred with Chair Brophy; o;�ce the appropriate website technology is available
that would allow them to change the mix of what they send out, they should reconsider if it
makes sense to do it. She said she would t e concerned with the administrative efficiencies and
reliability if they try to slice it up differently.
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 May 1 l, 2010
Com. Miller:
• There is general agreement not to impleme;nt anything new until there is an alternative such as
the website, then the question is what should be implemented.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Explained that 11 x 17 sized black and whi te drawings are sent out as part of the plan sets; sent
to approximately 50 people, within a 300 foot radius depending on lot size. The applicant pays
for the copying of the plan sets and the ma: ling costs.
Com. Giefer:
• Suggested they continue with what they jre presently doing until they have the technology
available, and revisit the issue at that time.
Com. Giefer:
• Summarized recommendations: R1 notific,ition: send reduced plans sets of elevations and site
plans with weblink for further informatic n; to be implemented only after online permitting
system is implemented and fully tested.
• Relative to cross sections of the interiors, :�he said her issue was only with what information is
available;
• Said her issue was just what information i:; available; and she did not have a problem with not
sending a cross section of the interior; there is no landscape plan so you cannot see what the
privacy plantings are.
Gary Chao:
• Summarized that there were many good comments from the Commission; some of which
would be more appropriate when the ite: n returns. At this point, the Commission should
decide whether they want to look at evah ating either streamlining or more efficient ways of
notifying R1 properties; bearing in mind when they come back they will explain the other
components involved; not just the plan, to make a comprehensive decision, because there are
story poles, story boards and different requirements for commercial properties as well; so they
will have all the information to make that final decision on how you want to curtail it or not.
Com. Giefer:
• How far down this path do we want to go t►ecause they all affect R1 notification. Do we really
want to try to remedy this quickly by cha:iging some language on recommendation or do we
want staff to come back and actually do a:nore thorough review on that. We fix one item and
say fine we won't include two sheets of 'vrterior drawings and mail out plan sets, and we are
done, or do we want to look at all of it. H�; said he did not want to look at all of it, but wanted
the story boarding to remain and the st��ry poles to remain because they are part of the
notification.
Aarti Shrivastava:
� Said that when approving a house plan, it i; not required to have a full set of construction plans
at that point; they have the concept drawi�igs. Typically the electrical plan, foundation plans
etc. are not required. If it is a special proj ect, such as with a basement, a lot of it depends on
the project itself, there needs to be enougl� information to help staff understand how it is put
together; how the massing works, which �ncludes the Public Works and Building staff, who
also look at it at the planning stage.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 May 11, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Commented that he felt the level of detail in the story poles was excessive, and likely not
appreciated by the public.
Chair Brophy:
• Story poles is an area where the benefit is 1 ess than the problems of changing it.
Com. Giefer:
• Recalled that when they were putting the story poles in the R1, she adamantly fought for them
because she felt they were informative.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that story poles are supposed to c�utline only the second story, there is no need to do
the ground floor. It does need to present i:self to get a sense of the massing, to the extent that
the main ridges, corners, and main peaks b�; delineated.
Staff:
• Said Cupertino was similar to some cities in how they deal with story poles and requesting the
same level of detail; while others require more detail. Some cities don't require story poles,
and don't review single family at the Planning staff level.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested comments on Attachment 1 to forward to Council: The third category, Planned
Development Use Permits should be re�iamed to Minor Development Permit and Major
Development Permit, not ASA. In the m�yor ASA category state Planning Commission/City
Council depending on the level of review, and the Planning Commission may want to make
some recommendation on what that threshc,ld might be if it goes to Council.
• Relative to the appeal process, the appealii�g body is always the next level of review, and staff
is not suggesting any changes.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported staff suggestions to move more of the items down in the structure, including
the recommendations.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Suggested a change at the Use Permit leve 1; the small modifications can be done at staff level
and the bigger ones can be Planning Comrr,ission level.
• Relative to a previous suggestion by C�m. Giefer that for cellular antenna and similar
facilities, the Technology Commission rather than Planning Commission could make those
determinations because they are not la�d use decisions; she said that the Technology
Commission stated they are not in the busi less of aesthetics and the Planning Commission is a
better body to look at that since they I��ok at aesthetics. When reviewing other cities,
Mountain View was the only one who did t at staff level. Cupertino has the ability to do some
antenna decisions at staff level, but in the F ast have forwarded them on.
