01. Draft Mins 09-27-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
September 27, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
6:00 P.M.
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Staff present:
Chairperson:
V ice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Angela Chen (arrived after roll call)
Taghi Saadati
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
City Attorney:
Contract Planner:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
ColinJung
Aki Honda
Charles Kilian
Tricia Schimpp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Wong noted receipt of written materials regarding the
Surpur application. A number of emails were also noted regarding Item I.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
3. U-2005-14
William Stephens
(T-Mobile) 20041
Bollinger Rd.
Use Permit to erect a 35-foot tall, slim-line monopole
with three panel antennas and an equipment shelter
for wireless phone service. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the
September 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Postponed to the October 25, 2005 meeting.
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to postpone
Application U-2005-14 to the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission
Meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
6.
TM-2005-09
Emily Chen
(Vallco Fashion
Tentative Map to subdivide a 7.05-acre parcel into two
lots. Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
September 27, 2005
Park) 10123 No.
Wolfe Road
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen, to postpone Item 6 to the
October 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
7. U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11,
TM-2005-06, Z-2005-05,
DA-2005-01 (EA-2005-1O)
Mike Rohde (Vallco
Fashion Park) 10123
No. Wolfe Rd (South of
1-280 and West of Wolfe
Road)
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to
construct a I 56-unit, three story attached
condominium development
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to postpone Item 7
to the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
M-2005-02
Dan Ikeda
(PSS Ventures
LLC) 20414
Via Paviso
Modification of a Use Permit (8-U-94) to convert a 140-unit
apartment project (Aviare) to For-Sale residential condominiums.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued
From the September 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner, presented the staff report:
. Said that the application was first presented on July 26, 2005, at which time the Planning
Commission continued the item to discuss II issues raised during the public testimony period.
It was then continued again to September 13 and then to the present time to discuss more
issues raised as well as to ensure that all the tenants of the A viare complex were properly
noticed for the public hearing.
o She reviewed the background of the application as set forth in the staff report. The application
is to convert 140 apartment residential units to condominium units; 105 units would be for sale
at market rate; 15 units would be for sale at below market rate (BMR) and the remaining 20
units would be rental units. The city's condominium conversion ordinance provides key
provisions to ensure tenant protection and buyer protection.
o One of the issues is the parking easement along the illustrated property line. A fence separates
the A viare complex from the homeowners associations, both Portofino and Corsica. The
parking strip is an easement that is part of a property of the A viare complex. However, the
parking is not used by A viare, it is used by Portofino and Corsica residents. The items that
were continued in July, included the parking easement, and the fact that there is a locked gate
continuing to prohibit public access between the A viare complex and the Portofino and
Corsica neighborhoods on the other side, where there are private roads. That gate does have
the type of lock that is accessible by fire and emergency personnel when they need to.
o An issue was continued maintenance of the BMR units and I believe we addressed that. It
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
September 27, 2005
would be handled in a special agreement between the City and the A viare Homeowners
Association. The applicant has agreed to increase the BMR units. Currently they have 15%
rental, as part of this application they have agreed to go to 25% with the condition that 20
rental units are in Building 6 and 15 For Sale units would be dispersed throughout the project.
· Previous and current parking studies justify the 1.83 parking spaces per unit. There are 256
parking spaces within the A viare gated community; which does not include the parking spaces
in the parking easement. There are 140 units which equates to 1.83 parking spaces.
· The management of the Aviare complex was asked to hold a resident meeting which they have
done to better inform the tenants about the process of the relocation plan and their purchasing
rights ofthe units.
Ms. Wordell:
· As mentioned previously, the Affordable Housing Committee looked at this and they believe
the units should be dispersed throughout the site and not congregated in one building.
Ms. Schimpp:
· A concern of the Commission was that the pool might be converted to solar heating. The
applicant has agreed to do that and it is a condition of project approval. The current condition
of the existing BMR units has been discussed and upgrade to the buildings for energy
efficiency has also been discussed, they were built to Title 24 standards.
· The applicant feels that they are operating at a efficiency level that would be difficult to
increase. Vacancy rate for the City of Cupertino was further discussed. When we look at just
the rental units within the city limits not within the larger housing market area, the vacancy
rate was 5.7%. Further details were given on the relocation plan and if you have anymore
questions about any of these items the applicant is here tonight to discuss them.
· The Planning Commission also requested further information on the tenants being adequately
noticed for this public hearing and they were, as evidenced from the audience tonight.
· There was also the issue of clustering the BMR units and there was quite a bit of discussion
about the pros and cons of that, the fact that they are rental units and that there are 20 units
within one building makes a reasonable proposal to have the rental units in one location. It
would be easier to properly maintain those units. However, the Commission also wanted to
know about ADA accessibility and how many ground floor units there were. At the previous
public hearing the applicant said there were two ground floor units in that building, that was an
error; there are actually four. We have made it a condition of project approval that if they are
not already ADA compliant that they would be made so. The ratio of rental to owner BMR
units in the city was information that the Commission requested from staff.
· Also presented by public testimony at the last public hearing was that a lease addendum had
gone out to recent tenants signing up at A viare which erroneously said that the condo
conversion had been approved. What it meant to say was that it was under consideration. The
applicant is making the correction and sending it out certified mail to the 12 signees of the
previous addendum. We have made it a condition of approval that they provide proof that at
least the 12 people have been sent the corrected addendum by certified mail.
· There was also an issue about the parking situation and I realize the concern by the
homeowners association of both the Portofino and Corsica that if there is not adequate parking
on site for A viare that there might be a spillover into their parking easement area which has
been under some tension for some time. The applicant will be required to assign one garage
space for each unit so there will be 140 garage spaces specifically assigned to each unit,
leaving the remainder open for people who have more than one car or for visitors. There are
also handicapped spaces, accessible spaces on site that will not be changed as part of this
agreement.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
September 27, 2005
· The easement maintenance was a further issue and again by the condo conversion ordinance
the developer is required to maintain all the area of the property until it is turned over to the
new homeowners association. So in this case the easement is part of the property, it is part of
the common area so it is required by ordinance that the applicant maintain the easement.
There has been some discussion further whether or not that easement might be dedicated in
some fashion to the Porto fino or Corsica neighborhood homeowners associations. I have not
had a concrete update ITom the applicant so they may wish to address that.
Ms. Schimpp summarized other conditions of approval:
· There would be 20 For Rent units in Building 6 for BMR dedication
· There would be 15 For Sale units dispersed throughout the site
· The maintenance of the common area site and the structural improvements would be done by
the homeowners association
· Pool to be converted to solar heating
· A final report is required by the Department of Real Estate
· The city would sign off on all the compliance with the conditions of approval that all the issues
of the ordinance are met. A letter would be issued to the applicant.
· Staff recommends approval of modification of the Use Permit to convert 140 For Rent
apartments to residential condominiums with 105 For Sale market rate units, 15 For Sale BMR
units and 20 For Rent BMR units per the provisions of the model resolution.
· Confirmed that 256 parking spaces are on the Aviare side of the gate (fence) and they do not
include any of the parking spaces that are in the parking easement area.
· Said that the Cupertino Community Services administers the BMR program and would be the
same as their current lottery process.
Com Giefer:
· Do you believe that we will have those 15 units for sale or do you think that everyone that
lives there is going to buy their unit? Are we at risk at all of not having those units available?
Ms. Wordell:
· If you condition it, they must be converted to BMR units. If they have everyone in their
development that wants to purchase their current unit they will not be able to make that offer.
Com. Giefer:
· At the time the units are sold will they have to meet our current Title 24 requirements, because
it is going to increase in October.
· Do they meet the current Title 24? So they would only be required to meet the Title 24
requirements for when the units were built?
Ms. Schimpp:
· There are no physical changes proposed for this application and the condo conversion
ordinance doesn't have a specific requirement for that.
· They are grandfathered in.
Com. Saadati:
· In case the new owners numbers of cars exceed 256, say 260, where would they park their
cars?
Ms. Schimpp:
· That would be a question we would ask the apartment complex manager who is here tonight, if
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
September 27, 2005
they have had an issue with that. The parking studies seem to indicate that this has not been an
Issue.
Com. Saadati:
· I understand that, but I am wondering if the option is available in the event it becomes
necessary.
Ms. Schimpp:
· I would like to ask the apartment manager to address that question.
Com. Saadati:
· There are 140 units and 144 garages; the four garages are not going to be converted to storage.
Ms. Schimpp:
· Actually all of the 144 in the proposal will be converted for storage. This does not deplete the
number of parking spaces or the required dimensions of the parking stall within the parking
space. Weare requiring that 140 of those be assigned parking spaces.
· The other four would be administered by the homeowners association, however they see fit.
Ms. Schimpp: (Changes to resolution)
· I can address that. When we first wrote the staff report it was prior to getting information
ftom the applicant about how they have followed up with the notification on the addendum
correction issue. We found that they had, that it was not possible to stipulate a list to get
signed so they had actually sent by certified mail the corrected version to each person. They
have a list of who was contacted. Further, they are asking for signatures back on those signed
leases, but we felt it was more appropriate to ask for proof that they were properly notified by
certified mail.
Ms. Schimpp:
· Explained the changes to Item 5 in the model resolution.