• There was a brief discussion about the role of the DRC, which appears to have been reduced to
evaluation of signs; more items are now being handled at staff level.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that when things were moving fairly c�uickly and the calendar was fuller, DRC was a way
to dispatch things more quickly, and if the decision is made by staff that is one avenue, but if
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 May 11, 2010
there are items that we are taking from Pla uiing Commission and moving to DRC, they can be
more expeditious.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that if issues cannot be resolved at staff level, staff feels the Planning Commission is a
better body to appeal it to; primarily beca ise there is a real hearing process in the next level.
There is also more consistency if it is hear3 by the Commission, rather than just two members
of the DRC.
• In prior years the DRC did a lot of single �amily review which has since moved to staff level;
it also reduces application costs.
Chair Brophy:
• Many of the issues are issues that are goir g to have to be dealt with after it comes back from
the Council. Are there any other lines othE;r than R1 notification that need to be changed from
what has been proposed.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was unsure how to memorialize �he concept of looking into reducing fees for green
building and affordable housing. She sug;;ested forwarding it to City Council, perhaps under
fees, to look at a fee neutral basis to provide incentive for green building and afFordable
housing as par of a fee study.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was in favor of incentives over ma�idates and arm twisting.
Chair Brophy:
• Review Revenue neutral fee structure t�� support affordable housing and green building
objectives. Com. Giefer said she would su �port that.
• Said they could change fee structures that - educe or increase fees; he suggested they deal with
the issue of raising or lowering fees separa� ely from changing the structure.
• If you want to raise the entire structure, o�• lower the whole structure, that is a separate issue.
There are two issues; one is the structure o��the fees and increase or lower.
Com. Miller:
• Said what was being suggested was that tt�ey were two separate discussions and two separate
decision points. Said he supported that, biit did not approve of lowering it in the one side and
raising it on another.
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to changing the fee structure, if they were to say eliminate building code fees for
solar, saying that is one decision but down the road they could look at raising other fees at the
same time; he was not opposed to looking at the issues of lowering the general fee structure or
raising them; but at the same time would like to look within that for a given dollar number;
what they are accomplishing to provide inc entives to meet affordable housing or to meet green
building objectives.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed with the concept of providing incentives; however, it then presents the issue of
creating a reduction in revenue which so�nehow needs to be made up; then it is a different
discussion in terms of how and when the st�ortfall in revenue is made up.
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 May 11, 2010
• If it is affordable housing and they a��e doing a redevelopment district and collecting
redevelopment monies, perhaps an approp� use of the redevelopment monies is to backfeed
what we are doing in terms of reducing fees to increase incentives.
• Said he did not think it necessarily follow:� to increase the fees somewhere else, as opposed to
using monies from other sources to achiev�; a public good.
• Said that when fees are increased, it is saying you are going to pay and you are focusing on an
individual or small group to pay for a�vider benefit to the entire community, which is a
concept he does not agree with.
Com. Brophy:
• We are already doing it although not callir g it that. When we don't charge affordable housing
projects park fees, presumably then when we set the park fees for everybody else we have set
them at a level that takes that into consideration. If we are going to do that we are doing it on
an explicit basis rather than on an implicit �asis.
Com. Miller:
• Said he agreed and supported that and watited to discuss it further. It shouldn't be a matter of
course and that's the way it happens; but r��ther that they made a conscious decision to do that.
• Said he also supported staff's efforts to upgrade their permit system and there may be ways to
do that in a less expensive manner. The} should ensure that they send that message to the
Council, because the last time around, the Council was not keen on doing it primarily because
of the cost. The message should be that th s is a efficiency tool or set of tools and they should
be looking at ways to make it happen, p:i.rticularly since the current system we currently is
going to reach its limits in a very short pe�iod of time. They are going to be forced to replace
it in any case.
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to review of fee structure, just support affordable housing and green building
objectives in revenue neutral manner.