David Nix, consultant for applicant:
· There are washer and dryer hookups in each of the units.
· Relative to parking, any cars in excess of 256 would have to park on the street. When the
CC&R's for the HOA are done, they will indicate how parking will be regulated. One garage
will be assigned to each unit, and additional open spaces and carports will be assigned to units
based on the number of bedrooms in the unit.
· I can't be exact on as to how that will play out right now; our preference is to allow for
flexibility in response to market conditions because as you can imagine parking, the number of
parking spaces and the units go hand in hand. As we get into the sales and marketing effort
that is something that will have to be closely managed during the sales process. But ultimately
the policing of the parking situation will be in the hands of the HOA.
· Relative to the issue of whether all the BMR units should be in one building or not, it is not the
intent of the applicant to discriminate at all. It is simply that the applicant is trying to
accommodate the city's desire as we understand it, to have BMR rental units. You can
imagine that creates some complications as we are looking to sell condominium units in the
project and the mixing of those two types of residences. Because we have seven identical
buildings that have identical unit mixes that it would make most sense to provide one of those
buildings as a rental, exclusively for rental units. Thereby providing an identical unit mix of
rental units to the total unit mix of the property in total. The 15 For Sale units will be
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
September 27, 2005
dispersed throughout the project. We are requesting the Commission's approval that the
remaining 20 BMR units be located in one building so that the rental units may be more
efficiently managed. If they are scattered throughout the property it is going to be difficult to
deal with issues that come up on a day-to-day basis, sending crews out to take care of different
needs that the renters might have.
· In addition there may be ownership efficiencies in having all the rental units in one building
because there will be one owner of those as opposed to having them scattered throughout the
project. If there is something that needs to be done to that building and in coordination with
the HOA the owner of those rental units could more easily take care of what ever matters arise.
· As mentioned earlier, combining rental units with ownership units in one building could
potentially do some management conflicts and that ultimately be a burden of the HOA. We
see keeping those rental units separate is something that could potentially help out the HOA
down the road, Also, we have the, the staff report indicates we do have four units on the
ground floor of each building. They are ADA compliant. That would represent 20 percent of
the total units in that building, which could be provided for disabled or those types of residents
who would need ADA construction.
Com. Giefer:
· Questioned if the windows were sound proof in the BMR units in Building 6, and all the
buildings.
Mr. Nix:
· Said the windows were sound proof; one of the requirements was that special sound glass be
installed for all the living spaces. There are Lexian sound barriers installed on the balconies.
· He added that the washers and dryers in the units were provided by the owners.
Com. Giefer:
· Suggested that the BMR rental units be provided washers and dryers by the owners and that
they be Energy Star energy efficient appliances.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that all the amenities must be similar unless they ask for an exception !Tom the City
Council. If they provide washer and dryers for everyone else in rental units they would
provide washer and dryers for the BMR units.
Brian Rayborn, Property Director of Aviare Apartments:
· Clarified that for rental units, the property owner would provide only the hookups for the
washer and dryer units, not the appliances.
Com. Giefer:
· We received another email !Tom Mr. Kahn and he confirmed he had also received the certified
addendum to the lease that he signed, He pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the
move out policy and as stated verbally and what we had seen in writing.
· Please clarifY; it relates to a conversion of the leases to a thirty day short term lease and getting
two quotes from moving companies. How is that determined who is eligible for move out
assistance?
Mr. Nix:
· Explained that the relocation plan provides move out assistance to anyone who is still in
residence at the time the property starts the sale of the condominium units.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
September 27, 2005
· He said conversion to month to month does not disqualify that resident ITom moving expenses.
If they were in residency in January when delivered the original notices to convert, they will
qualify,
Com. Giefer:
· What if they find another dwelling and they want to move in thirty days ITom now if the unit is
not currently for sale. Are they still qualified for that moving assistance if they move out
before the unit goes up for sale?
Mr. Nix:
· No, the plan does not provide for that.
· Said that the current owner would continue to own the building with the 20 BMR rental units.
· In response to Com. Chen's question why the 20 BMR units were going to be rental units
instead of For Sale units, he said that the City Council indicated that they wanted to see a
retention of the BMR rental units.
· As a result, that was the direction the applicant headed with the application on the original
proposal.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There are policies that our Housing Commission addresses trying to .preserve the rental
housing stock and then there is a procedure that allows you to convert out of the rental housing
stock. We are trying to mesh the two together and the preference seems to be more affordable
if you keep them in rental as opposed to ownership. You would have more variety and some
BMR for sale and some BMR rental. Also, it allows the applicant to offer the existing, I
believe there is 10% BMR within the project, the opportunity to live within those 20 units that
are available, that will continue to be available as rental units.
Com. Chen:
· Somewhere in the ordinance we are going to make it clear that even these units that are
coming in will continue to be operated as rental units under the same ownership, so they can
sell them individually. Or does it matter?
Mr. Piasecki:
· It probably makes more sense if they are under one ownership, it is not unlike the CCS Project,
where it is managed by one management company. Even if they chose to subdivide that we
might want to have a condition that says that is fine but you will agree that you will not
transfer ownership on any of these. We don't want to have 20 individual owners owning BMR
units and then keeping them as rental units. We prefer that they not subdivide and just keep it
as one single project.
· We prefer not to convert the entire 140 units. I think the applicant feels that the DRE might
have a different view of that but I don't know why they should in this case. It seems to me you
can keep a separate parcel, comprising 20 units.
Com. Chen:
· No where in this ordinance will it prevent this, a resolution prevent us ITom doing that, right?
Because the ordinance currently says that 140 units for sale,
Mr. Piasecki:
· You can certainly change that ordinance wording to talk about 120 For Sale units.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
September 27, 2005
Com. Chen:
· I assumed that the entire 140 units were being converted to condominiums and that they were
choosing to rent 20 ofthem.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Again, the problem with that goes the right to transfer ownership. I don't know that that is the
best strategy; I think it would be better to leave that as one project site with 20 apartments.
· Again, I don't know why the DRE would care either way. It would be just one part of the
HOA comprising 20 units.
Com. Chen:
· I agree.
Chair Wong:
· (To Com. Chen) You bring up a very good point asking why the 20 units are for rent. Is
Citation Homes in the business of selling homes and they started out with 15% BMR and then
went to 20 and now they are going to 25%. I recall in a conversation early in the public
hearing they were willing to sell those 20.
· Would you entertain that idea, that they will sell those 20 as BMR so there will be a total of 35
units BMR for sale? I am just curious why you raised that question,
Com. Chen:
· I understand Mr. Piasecki's point that they clearly state the city's position to have these units
for rental units as they are more affordable. They can be transferred from people to people and
going to the family that do need the rental units. I think it is a good idea to keep them as rental
units. I think it is probably more protection on the city's side if we keep them under one
ownership instead of subdivide into 20 units and expect them to be operated under one
management company.
Mr. Nix:
· Relative to the issue raised in the staff report regarding the easement between A viare, Corsica
and Portofino, the general counsel for the applicant is present and could provide information.
Chair Wong:
· Asked what kind of resolution was being sought with Corsica and Porto fino, if any.
Frank Nicoletti, General Counsel for applicant:
· I have spoken with the Corsica HOA President and the Vice President for Porto fino and after
the matter moves forward we would like to meet with the President of each association and
propose that perhaps the best solution would be to transfer the portion of the easement that
fronts the Porto fino property to Porto fino, and the portion that fronts the Corsica property to
Corsica with reciprocal rights to the easement. We will meet with our engineers after this
meeting and find out how best we can accomplish that. We will then meet with them and
present our proposal. We do not particularly want to keep that easement because it is on the
other side of the fence and it doesn't really benefit the Aviare Apartments in any way, and the
fence is there. Hopefully, we will be able to work it out.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
September 27, 2005
Jennifer Griffin, Cnpertino resident:
· Recalled when that corner was being developed when the Mariani property was broken up and
there were several different building projects going in. At the time, I remember my family
discussing the fact that there was a broad range of housing available. There were individual
townhouses, large family homes and also apartments. I think that the consensus at the time
was this was a good location for rental housing. There is public transportation available, there
is a lot of action at that corner in the city.
· I am distressed to see that there is an attempt to convert Aviare to condos now. Several years
ago, in 1999 there was a big public outcry in Cupertino that we need more rental housing. I
am worried now that we are going to have this happen again and in two to three years
everyone will be crying for more rental housing when all the apartments will be converted into
condos which seems to be the big push right now.
· It is important for a city like Cupertino to keep a broad range of rental housing available to
people. Large families, small families, single individuals, seniors, couples just starting out. I
think A viare presents a very good location for families to rent homes.
· I am very disappointed that this conversion is being sought and I think it should be
discouraged. I am pleased to hear that there will still be apartments available for rental. Many
times the rental market is overlooked and I would hate to see us going through this again,
another cycle. Where are the rental apartments? They are all in condos. I hope that you will
take this into consideration. Our economy seems to be cycling up and down and right now we
are in a condominium period; two years rrom now it could be apartments and where will they
be?
Neil Burns, President of Corsica BOA.
· Our major concern has been addressed; as Mr. Nicoletti indicated, Citation has agreed to our
proposal to deed over the parking easement on Via Lombardi to Portofino and Corsica HOA,
each receiving a section adjacent to their communities, As long as transfer of ownership of
that parking strip takes place before a new A viare HOA is formed we are satisfied.
· Our concern was parking places were always intended to be for the exclusive use of the
Corsica and Portofino homeowners, not the A viare residents. That strip is the only parking
overflow and guest parking that is available within our community. With the exception of one
other very small strip which is a couple parking spaces in it. For the past seven years the gate
between A viare and Corsica has been locked or closed. There has been no problem, no traffic
going through our community rrom there; very little utilization of those parking spaces by
Aviare. Our concern was that after the conversion, the Aviare HOA might elect to remove the
gate and encourage their homeowners to park in that strip, in spite of the fact that as far as we
can ascertain they don't have any right to utilize the roads to gain access to the strip. But as
long as the property is transferred over to us I don't see a problem.
Chair Wong:
· Noted for the record there will be a lock box on the gate just for fire emergency access only,
which was part of the application,
Mr. Sbarma, Corsica resident:
· Reported that the Citation Homes applicant addressed the transfer of ownership to Corsica.
· If the condominium complex is sold and the new HOA starts forcefully parking in our area it
will create a lot of unrest and create a very difficult situation for both Corsica and Portofino.
· I suggest adding another condition that Corsica get in writing rrom Citation and the applicant
that this transaction will take place in terms of transferring the ownership.
· He confirmed that the gate will be locked and will only be open for emergencies.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
September 27, 2005
· Weare concerned that if that condition of transfer of ownership is not put into place before
Citation Homes or applicant can sell the condominium, we suspect the people will start
parking in our area because in the neighborhood there is no other street where people can park
except at Rite Aid or the shopping mall.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Has there been an issue of A viare residents parking in there to your knowledge?
Mr. Sharma:
· We have very few people park; but we have not objected to them.
· Last weekend we called the Board, HOA meeting. One of board members went to Aviare to
inquire about the rental and ask about the parking problem. I believe the ? was told if you
have a parking problem you can park on the other side, which is the other side of Via
Lombardi. That is the reason I wrote the email was to make sure you can include this as a
condition as long as that gets established, we are fine and you can convert them to condos.
Vice Chair Miller:
· How would transfer of ownership solve the problem?
Mr. Sharma:
· We believe with the transfer of ownership on the Corsica side and part of Porto fino will allow
towing their car away if they are illegally parked.
· No other public traffic ¡¡-om other places will come into our private streets; they are very
narrow private streets.
RK Atithum, Corsica resident:
. There have been accidents where people run into my mailbox. I have come to the city before
asking to have a curb put in ¡¡-ont of my house, but since they are private streets, the city
refused to get involved. Citation Homes refused also.
. If there are parking spaces handed over to Corsica and Portofmo and the gate is locked, and
there is no additional traffic flow, I should be safe.
Mirali MahaJinga:
· Many of the issues have already been covered by previous speakers. It is encouraging that
some resolution will be coming our way which is good news for the whole community,
· The transfer of ownership gives us more rights to protect our neighborhood by controlling
traffic on the private streets.
· If the transfer of ownership is made a condition, a pre-condition for the approval of the
conversion. I think it will give us more assurance as a community to know that some city is
taking the right approach in making sure our security and safety is protected.
· There was a question raised earlier in the discussion about the parking availability outside of
the Aviare community. I am a new resident and there is not a lot of parking on the streets. In
the Aviare community they have to park on the Via Lombardi Street.
· The double gates, the locked gate, we also understand what is our authority to keep the gates
locked. Even today, it has been a month since I moved and I have seen that gate partially
opened,
· Asked who had the authority to call the city to ensure that the gate is kept locked and the keys
are in the lock box. If it is clear to the residents, I will be satisfied and have no other
objections.
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
September 27, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Said that he was recently at the site, and currently the gate is unlocked. The concern is that
there is supposed to be a lock box for the fire department and it is not installed yet.
· We asked A viare to unlock the gate for the time being in the event of a fire. Once there is a
lock box there with a key for the fire department, the gate will be locked again.
Raul Picardi, Corsica resident:
· Said that if the City Council has already agreed to give them the rights to parking spaces, most
of the problem is solved. The only thing that I would like to add is that it is very clear to the
people when they come into A viare to try and buy condominiums that the parking spaces are
not for them. The reason is that once the HOA is formed we don't really want to go into a
legal battle with them; it is not good for the neighborhood. I would rather make sure that we
get the rights to the parking spots and it is made very clear to the A viare condo owners that
these parking spaces are not for their use. I think if you do that it will make for a very nice
neighborhood and avoid legal battles.
Sharon Kohlmannslehner, Vice President of the Portofino HOA.
· I have addressed the Commission at the two previous meetings, and will speak on the issue,
with new photos. The concern is still that the 24 foot wide strip of property, landscaping, and
the parking spaces are not maintained.
· What we have said before and what Corsica is saying tonight is that each HOA is interested in
acquiring the property that is adjacent to their homes and I think everyone is fine with
Porto fino and Corsica maintaining reciprocal easements for the parking spaces.
· Relative to the previous comment that the property could not be transferred because it would
affect Corsica's rights, the rights run with the land, so whoever owns it the easement doesn't go
away between the two HOA's.
Poon Fung, Portofino resident:
· The main concern is that the HOA is asking for help in settling the more than ten year old
dispute.
· Corsica Homes has indicated that they are willing to deed the land to Portofino.
· Our understanding is that the easement is a stand alone easement between Corsica and
Porto fino HOA and changing of ownership should not affect the easement by itself.
· Porto fino Homes owns the rear part of Via Lombardi Street and also Corsica Homes owns part
of the rear of Lombardi Street and I don't believe we gave easement to A viare to use the street
there. That is private property maintained by HOA dollars and that is why they don't have the
right to use our street there. They do not have the right to the parking space.
· Another entanglement is we discovered that a street light standing on the land that we don't
have easement rights to actually is tied to our meter.
· Our electricity is running to that light and ¡fthe lights run out someday and we don't have
rights to access that property, perhaps you can call the city and have them come and fix it.
Tom Huganin, Loretta Ct.:
· We have again another conversion of an apartment complex into a condominium. We have
done this before. people were unable to find housing in the community they live in. Our
housing stock is being changed. Many people bemoan the fact that we do not have affordable
housing in this community and we are converting this from an apartment complex into a
condominium complex. Many people cannot afford the down payment necessary to purchase
these as condominium units because they are cashed strapped. They can afford the monthly
payments or the rent but if anything were to change they would be out of luck and may not be
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
September 27, 2005
able to locate in this area.
· One of the requirements for condominium conversion is that we have to have a rental market
that has a 5% vacancy rate. According to a study from our Community Development Director,
it is 5.2% so I assumed a margin of error.
· Unfortunately we need the study here to see if this true and it is not in the packet. Once again,
I urge you follow the law but remember this is our housing stock and we are changing it from
something it is to something we are not sure about and we have always had repercussions
when we have done that.
· I trust that you will make the right decision.
Raj Abianca, Cupertino resident:
· Has friends who are residents of Corsica, Portofino as well as the apartment complex.
· I am really pleased that there is a prospect that the private agreement can be reached today, but
am more concerned about the long term change in our city and the long term effects of the
policy that we adopt today.
· There are many residents who are concerned with the change in character of our city, from one
that is primarily suburban to one that is transforming into high rises, multi density housing, all
in the name of certain things we have trouble understanding. Particularly in this case, we have
a situation that Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing means partially at least rental units.
Rental units is what the entire A viare community has been, so at the same time we do that, we
are now saying that we need to build more BMR housing in Cupertino. This kind of
inconsistency has resulted in the friction as well as the breakdown in communication.
· I hope that you all think about the long term effects of the planning decision that you make
today on the future of our great city.
Chair Wong:
· Reminded those present that the topic was apartment conversions and to stay focused on the
topic.
· Asked staff if the easement is built into the model resolution for it to be resolved as a private
matter.
Ms. Wordell:
· Stated that there was no condition stating that the easement would be deeded to Corsica or
Portofmo.
· If the Planning Commission wishes to add a condition, they could do so.
Mr. Chuck Kilian, City Attorney:
· I would not suggest doing that. I did not hear the applicant say that they were in fact going to
grant the easement. They said they were going to discuss it and there may be terms imposed. I
would keep the condition the same which is that they are responsible for the maintenance of
the easement until they decide to do something else with the easement. If they decide to quit
claim it or deed it otherwise then the matter is resolved. I would not make it a condition of this
approval because I didn't hear that being unequivocal, and I think it is essentially a private
dispute. The City's real concern is that somebody maintain the easement and that is
accomplished with your existing condition.
Vice Cbair Miller:
· One of the speakers raised the issue that they would have power to police the parking and cars
towed away if it was owned. Do they have power under ownership or is an easement sufficient
to police the parking situation?
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
September 27, 2005
Staff:
· They have equal power; it is a matter of putting up a sign saying "If you are here illegally, we
can tow you." Whether it is an easement or an ownership, it doesn't matter.
Com. Chen:
· Said she wanted to hear the city attorney's comments on changing the resolution to a 120 unit
conversion instead of a 140 unit rental complex, 140 sales units.