• Said he was willing to look at raising or lowering fees but would like to look at the fee
structure within for a given dollar number; and be explicit about it rather than simply say they
are going to exempt the projects for park fc;es.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Summarized the changes: (1) How To N[anuals; (2) R1 notification; (3) Rewording of first
bullet in technology to say "support staff efforts to upgrade permit system" that would help
improve efficiency; and (4) Chair Brophy's sentence on reviewing the fee structure. Relative
to R1 notification, send reduced sets incluc ing site plan and elevations with weblink for further
information.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that if they reduce plan sets, landsca;�ing needs to be called out. The landscaping plans
would be a privacy screening.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Kaneda
absent; to approve CP-2010-01 tc� be forwarded to the City Council with Planning
Commission comments.
OLD BUSINESS None
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 May 11, 2010
NEW BUSINESS
5. City of Cupertino Geneial Plan conformance hearing for the disposition of
Southeast end of Cleo Ave. the re��l property to Habitat for Humanity for the
(APN 362-31-004) purpose of developing an affordable housing project.
Tenta'ive City Council Date: June 1, 2010
Gary Chao presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the project. [n August 2005 the City acquired the Cleo Avenue
properiy from Caltrans for the purpose �f an affordable housing project or park use. In
December 2007 the Habitat for Humanit;� was selected by the City Council to develop the
property. In March 2008 Council rezoned the property to Planned Development Residential to
accommodate potentially four (4) residential units. Habitat is requesting that the City initiate
the Disposition and Development Agree nent (DDA) process in order for them to secure
necessary funding to move the project fo�vvard. The Planning Commission is being asked to
make three findings to the extent that the; location, purpose and extent of disposition are in
conformance with the General Plan.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she felt Habitat for Humanity is a wo�iderful program; and that the Habitat program needs
to own the property it builds on. The ��ity of Cupertino turned the property over to the
program. Said it was an interesting situation because if this was a larger piece of land and
Cupertino had purchased it, there might be some issues with the city turning over a large piece
of property to a private charity for affordat�le housing. She suggested that if the opportunity of
surplus land occurs again, the City consi�ier letting its own BMR program or Vista Village
handle it.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, secon�l by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0-0, Com.
Kaneda absent, to approve Agenda Item 5, disposition of real property
APN 362-31-004 to Habitat for F[umanity.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMIVIIS�ION
Environmental Review Committee: No Me eting.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissio oers: Report given at previous meeting.
Economic Development Committee: Com. (Tiefer reported:
• Russell Hancock, from Joint Venture Sili�;on Valley spoke about the economic conditions in
the valley; financing is still difficult to acquire and the new norm may be that large projects
will come in piecemeal for development.
• A new Leadership Cupertino class called :�eadership 95014 is available to the public who are
interested in learning more about CuFertino and its government. There will be an
informational mixer soon.
• There is a growing request by restaurants in the community to get entertainment permits to
help stimulate business into their establislvnents.
• The Chamber of Commerce is working with the city to try to make the businesses more green.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 May 11, 2010
• Service Announcement: Chamber of Cor.imerce is working to promote businesses in the city;
sponsoring Savory Summer Nights on Jut�e 26 at Vallco shopping area, local restaurants will
have different tastings. Contact Kelly Klir�e in the City or Chamber of Commerce.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMl1[UNITY DEVELOPMENT
� Provided an update on future meetings;
• Proposal to cancel May 25 meeting;
• Trying to regroup and fmd topics for Planning Commission to discuss for Land Use
Sustainability Plan and expect to have that sometime m July or August;
• June 8�' proposing first set of focus groups for Green Building, July 27 proposing second focus
group meeting;
• Planning Commission retreat, propose sub�;ommittee of two for considering topics, location.
• Consider canceling a summer meeting.
• Council decided not to raise fees this year; not planning to do a fee study
Com. Miller and Chair Brophy volunteered to serve on the committee for planning the retreat and
will report on June 8�'.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, seconcl by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0-0; Com.
Kaneda absent, to cancel the M:iy 25, 2010 Planning Commission meeting due to
lack of business.
Adiournment•
• The meeting was adjourned to the next re:gular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
June 8, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /sBlizabeth Elli �
Elizabeth Ellis, Recor3ing Secretary