· Is it 20 units BMR rental in Building 6? I want to leave it out of the conversion, so we are only
converting or subdividing 120 of the 140 units into a resolution.
· How can we change that in the resolution, or do you see the need to change that?
Ms. Wordell:
· They currently have intended that for 140 units; I would imagine we would have to amend the
tentative map to show that parcel.
Chair Wong:
· Suggested to convert all 120 units For Sale, put a condition of approval that Building 6 will be
under one ownership for rental. If for some reason Citation Homes wants to get out of the
rental business they have to sell the whole parcel to an entity such as Cupertino Community
Service and that would be easier for sale.
Mr. Kilian:
· I suggest that the map be amended to show one parcel, I would not subdivide the parcel that
you want to retain as rental; leave that as one parcel.
Chair Wong:
· The reason I am saying that is we want to make sure that Building 6 is part of the HOA.
· It should be approved that those 20 units be intact.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The first issue is whether or not the rental units would all be in one building or not. The
applicant could have come in with 15% and instead came in with 20% affordable BMR units
which is an additional 14 units. In return, he was basically asking that rrom a maintenance
standpoint we put the rental units in one building which seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
· The next issue is there are some concerns about whether or not we should convert two rental
units or four more For Sale units. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Housing
Commission to look at our policy and decide in today's market whether that makes sense or
not or whether the current rules should be changed. However, the current rules are the current
rules for this application and the applicant is more than meeting them in the terms of the
increase in the number ofBMR units proposed. I think that at least for this application it is
incumbent upon us to follow the current rules and then look at changing them later.
· The other comment I would make on rental units is that typically in conversions like this they
all get converted to ownership. However, as much as 30% winds up back on the rental market
again because they get bought by investors who then go and re-rent the units. One of the
speakers talked about margin of error and I would like to ask staff just on that particular issue
if there is any margin of error at all in terms of meeting the 5% requirement.
Mr. Piasecki:
· When we survey the apartment owners, it is very specific and we go apartment by apartment.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
September 27, 2005
It is a very tedious project, there is always some degree for margin of error. I think that there
is very little in this particular case and I think they have done their due diligence on
demonstrating it to you. We don't bring that information to your attention because it is
considered confidential.
· Which projects have which vacancies is a competitive matter between property owners and
they don't necessarily want us sharing that in a public forum. That is why you don't have the
detail.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We have heard two numbers; one number that was specifically for Cupertino and a number for
a wider area. Which is the irrelevant number?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The wider area. The ordinance refers to the Cupertino market area and when the ordinance
was originally drafted, the intent was the concept of the market area for residential for this area
is much larger than just our city limit line. You have both figures; it is actually higher in
Cupertino than it is in the market area.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I would like to see the transfer of ownership to the property. However, as the city attorney
suggested that's not within the city's range of responsibilities to basically force a sale of private
property between two private property owners. We can only hope that it takes place but it is
not clear that we can actually include that in our resolutions.
· Given those facts and the fact that there is not a single renter from the Aviare complex who
has showed up to take issue with the transfer. With those comments I would recommend
approval of the application.
Com. Chen:
· I am pleased to see all the issues that were brought up in the previous meetings have been
addressed.
· Regarding parking Ijust want to make a comment. I note parking sliding, the ratio has slid
below what we were hoping to see but I don't see any change in the parking space when it is
rental units or condominiums, so I would not have issue with the parking.
· With the change of the conversion from 140 units to 120 and keeping the 20 BMR units under
one ownership as recommended by staff, I will support this project.
Com. Giefer:
· I am concerned about the current rental ratio available within the city of Cupertino and the
general area. I think we are very close to it.
· In general, I would not support the project conversion because I think we are to close to the
5% ratio that we currently have. However, in this case I think the developer is doing some
exceptional things for the city. I want to compliment them on going above what we initially
asked for as part of our BMR units at 15%, and providing a total of 25% available units as
both rental and also as For Sale units. It will help us develop our low income housing for the
city which is something we do need to address. Additionally, when the Planning Commission
asked for energy improvements and if they would consider converting the pool from a gas
heater to a solar heater, I was impressed that they took us seriously and voluntarily
implemented that.
· Because ofthe improvements that they are making to make the complex more energy
efficient and also because they have gone above our base BMR requirements, I would support
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
September 27,2005
this application.
Com. Saadati:
o It is encouraging that all the concerns of the adjacent neighbors have been addressed with the
exception of one item, which is going to be a condition in the approval for the parking. Also
the 25% BMR is a plus, we can always try to see if we can get more BMR units in the city.
This will help the rental as well as the ownership.
o Relative to the BMR rental units being located in one building, although the Housing
Commission recommended that they be dispersed, considering that the 15 For Sale units will
be dispersed; it would make it easier to maintain the building.
o One condition I would like to suggest, if my colleagues agree to it, is to have a condition that
the applicant will inform the prospective buyer of the parking situation; that they will be given
only one parking space plus additional on a first-come first-serve basis, but there won't be
more than one or two. I am in favor of public transportation and carpooling of course, that
may force people to use public transportation as much as possible. I would like to see this
condition added so at least the new tenants or the new owners are aware of it.
o With that, I support the project.
Chair Wong:
o Noted that there were no A viare residents present tonight as hopefully most of their issues
have been resolved.
oWe received a number of emails ftom the community, ftom both the Corsica residents and the
Porto fino residents. We had three public hearings and acknowledge the neighbors coming
together and trying to resolve all these issues.
o I also acknowledge Tom Huganin and Jennifer Griffm that there is a concern in the community
regarding not having enough rental properties in the community. It seems the pendulum
swings ftom For Sale to For Rent, which is something to be addressed at the City Council
level. Perhaps on future projects we have to push for more affordable housing or for more
rental units. For many people moving into Cupertino, they have to rent first until they can
afford to buy a home.
o It is good to have the Corsica and Portofino neighborhoods come together and starting a
dialogue with Citation Homes.
o As advised by the city attorney, I hope in due diligence that all parties will come together and
work out a win-win solution. We cannot address those concerns here, but I think it will be in
Citation's favor that they resolve the issue in a favorable manner, because it would not be
beneficial to come back to us.
o Relative to parking, I understand the concerns of the Corsica and Portofino residents. I am a
huge parking advocate of enforcing our parking ordinance since it has been grandfathered in.
o I hope that can be resolved and I support Commissioner Saadati's condition of approval.
o As Com. Giefer said, the most we got out of this was that the applicant went above and beyond
regarding the BMR units and the solar heating. Our ordinance calls for 15% BMR, we have
increased that to 25%, and they are also willing to go to 15 For Sale units that will be
throughout the complex and also 20 units that will be in Building No.6.
o I support Commissioner Chen's idea to make a condition of approval that will be one entity.
o Said it was a long process, and he appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with them to
resolve the issues. He also acknowledged contract consultant Trish Schimpp and said that she
would be a fine addition to the staff.
Mr. Kilian:
o Noted that one item remained to be cleared up. The application is for a 140 single unit,
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
September 27, 2005
subdivided, I assume it is the Planning Commission's wish to have the 20 units that are rental
to be remain under one ownership which would mean it would no longer be a 140 unit or lot
subdivision.
· He asked the applicant is that was agreeable or not?
· I think you can have a subdivision that has one unit for rental units and the rest for sale lots.
What I understand, is that you want to have the 20 units that are rental under one ownership.
If you want to do that it should be one parcel and not a separate parcel; it needs to be clarified
as to whether that is agreeable with the applicant or not first.
· It would have to be under the same HOA.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If we wanted to sell the entire 20 units, we don't anticipate it to be a problem as long as we
would have a legal description.
Mr. Kilian:
· That is correct; my recommendation is that the condition read that rather than going back and
having a new subdivision mapped to reflect that, we would simply approve the 140 units or
lots subdivision with the proviso or condition that prior to the final map, the lots that represent
the rental units would be merged into one lot, which is a subdivision procedure.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested language for the model resolution: modify the wording to say "recommending
approval" it should not be "recommending" I understand it is a final action.
Ms. Wordell:
· Clarified that it would be "recommendation", and would be a recommendation to the City
Council.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The model resolution keeps the words "recommending approval of the Use Permit to allow the
conversion of 140 unit rental housing unit complex to 120 for sale residential condominiums
and 20 BMR rental units" and then into condition No. I at the very end as modified to reflect
120 ownership units and 20 BMR rental units to be located on a single parcel; that is, BMR
rental units should be located on a single parcel.
Mr. Nicoletti:
· Said Building 6 is on a legal lot now, so they do not need a further subdivision of the property.
Mr. Kilian:
· Confirmed that it met the requirements.
Ms. Wordell:
· My understanding is that those are separate parcels on that one property they are considering
for rentals, as long as the wording is clear that we can work that out
Commissioner:
· So the condition that I requested is that those lot lines be merged is appropriate, right?
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
M-2005-02 per the model resolution and tbe changes recommended by the
Director of Community Development and the City Attorney, including that
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
September 27, 2005
the new owners will notify the residents ahont the parking situation; aud the
20 units in Building 6 stay under one ownership for rental only. (Vote: 5-0-0)
2.
R-200S-21
Anil Surpur
7630 Kirwin Lane
Appeal of an approved Residential Design Review
for first and second story addition to an existing
1,882 square foot residence for a total of 3,389
square feet. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed. Continued from September 13,
2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Noted additional items were distributed: two letters from the neighbor with some concerns
about the back of the subject site; a packet prepared by the appellant summarizing his
concerns; and a package from the property owner summarizing some of his responses to the
appellants concerns.
· Reviewed the application for consideration of an appeal of the Director of Community
Development's approval ofa single story and a second story addition to the existing home.
The project was approved in July 2005.
· Some neighbors have concerns with this proposal, mainly neighbors to the back of the project
and also the neighbors to the left of the subject site. The rear yard set back for the second floor
is approximately 30 feet. The second floor side yard setback that is adjacent to the appellant's
project is approximately 25 feet from the property line, so ample setbacks have been provided
from those two sites.
· The appellant has three main concerns of the project. The first is that the new proposed
windows, their location on both second floor and ground floor windows. The appellant is also
concerned with the potential loss of sunlight as a result of the addition. Again both ground
floor and second floor and the impact, the potential impact from the shadow or the shading
casted from the addition. Thirdly, the appellants are concerned that the privacy protection
trees being requested by the R-l ordinance will cast additional shadows onto his property
causing another issue.
· Regarding the proposed windows, second story windows on two-story homes are desirable in
that they provide articulation to plain walls. Also they are required for each bedroom per
building code for fire safety exit purposes and ventilation purposes. So there has to be a
window somewhere in each bedroom per building code. Generally for second story windows
the R-I ordinance specifies privacy protection trees that are usually acceptable solutions to
address any adverse privacy intrusions that may be from the new proposed second story
windows.
· For the ground floor windows, the R-I ordinance currently does not have any provisions that
restrict the number or location of ground floor windows which is another one of the appellant's
concerns.
· Illustrated the east elevation facing the appellants' property and as shown there are three
second-story windows being proposed and there are also three ground floor windows facing
that direction. The applicant has provided privacy protection to address the second floor
windows off the elevation. There is a neighbor towards the back who has concerns with the
proposed bay window facing the back and also the second window which is off the master
bathroom.
· Privacy protection trees have been provided to address a possible view from these windows.
· The second concern of the appellant is regarding loss of sunlight, and should be noted that the
proposed project adheres to the building envelope and there is a lot of about 25 feet of distance
from the fence to the second floor wall as mentioned previously.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
September 27, 2005
Staff:
· Staff recommends two options for the Planning Commission: either deny and uphold the
Director of Community Development's actions or uphold the appeal and/or deny or modify the
Director's decision.
R. Siva, Kirwin Lane:
· Purchased his home about seven years ago after seriously considering factors including the
amount of sunlight the home would be exposed to and its privacy.
· The new construction being proposed by our neighbors at 7630 Kirwin Lane will affect our
day-to-day life. The extension to the first floor will completely block any light entering
through the kitchen windows and adjacent family room, which will in turn increase our
electricity and heating bills.
· Presently the home does not have any windows facing our house; however, the proposed
construction will have eight windows facing our house and will negatively impact our privacy.
Adding bushes in !Tont of our kitchen windows will block the sunlight making our kitchen and
family room even darker during the daytime. The sunlight that we currently enjoy will have to
be replaced by electricity. I request that the Planning Commission remove those two windows
to give us privacy. Until now the area that we live in has houses planned and constructed in
such a way that they still offer adequate sunlight and privacy. However, with our neighbors'
proposed construction, their second floor will block sunlight coming into our kitchen and
family room throughout the year.
· I request the Planning Commission to remove the second floor !Tom the proposed plan of7630
Kirwin Lane., and help us resolve the issue.
S. J ayasenan:
· The issues and concerns we have are the privacy loss !Tom the backyard, kitchen and family
room, and the sunlight blocked !Tom entering the kitchen and family room as shown in the
slides.
· He showed various photos of the views from the neighbor's home into his backyard which he
felt substantiated his claim of privacy invasion. He also illustrated how the sunlight into his
backyard would be blocked.
· All the houses on this street have been built more than 43 years ago. The builders have done
an excellent job in mixing the 3 bedroom and 4 bedroom houses along with excellent
positioning of the windows and walls offering good sunlight in every home. The new
construction will block sunlight !Tom entering our home and that will seriously affect our day-
to-day living. We request the Planning Commission to look into this and help resolve these
issues.
· I recommend removal of the second floor !Tom the proposed plan since it completely blocks
the sunlight and removal of the second floor !Tom the proposed plan since it completely blocks
sunlight; and removal of direct facing of the windows on the first floor since it removes
pnvacy.
· Review the picture of the proposed living room roof, make its ridgeline the same as that of the
other existing garage.
· I request permission to look into this and consider our case and resolve this issue.
R. Surpur:
· The proposed design for 7630 Kirwin Lane complies with the ordinance and no exceptions
were requested.
· One of the important things that we would like to mention is we are taking all measures and
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
September 27, 2005
steps to protect the privacy of the neighbors by following privacy protection planning, planting
plan, which has been professionally landscaped and by a licensed landscape architect. This
was approved by the city Planning Department.
· The project was approved in July and we are about to start the construction, then we got into
this appeal state, and have lost a lot of time in that effort.
· Illustrated photos of their home taken from different elevations and windows to show the
negative impact of the neighbor's new construction on their privacy.
· Presented a letter of support from Doug and Kathy Miller, who support the plan and state how
considerate we are addressing the neighbors' concerns and maintaining the standards of
backyard size through the privacy landscaping.
Mr. Surpur:
· I request the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Director of Development
Planning.
Com. Saadati:
· Said that the Surpurs were initially in favor of providing obscure glass if necessary, and asked
if they were still willing to do so?
Mrs. Surpur:
· After further study, we determined this would not be an issue for privacy concerns, and also
considering this is the only normal size window going to give us light and ventilation, we have
decided that we do not want to do that.
· We could probably go out and do more privacy protection planting.
· Discussion continued about the perceived negative impact on the Surpur's home as a result of
window placement. Landscape planting was discussed as a form of mitigation. The architect of
record also provided information on the window sill heights and placement of windows.
Raj Haddad, Haddad Design Group, architect representing the applicant:
· Requested that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director of
Community Development's decision. The delays have caused hardship to my client.
· We worked closely with staff over a long period of time to come up with the design that meets
the R I ordinance. We are working in an existiog neighborhood of smaller and larger houses
and are proposing a second floor. Weare sensitive to that and worked closely with staff to
come up with an approach that would be respectful of the environment as well as meet the
client's requirements.
· We attempted to put the mass of the new second floor addition as far back !Tom the street as
possible to avoid a monster home feel to the design. We have also tried to keep to the set
backs mandated by the requirements. We have actually handled our mass a little bit more than
the setback just so that we are sensitive to the existing houses on both sides, particularly the
one to the left.
· We developed a privacy protection plan based on the requirements. We worked with the staff
again to come up with a game plan that would respond to any potential questions !Tom the
neighbors.
Ms. Karamarshi:
· Our home is located at the back of the subject property, Neither of us have deep backyards,
only about 45 feet separating the houses, which does not allow for much space between the
two houses.
· In addition to the issues that the appellant has already discussed, including the obstruction of
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
September 27, 2005
light and the effect on the neighborhood character, our main concern is the intrusion of our
privacy. She showed photos which illustrated that the neighbor's windows looked directly
into their master bedroom, dining room, kitchen and living room windows, negatively
impacting their privacy.
· The current proposed solution is privacy protection plantings, including shrubbery and vines,
which do not mitigate the negative privacy impacts ITom the neighbor's second floor addition.
It will take about six to seven years for the plantings to reach a mature height to provide
mitigation which is unacceptable.
· Given the inadequacies of the current privacy plan, we think the possible solutions in order of
our preference would be to consider moving the second story extension further towards the
ITont of the property to give us an additional degree of privacy. The second would be to
reposition the bay window to the west of the house so that neither they can look into our
property or we can look into theirs. The third possible solution would be to change the bay
window to a high window over five feet high and also add a row of large mature trees for
pnvacy.
· Io conclusion, we would strongly urge the Planning Commission to protect our privacy. We
are willing to be appeased with repositioning the bay window to the west ofthe house or at the
very least to change the bay window to a high window over five feet high and plant a row of
large mature trees.
· We would also urge the Planning Commission to request the applicant to work with us to
ensure the planting of trees that would appeal to both of us.
Chair Wong:
· Said it was his opinion relative to the suggestion of moving the bay window to the west side,
that it would merely be passing on the perceived problem to the west side neighbor.
Mrs. Karamarshi:
· Said it would also impact the neighbor's privacy, and she was certain they wouldn't like it
either.
· Relative to landscape plantings, she said that they had not talked to the neighbors yet about
changing the trees to a larger species.
Mr. Karamarshi:
· Said they were somewhat confused with the procedure because they made no objections with
the city right after they received information, but were not informed about the options. They
were told that their house met all the applicable ordinances. They thought the approval would
go through and did not proceed with the matter further until they were informed that there
would be a hearing.
Mrs. Karamarshi:
· Said they were not told they would have to pay a fee to file an appeal, and that would have
given them certain rights in the appeal process.
· Said they were fortunate because someone else paid the fee and they were able to present their
case.
· They thanked the appellant.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· Commended the neighbors of the proposed housing project for coming forward and expressing
their concerns. She said it was daunting sometimes to go through the city process to tell the
city that the proposed project to be built next to you is objectionable in many ways,
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
September 27, 2005
· They are property owners too who are not used to having a second story there. Everybody is
going to have to live with this. May the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the
Planning Department do everything possible to remedy this situation. I understand the owner
has the right to expand their home but unfortunately when you do that, you have neighbors
around you. You have mature neighborhoods in Cupertino. This has been an issue all over the
city.
· Some cities have shade ordinances. I understand Los Gatos, this was actually visited before
my neighborhood annexed. It might be something that Cupertino wants to look at to see when
a home of this size goes in, how does the sunlight disappear for neighbors? It is a big issue to
some people. Whether you bought your home facing the northeast, south or west location. It
makes a big difference whether you suddenly lose the sunlight in the winter or the summer in
your backyard where you have your Barbeques or your children playing. I think it can affect
your property value.
· Hopefully the city will come up with a good solution to this.
· Again, I commend the neighbors, and I have empathy for the owners but everybody has to live
together.
Bumar Alasetti, Cupertino resident:
· Said that he has lived in the neighborhood about 40 years and has a bird house in his back
yard. He recalled a neighbor who built a second story about 25 years ago with a similar layout
to the current one on the corner. The neighbor planted Cypress trees in his backyard so that he
did not have to look at the birdhouse in his neighbor's yard. He said that he planted vines
which block the second floor view from his neighbors. He considered both a resolution to
something they could have perceived as a problem about their privacy.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
· It is always difficult for us when neighbors are unable to work out a solution themselves. This
appears to be one that has not come to a satisfactory conclusion.
· The RI ordinance which was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission and went into
effect in January. As a Planning Commission we spent a considerable amount of time
discussing daylight plane which is a system used by the City of Palo Alto, to specifically help
neighbors retain their sunlight. When I as a home owner remodel or go up a second story, I
have to meet certain side and rear setbacks to ensure my neighbors sunlight and privacy are
retained.
· The trees are going to be larger than the second story addition. I do think that the rear planting
landscaping plan needs to be supplemented. If the trees are a ten feet mature height species,
there probably needs to be more trees planted and taller ones to screen. Our home owners are
not going to want to have their master bedroom viewable from either neighbors as well. I
think that privacy plantings can actually retain the bay window and also provide the privacy
that both neighbors would like.
· The project meets every portion of the RI zoning that we currently have; it looks like it is a
well designed project. I am truly sorry that the neighbors have not been able to work this out
but I am opposed to the appeal and would like to see the project move forward.
Com. Saadati:
· I am also concerned about the trees. I hope that the trees will be be oflarger size than is
planted. The current RI Ordinance foresees that the trees will be effective in three years,
which is too long a period to wait. One of the options I have suggested in the past is frosted
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
September 27, 2005
windows or halffi'osted window to provide some privacy. The only other option in lieu of
some frosted glass would be larger trees, perhaps 24 inch box or 14 foot or 15 foot tall trees.
That would immediately have a better effect to provide privacy.
· I concur with staff and support denial of the appeal.
Com. Chen:
· Said she concurred with the other Planning Commissioners.
· The R 1 was put in place to protect the property rights of the home owners in Cupertino. In
this particular project, I see this project meets every requirements ofRl Ordinance. The only
concern that I do have is the back view from the bay window to the rear neighbors and I feel
the privacy planting has to be changed to a larger and faster growing plants.
· I support denial of the appeal.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Agree with other Planning Commissioners.
· I feel we can do a better job of screening the backyard, whether it is larger trees or some other
type of tree.
· There was a comment from a neighbor suggesting that there was an obstruction of light here. I
am not sure how that would be since that is a northern exposure. I think the trees fi'om a
screening standpoint would work for the backyard.
· For the neighbor to the left, it seems that most of the blockage of the sunlight is due to the
large trees there. If the neighbor was comfortable with the proposal on privacy screening,
there might be some area of compromise if the larger trees were pruned in some way to allow
more light to go through.
· In terms of the acceptability of the second story addition, he noted that the ordinance was
changed from a second story of 35% up to 45%. But this addition here is very close to the
original 35% limit, it amounts to about 37%, given the fact that it does meet the ordinance
and does not come close to maximizing everything they could,
· The R I ordinance has been reviewed and one of the things we stressed was privacy concerns
and notification; how we can streamline the process to make it more user friendly. A lot of
folks are moving into Cupertino and want to remodel their house. How can they remodel their
homes as well as retain the integrity of neighborhoods. A lot of folks want to move into a
transitional neighborhood and have more updated homes and there are some folks who like to
have the retain of the old feeling. .
· Relative to the prescriptive ordinance regarding having a second story home, it is the right of
any property owner to have a second story home; that is something we cannot consider. I
· I think Commissioner Chen as well as some other commissioners had good ideas that the best
resolution is more privacy planting. That is not the best way to do it but again all three parties
can talk to each other. There are pros and cons. If you plant more trees it will defeat the
purpose of having more sunlight, but without the trees, there is a possibility of someone seeing
into your yard and bedroom.
· I would deny the appeal also.
Chair Wong:
· I hope that after this public hearing you can have some kind of conversation and decide do you
want more privacy trees or not. At this point I am going to insist on more privacy trees. The
other thing is the taller trees, which is something you can work out with the property owner
after the public hearing.
· Said that he did not support frosted windows; the mitigation should be done with trees. If the
neighbor doesn't want the privacy trees, there is a form to complete. Again, you know by not
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
September 27, 2005
having the trees they could look into it; on the other hand your concern is regarding sunlight.
By having those privacy trees it is not going to help your sunlight, But again these ordinances
are very prescriptive.
· One of the reasons people like to move to Cupertino is our suburban integrity. They like to
live in a neighborhood that is compared to where my parents came from or where my wife is
from, they live in a big urban city in Hong Kong and one of the reasons they like living here
in Cupertino is because of a low impact and a great place to raise your family. But also we
need to expand as well too, as we have multi-generational families living here too. I wish
there was a win-win situation but it is very hard to make everyone happy. I think that one
good thing about our new Rl Ordinance is that you were notified, you did get a set of the
plans. There has to be a dialogue and after this meeting, I hope that the three parties can at
least start talking and talk about the planting.
· At this time, I do not support the appeal.
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to deny the appeal for
Application R-2001-21. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that it will be treated as a modification to the original application.
Com. Giefer:
· Questioned since they were moving to deny the appeal, could another condition be added for
the homeowners who are constructing the home, requiring them to increase the size of the rear
privacy screening trees?
Mr. Kilian:
· It can be handled two different ways. One is to approve the appeal and modify the decision; or
simply deny the appeal but don't make a decision on that, just modify the decision of the
department; that way it is a modification.
· I don't think you have to necessarily either uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. You can just
modify the decision and that would accomplish the same purpose.
· You can uphold the appeal and modify the decision. I am not sure that was your intent. You
are changing one small portion of the application; so either way, if you want to say uphold the
appeal and amend and modify the decision, modify the application. Or simply modify the
application without deciding whether to uphold or deny the appeal one way or another. It is
fine, either way.
Chair Wong:
· Noted that the Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to the City Council.
Chair Wong declared a receSS.
4.
DIR-2005-20
Horst Von Bloes
(Fry residence)
21161 Canyon Oak
Way
Appeal of a Design Review Committee's decision denying
a Director's Minor Modification to permit the construction of
a ground floor addition to exceed the allowance floor area
ratio in the Oak Valley Planned Development.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
September 27, 2005
Mr. Horst Von Bloes, representing applicant:
· Requested a continuance of the application to the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting since his client was ill.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen, to continue Application
DIR-2005-20 to the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
5.
U-2005-17
ASA-2005-12
Alice Winters
(Chuck E. Cheese's)
Yamaoka Family Trust
198095 Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Use Permit to operate a restaurant and family
entertainment center at an existing shopping
center (Portal Plaza). Architectural and
Site Approval for exterior changes at an
existing center to accommodate a
restaurant and family entertainment
center. Tentative City Council date:
October 18, 2005.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to operate a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant at an
existing shopping center, and for Architectural and Site Approval for exterior changes to said
facility, as outlined in the staff report.
· He provided a background of the business, leasing 14,650 square feet for a 300 seat restaurant,
with 50-70 games, although applicant will be providing a correction to about 90 games.
Hours of operation are 9 am-IO pm Sunday-Thursday, Friday and Saturday 9 am-Ilpm. They
are typical hours for businesses in Cupertino and does not require a late night permit for the
hours of operation.
· He discussed parking, traffic, building design/1andscaping, noise, environmental review, logo
sign and the neighborhood meetings, as outlined in the staff report.
· Weare asking for field monitoring of noise by code enforcement when the operations are in
place and a building retrofit if needed to comply with the noise ordinance.
· Another condition we are asking for is that certain parking stalls (the ones abutting the
residential property line) be signed for No Parking Between the Hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.
· Discussed the building elevation and noted the only addition were the diamond appliqués to
the façade and the parapet wall on the front and on the sides of the building itself, and some
entrance closures.
· Staff is asking as part of the design review itself, to move the logo parapet and the sign just'
slightly over so that it is centered on the elevation itself; presently it is off center; we think it
will look better centered.
· Showed the floor plan with gaming and play areas.
· The logo sign is not part of the application; it requires a separate DRC review, sign exception
because of its illumination and size; staff has some concerns about the size of it.
· Staffs recommendation - I want to make it clear and it is not clear in the resolution; that this
is not going to the City Council; the Planning Commission will be the final approving body for
this and staff is recommending that they approve the Architectural and Site Approval with the
deletion of traffic conditions No.9 and 10; and we are also recommending that the Planning
Commission approve the Use Permit per the model resolution also deleting traffic conditions
No.9 and 10.
· He answered commissioners' questions about the location of the kitchen, the game area and
exits, and access to the trash enclosure.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
September 27, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Discussed the request for sign exception for the 7 foot Chuck E. Cheese Mouse. He said he
felt it was a reasonable exception to request and hoped that the Planning Commission could
make the recommendation to the DRC if the approval could not be given tonight.
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that it must be noticed and had not been noticed as part of the application being
presented. It will go to the DRC.
Mark Hines, attorney representing applicant:
· He noted that the actual number of games is 90, not the reported 50 to 70.
Alice Winters, CEC Entertainment, Inc.
· Provided a brief background of the operation of the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.
· Referred to the resolution and discussed conditions, including the landscaping, and parking
strips and signs. As a tenant, she said they would work with the owner and meet the
conditions.
· She noted that baking the pizzas was the only cooking done in the facility.
Mr. Jung:
· In response to Com. Giefer's question about the trash enclosure, he noted that the trash
receptacle was enclosed and the requirement was that it be covered. Public Works Department
would review it as it was not covered, and make a determination.
· He discussed the exits that the employees would use to access the trash enclosure.
Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern that use of one exit would interfere with the Kid Check program used at the
restaurant to ensure safety of the children on the premises.
· Said that the Portal neighborhood wanted limited access through one of the doors for
mitigation of the noise !Tom the entertainment facility.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern about the potential noise impacts to the neighbors !Tom the use of the trash
enclosure during late evening hours.
Ms. Winters:
· Said that most of the food prep was done in the morning hours, and the trash was carried out in
bags to the trash enclosure.
Com. Chen:
· Expressed concern about the noise !Tom the facility and said the wording in the resolution
relative to noise control was lax.
· Asked if the applicant would be opposed to a noise analysis being completed at one of the
stores in the area for reference purposes, to see if the noise would impact the residential
neighbors.
Ms. Winters:
· Said they would welcome a noise analysis prior to opening, and mitigation measures would be
implemented to reduce the potential noise impacts. She noted that on the west side of the
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
September 27, 2005
property, the windows would be blacked out and a wall would be constructed in the interior.
The back wall does not have the noisy games up against it.
Chair Wong:
· Suggested that posters be mounted in the blacked out windows which faced the street, which
would also provide the opportunity for advertisement for the restaurant. Ms. Winters said she
was not sure that was possible as there would be a wall constructed up against the windows in
the interior.
Ms. Wordell:
· Suggested landscaping features such as trellises or espalier against the wall, which would not
provide advertisement, but would be an enhancement feature for the building.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Tom Huganin, La Roda Court:
· Said that the previous tenant Blockbuster had many problems with noise after hours and the
noise reverberated to the adjacent homes.
· Addressed the issue of noise impacts and suggested that a noise study be done relative to the
wall facing Portal Avenue. The applicant has stated that they will follow US Gypsum
Standards and do a noise drywall stud job which will mitigate a lot of the noise. A noise
engineer should be consulted before the plans go for approval.
· He expressed concern about emptying the trash in late evening hours.
· He said he supported the Chuck E. Cheese facility but noted the concerns about noise impacts
and the trash receptacles. He felt it would be a good neighbor.
George Monk, Price Avenue:
· Said he did not receive notice of the meeting (resides on the other side of the street).
· Said he felt the proposal was an inappropriate use of the location because of safety issues not
addressed in the applicant's or staff's discussions.
· He said that businesses that attract children should be located away ftom busy streets such as
Stevens Creek, schools, and put in places with good ingress/egress. It is a high trafficked area
populated with at least 6 restaurants with liquor licenses; it is not the appropriate location for a
high volume child-oriented restaurant. .
· Please build it elsewhere.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· Supports the application.
· Emphasized that the concerns about the noise should be discussed to ensure that it will not
impact the neighbors; if it does, it should be remedied.
Com. Giefer:
· Agreed that it be should be assured that the noise not be a nuisance to the neighbors.
· I feel that the young patrons' safety will be protected by the Chuck E. Cheese check in/check
out process for the children. Parents do need to take responsibility to make sure their children
aren't running into the adjacent streets.
· Supports the application based on the information provided,
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
September 27, 2005
Com. Chen:
· Supports the application.
· Proposed two conditions Condition 5, landscape changes, I would like to see more landscape
on the Portal side of the site to beautify the area; and Condition No. 7 for noise control, I
would like to add a noise study be done prior to the building construction to ensure that there
is a standard on paper stating that it wouldo't be a problem after the construction. With those
changes, I would like to support the changes.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Support the application.
· Welcomed the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in the neighborhood.
· I am comfortable with the amount of control that the establishment exhibits over the safety of
the children, and it is not an issue.
· The layout of the establishment with the quieter areas in the back and the sound wall on the
west side seems to be appropriate in terms of addressing the issue, and as earlier mentioned,
the only real issue is how much is going to be from people exiting and entering through the
rear to access the trash enclosure or potentially for vehicles driving up and driving out. As
long as that is done at hours that are not objectionable, it seems like it would be a reasonable
approach for what we are hoping to be a successful restaurant.
· Relative to the Chair's concern about the sign, since the building is so far back from the street
and the objective is to make the business successful, that it is reasonable to have an exception
to have the sign a little larger, so I would address that also.
Com. Chen:
· Said that she would like to see the sign toned down somewhat and comply with the sign
ordinance since it was the entrance to a residential area
Chair Wong:
· Said that most of the patrons of Chuck E. Cheese cannot read and identify readily with the 7
foot high mouse figure.
· One thing we strive for is for the businesses to be successful, and for the market they are trying
to go after, they really need the 7 foot sign.
Mr. Jung:
· As a point of reference, staff clearly sees there is a need for a sign exception if it is your
intention to have a logo that large. Current sign code regulations would permit a logo as large
as the E in Chuck E, Cheese. Under the sign code regulations, the logo would have to be that
tall, and is the reason a sign exception is needed.
Ms. Winters:
· Said that the logos ranged up to 9 feet tall, and the 7 foot figure was mid-range.
Com. Saadati:
· Said that during the DRC review, they may discuss that two 4 foot signs would be better than
the large one. A study has to be done as to what will work best fit the specific location and
presented to the DRC to evaluate.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would consider the logo issue when it was presented to the DRC.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
September 27, 2005
Chair Wong:
o Relative to Mr. Monk's remarks about the meeting notification, he clarified that the
notification is sent to residents within a radius of 500 feet.
o I can vouch for Chuck E. Cheese as patron as a young child, and currently now this
establishment is meant for young families, and one of the things I see in Cupertino is that there
are not that many places to take young children to.
o I agree that a trellis landscaping will work better on Portal A venue; I also want the applicant to
address the tinted black windows in the ftont elevation.
o I agree that there has been a lot of concern both at Marketplace and this particular shopping
center about noise. We welcome that we can go to one of your sites, but also when this
particular site opens, maybe this building may not be built the same as Kooser or Redwood
City; every building is a little different, so I hope you can work with us and accommodate if
there is a neighbor complaint that you can work with code enforcement and alleviate or
mitigate those concerns.
o Overall I am excited that Chuck E. Cheese will be in Cupertino; the shopping center will be
revitalized with the addition.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Application
U-2005-17 as amended, including deletion of traffic conditions Nos. 9 and 10;
and add to condition No.5 with emphasis on the landscaping on the west side
facing Portal; amend the Condition No.7 noise control for the requirement of
tbe noise analysis; and amend Condition No. 9 to increase the number of
games from 70 to up to 90 games.
Ms. Winters:
o Clarified that the windows on Stevens Creek Boulevard were not blackened out.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong:
o Noted that at least two commissioners Were in favor of a 7 by 7 logo sign, which has to go
through the DRC.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair MiUer, to approve Application
ASA-2005-12 including conditions stated for the Use Permit. (Vote: 5-0-0)
It was clarified that the landscaping conditions related to the west side only.
Chair Wong:
o Clarified that the decision was final unless appealed to City Council.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Request for a special meeting on the VaUco Development Agreement.
Ms. Wordell presented the staff report:
o Noted that it was a request ftom Chair Wong to ask the Planning Commission to consider the
possibility of scheduling a New Business item for a special meeting to provide some
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
September 27, 2005
background information on the Val1co Development Agreement which is being presented at
the public hearing on October II. This would provide background information, no decision
will be made as it will not be noticed as a public hearing.
· The request is to consider if you would like to hold a special meeting so that you can have
two meetings to discuss this and if so, what dates. Suggested dates are October 3 and 5.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to provide background on why the development agreement is coming to the
Planning Commission and City Council when it does not expire until August 2006.
Ms. Wordell:
· Explained that the development agreement locks in a lot of earlier entitlements for Vallco and
it was approved by the City Council in 1991 for 15 years, and expires in 2006. It is coming
back for a five year extension until 20 II to allow ample time to build out their vested element
prior to the expiration of the development agreement. It is a timing issue for them and they
are coming now so they can have early assurance that they will hopefully have extra years in
order to build out their plan.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I am uncertain why there was a rush to do this. It seems to me that one of the reasons there
was a time limit put on the development agreement is that at that point in time it might make
Sense because conditions changed, that we do a full review and also it may be appropriate to
look at the overall master plan for Vallco before proceeding with an extension of the
development agreement; and maybe it might turn out that we want a different development
agreement or none at all, based on what we decide.
· I would like to go back to when we put together our land use community design during the
General Plan hearings on Policy 2-30 for Vallco Park South. It says "Change the policy as
shown below; retain an enhanced Vallco South as a large scale commercial area that is a
regional commercial office and entertaining center." Strategy One was "Prepare a master
plan for this area to ensure continuity of mass, scale, connectivity and adequacy of
inftastructure, services including schools." This was something the Planning Commission
thought was appropriate and I thought that staff agreed with that as well. Isn't this an
appropriate time to actually do the master plan before we go into an extension of an
agreement that was put together 15 years ago.
Ms. Wordell:
· We need to be cautious about not getting into the meat of the subject, since this is just a
scheduling item.
· Weare not advertised to discuss the item this evening. It is not appropriate to discuss the
substance of the topic. We can bring up those issues at the time the development agreement is
discussed.
· She clarified that there is an application for an extension of the development agreement.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I don't see the reason for a special meeting; if they have questions and the application needs to
be extended additional meetings, we can decide that at the October meeting.
Chair Wong:
· Want to claritY - when we talked about it, staff said we only had one shot because it was
noticed toward the City Council that would be heard on the following City Council date, so
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
September 27, 2005
that is why I asked you that could we have future meetings after October II, and you said no
we cannot.
Ms. Wordell:
· That is what we are suggesting; you can take any action that you would like.
Chair Wong:
· If we can't come to a resolution on October II, we could follow up with another meeting.
Ms. Wordell:
· Or the applicant can request that you make a decision.
Com. Giefer:
· Has no objection to holding a meeting with Vallco to get a better understanding of what
entitlement they currently have and having questions that we might have answered in the study
session format.
Chair Wong:
· The only concern I have is that if the applicant forces us to make a decision that evening, and
we don't feel comfortable making a decision, that means we only have 72 hours to look at an
agreement that was a 15 year document.
Com. Giefer:
· I agree with you, that is why I am not suggesting it be a meeting, that it be a study session,
where we are not making decisions and taking action, but we are getting information and
getting questions answered in that format.
Com. Chen:
· I would like to support Vice Chair Miller's position to say that while the General Plan is still
being discussed, there is no reason to even consider the application. I don't see the need for a
special meeting just to accommodate the application schedule.
Chair Wong:
· I understand what you are trying to say is it has already been noticed and we will still hear it
on October II; my only concern is that it is a big decision for us to make when it doesn't
expire until August 2006.
Com. Saadati:
· If it doesn't expire until August 2006, we should postpone it.
Chair Wong:
· There is consensus that we are troubled why we need to hear this because that means I only get
72 hours to look at it; I am not keen on having another meeting; I would like to have another
meeting as a study session, but I am troubled by this.
Ms. Wordell:,
· I think there are some implications from the possible passing of the ballot measures and their
effect on some of the Vallco development, so the timing would be an issue,
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
September 27, 2005
· Relative to the pros and cons regarding the November election; the ballot measures have to do
with height, density and setbacks, and I believe there are some density issues and height
issues.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Tom Huganin:
· The Valleo development agreement is a huge document, and my problem with it is, this type
of meeting, it is okay to meet with them, but it should be noticed at least on the website or
notices sent out to residents; in the Courier to let the citizens know it is going to happen.
· If you are not going to televise it, that will be a problem.
· I heard you say that you needed to get together a master plan for the Valleo area and it was a
reasonable thing to do; there are many things they want to do that will impact the community.
You need to do some planning on it.
· Please let the citizens know what you are going to do and discuss it thoroughly.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· We did not receive any mailings in the last three weeks although there was noticing for this
meeting.
· There are a variety of things for Valleo planned; what is the rush to have this done by next
Monday. The whole city needs to be notified about the Valleo development agreement; I
wasn't aware it expired until recently.
· To not have it televised is sitting on a powder keg. We all know that the Hewlett Packard Toll
Brothers property is going to be a powder keg once we get into that development and Valleo
has the potential to explode.
· I am worried about changes to the General Plan for additional housing units there; we have
people trying to close a public road on Valleo Parkway with two lane closures. I don't know if
those lanes are given to the developer or the city retains the rights; we have a lot going on at
Valleo and I don't think it is a good idea to have any decisions made on this without noticing
the city and making sure everybody gets the notices.
· There was nothing on the city website today about the current proposals for the hotel or the
new condominium complex on the city construction website.
· If you are going to do this, notice the entire city, have it televised and let's not have it next
week.
Chair Wong:
· Clarified that the October II th meeting had a citywide notification that already went out. He
said he requested a special meeting, but was hesitant to have it without being televised; and he
did not feel comfortable moving forward. Asked for comment from his colleagues.
Vice Chair Miller:
· (To staft) When the issue of the Toll Brothers development agreement came up, it was an issue
at the Council level and the issue of the Valleo development agreement is at the Planning
Commission level. Can you explain why the different levels.
· Said that Vallco has the right to make an application and ask to be heard. I think we should
hear it, and if we cannot come to a resolution and they want a decision, I think it properly goes
to the City Council.
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
September 27, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Any development agreement amendment according to the ordinance has to go to the Planning
Commission and then the City Council.
· Not certain about reference to Toll Brothers.
Com. Chen:
· We need to have the rights to submit an application; we do have the obligation to listen to it
and discuss it at the time we see the application.
Chair Wong:
· Asked if they could get the staff report more than 72 hours prior because I feel that if they
want a decision that evening, I believe that we should get the staff earlier,
Com. Giefer:
· I would like to get at a master plan for the whole area and use the Valleo development
agreement that is currently in place as a way for us to figure out what has worked over the past
fifteen years and what we would have done differently.
· I don't care if we meet with Valleo before they come to us with an application, but I do think it
is important for us to start moving forward on a master plan for the area; otherwise we are
letting developers plan our city, and we have heard time and again that is not what people
want. I would like for us to try to move forward on that and if meeting with Valleo and
understanding what has worked and what hasn't worked, and where we want to move forward,
I am fine with that. But if we don't meet with them, I am also fine with that.
Chair Wong:
· On that particular evening, did you want to give feedback to the public on what kind of master
plan we want to see since we only have the one chance.
Com. Giefer:
· We need to go to a higher level of what our expectations are for the entire area, not just Vallco
Shopping Mall, entertainment, residential complex. It is what do we want that entire area to
look like, and I think we need to drive that process. We want to work with them and make
sure it is profitable for them and their development, but we need to make them aware of what
our needs area as a city.
· I feel like we are rushing to get a master plan on the fly because we don't have a well thought
out process up to this point, except that we all know we want one. I think perhaps we can use
this as a way for us to define our objectives and see if they are measuring up to what our
objectives are.
Com. Saadati:
· They have a right to apply for an application; when the application comes before us, based on
the merits of it, provide comments. As Com. Giefer said, it is the best thing to have a master
plan.
Chair Wong:
· I think we have enough feedback from the Planning Commission and I think that the goal;
what the Planning Commission said that we support Valleo Fashion Park, we want them to
revitalize; the concern is that we don't have enough information, and we feel that by having it
in one meeting, would not do justice to it. This is an area we prize on, an area that could be
our downtown; an area that we can gather people. We are on the road of adding sales tax
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
September 27. 2005
dollars top our redevelopment agency fund, but there are some unclear questions. We have a
strong concern; we would like to send a positive message to City Council; and a strong voice
for our business owners.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We all want Vallco to be successful, and when they first came to us we moved quickly to help
them do that, but at this point it really is appropriate that given all that they have yet to develop
that they have approved, it is appropriate that we take the time to take a look at the overall plan
as all have said, and not continue to give individual approvals to separate pieces, but rather
come ¡¡-om a top down standpoint and look at the overall plan and then see what makes sense
and move forward.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· Vice Chair Miller reported that the Chuck E. Cheese application was discussed but no vote
was taken.
· There was an application to do a three lot subdivision on Lindy Lane which received
environmental review approval.
Housinl! Commission:
· Com. Saadati reported that discussion included the Aviare condominium conversion; Vallco
residential review and their main concern was BMR units.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
· Com. Chen reported that the next meeting was scheduled for October 12th.
Economic DeveloDment Committee Meetinl!:
· Quarterly meeting - no meeting held.
Director of Communitv DeveloDment:
· No additional report.
· Ms. Wordell reported that the General Plan was nearing the end. It is possible that it will go to
October 18th and come back to the Planning Commission for a final decision on November
l5'h.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m. on October 11,2005.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary