Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for 05/12/2026. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Clerk, may we please have the roll

call? Commissioner Fang? Present. Commissioner Linskog? Present. Commissioner Rao? Vice Chair Sharf?

Present.

Chair Kasolshran? Present. For the record, Commissioner Rao is absent.

Then we will thank you very much. We will move to the approval of minutes. Agenda item one, approval of the April 28 Planning Commission. Minutes. Do we have a motion?

Sure. I'll move that we adopt the the minutes as submitted. Second.

Thank you. City clerk, may we please have a vote? Commissioner Feng?

Aye.

Commissioner Linskog?

Aye. Abstain.

Commissioner Rao is absent. Vice Chair Scharf? Aye. Chair Kasolshan? Aye. The motion carries with Commissioner Linskog abstaining and Commissioner Rao absent. Can

I ask we can vote with our lights, right? Because Commissioner Rao is not participating remotely. He's absent.

Yeah, think that's correct. Until he joins, you can vote with your lights. Okay.

Okay. So we have no postponements, so we'll move to oral communications. City Clerk, do we have any oral communications?

We have one speaker in person, Kathy Helgerson. Welcome, Kathy.

Hi. I've never been to one of your meetings. Anyways, my name is Kathy Helgerson. I live at 200697 Dunbar Drive, and I have been a citizen of the city for probably about forty seven years, and counting. The reason I'm here is and that no one else is here, I'm here. Okay. Unfortunately, I live on 20697 Dunbar Drive, which is on the other side of the wall of Banley Drive. And once they start building these houses This on Banley Drive

is oral communication?

Oh, yeah. What I wanted to tell you where I live. I want to know where I

live.

This item is going to

be on Oh, on the next

one. Okay.

Then I'm going to go down to the major residential project list, which you're all familiar with, right? Anyhoo, that list needs to be updated. It's not accurate. And it goes to the state senator, District 13, Josh Becker's office. And I am in contact with him, and I will be conducting some more talks with him regarding this listing. This listing is not updated. It doesn't have enough information. We don't know what the totals are. The units are not listed, and we need to put it on there. Okay?

It's very important that it's complete when it goes over to the state senator's office. That's That's really important. And so, I've been doing a lot of research on this and how it should be handled. It's not a public document. Unfortunately, it should be. And I think the city of Cupertino, we don't want to get into any violations about not supplying the public with documentation that they need, and it should be accurate and up to date, okay? So, that's very important. I also went to a meeting, and the meeting was with the Economic Development Committee. It was a great meeting. I just wanted to let you know.

I was the only one there, and a friend of mine, were the only ones there. And that's our first meeting, and I'm going to be going to their next one in July, And maybe you guys might want to go to it. It's very interesting. Anyways, I found it very informative, and I will be going to that meeting again and working with those people to see what they can do as far as that goes with the major projects here in our community, and encouraging other businesses to come here and open up their businesses in our community, because we do need more businesses. And there's a lot of things a lot of businesses have left Cupertino, and I'm very upset about that.

And that's just another topic that I will want to bring before your committee, because we have to encourage them to stay here, okay? Even though they have to be moved to another location, they should be able to stay in our community and encourage them. And Staples was one of those places. I couldn't even buy my printer ribbons anymore if you want the truth. That's pretty bad, you know, when you can't buy your printer ribbon. So anyways, that was a great store. And the people that worked there were very friendly and nice, and they lost their jobs. Now, a lot of these places, they're losing their jobs.

Thank you, Kathy.

That is So, your please try to do something about that. Thank you.

Thank you, Kathy. Our next speaker is Jennifer Griffin. Welcome, Jennifer.

I believe Commissioner Rao has joined the meeting at 06:47 or forty eight PM, and I believe that's all I wanted to report.

Thank you, commissioner Ghosh. I had my hand up for a while but was not recognized, but thank you for

Before we proceed, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners and members of the public, Commissioner Rao is participating remotely this evening. We have not heard from any members of the public that they plan to participate in tonight's meeting from Commissioner Rao's remote location. Commissioner Rao, are you in the hotel lobby of the Woodlands Resort in the Woodlands, Texas?

Yes.

Can you confirm that you posted the agenda at your location?

Yes.

Are there any individuals over the age of 18 with you, and has anyone indicated to you that they intend to make public comment or address the commission? No. I'll rely on you to notify me if any member of the public wishes to speak from your location.

Sounds good. Thank you.

Okay. Our next speaker is Jennifer Griffin. Welcome, Jennifer.

Yes, thank you. This is Jennifer. I'm just gonna throw in there that I was confused about two minutes ago because I was I'm not saying blaming anyone, but I was I thought I was supposed to go and there was no mute or unmute that came up. So I understand now. So that's fine.

Okay. I will just say that can I mention a housing bill that pertains to townhouse complexes that is proposed for next year? It's AB seventeen fifty one by Sharon Quirksilva and Buffy Wicks. If I I intend to speak on the next item, but this item is housing bill that hasn't even been made legal yet, but I I was so insulted when I read this the text for this bill last night that this morning I contacted mister Becker's office, my assembly member Patrick Aaron's, and I called Mrs. Quirk Silva's office in Southern California.

I have never been so insulted in my life. This bill is attempting to have townhouse, any townhouse project be ok'd ministerially. They actually said in the text of the bill that the public would not have any way of putting, giving input on the project. I I have never been it it was like it treated the public like they were stupid, and I really think it is important. I I just wrote a letter to the city council.

I forwarded it to the planning commission. I have no problem with projects of any kind going through their due diligence going through the planning commission, the city council, etcetera, but I cannot condone this bill with its insulting text, and to me, it was a complete giveaway, and they didn't expect the public to read it. Well, I can tell you that I I forward this to our neighborhood voices because we we just cannot have things like this happen anymore. I really feel upset and I feel like Buffy Wicks and missus Quirk Silva have taken advantage of the public and are ignoring them. I mean, believe me, I I spend a lot of time at the city council meetings when I have other I have family members that are elderly that we try to take care of, etcetera etcetera.

Other people do too. But I do not want to have someone else's assembly members telling me what I am allowed and not allowed to do. Believe me, I've already voted for governor, and and this is and and I I took into account what I know about some of the politics of the candidates. But but this bill is going to stop now. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Our next speaker is Esteban Lopez. Welcome, Esteban.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Esteban Lopez. I'm a research analyst with the Bay Area Council. We represent more than three seventy of the Bay Area's largest employers whose members employ over 4,500,000 workers across the region. I am here in strong support of the Summerhill Homes proposed 27

Pardon me. Sorry. If you are speaking about the Summerhill development, is for agenda item number two, and you can speak during the oral communications portion of that. I am

so sorry. Sounds good. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no speakers in person and no hands raised on Zoom, chair.

Thank you very much, City Clerk. So then we will move to the public hearings portion of this meeting. Agenda item two is to consider a residential project on 10002 And 68 Bandley Drive with twenty seven three story townhomes, including five affordable units. And so I will now open the public hearing before we move to the staff presentation. May we please have ex parte disclosures? I will start, with commissioner Rao since he is remote.

Yes. I met with the applicant, and I reached out to the Garden Gate homeowners but heard back from nobody.

Thank you. We'll move to I guess going left to right, Commissioner Landskog.

I met with Summerhill applicants and exchanged a few emails for clarification questions, and that's it.

Okay. I spoke with the owner of the building immediately behind this project, and I also spoke with the with Apple's legislative person, Rod Deardon Junior, regarding Apple's concerns about the project. Thank you.

I have spoken with the developer. I have spoken with one of the landowners on the adjacent property as well as one of the tenants of the adjacent property and I have visited the site.

I I met with the applicants as well. Uh-huh. And I used to work in the building next door.

Thank

you very much. So then we will move to the staff presentation from our senior planner, John Martier.

Good evening commission, thank you so much. Pugh Gosch planning manager and with me I have John Martier who will be making the presentation tonight as the project manager for the project and we're here to answer any questions that the commission may have. And I understand that the applicant has a presentation after.

All right. Thank you, Pew, and thank you, Chair, for the introduction. Yes, I'm John Martier, senior planner in the city's community development department. And I've been the project manager of 10268 Bailey Drive, also known as Summerhill Homes three, since its preliminary review days. So as the agenda item was read, again, it's really just to consider residential project with twenty seven three story townhomes, which will include five affordable units on an existing commercial office building on a 1.55 acre site.

The applicant is Summerhill Homes. A little bit of background. This is an exhibit that's taken from the staff report directly. As you can see that the 1.5 acre site on Banley Drive is highlighted in a red dotted square right there, just in between Mariani and Las Nayou on the side of Bentley. It's zoned PCGML res, which means that uses that are general commercial, light industrial and residential are allowed uses in this area.

And it is a mix of uses, although most of the of the properties surrounding the site are of commercial office. You do have a church that's a kiddie corner across the street as well as a single family home development within the mixed zoning district. Rone uses are within four four hundred feet of the site just on the other side of those commercial office developments across the street, as well as median density housing, duplexes and triplexes. I believe also four plexes within the R3 zone just southwest of the site. It falls within North De Anza special area of the general plan as well as the North De Anza conceptual plan, which is a planning document approved by a city council in the mid 1970s that primarily focused on off-site street design for landscaping and sidewalk design as well as interconnectivity between the parcels within this area.

The applicant has submitted an SB330 application in July 2025 and submitted the formal application November 2025 well within the one hundred

and eighty

days as required by law to divest the project under SP three thirty. The site does, as mentioned prior, within a planned development zoning district, which means that any residential development would default to the R3 zoning regulations as this one is. So the application request is the 27 townhome project. These are townhome condominiums split between four separate buildings. Three are of six units with the one to the furthest east being nine.

Three of the five BMR units are going to be median income. Two will be deeded to moderate income. And because the 20% calculation came up to 5.4, our BMR manual does allow that 0.4 units to be paid in lieu. So the resulting density of the site is 17.41 dwellings an acre, well within the 25 dwelling units an acre, excuse me, allowed within the city's general plan. Again, the four three storey the storey buildings range from 2,120 to 2,822 square feet.

And this project qualifies for density bonus. So the applicant is asking for four waivers and one concession. The first waiver is a front setback. The r three ordinance requires a 20 foot setback from the property line. They're proposing eight foot setback from the property line.

Rear setback is required to be 34 feet based upon the standards of the R3 zone. And they're proposing 12.5 feet instead from the property line. A very minor waiver, nonetheless an objective standard, is that within the outdoor parking areas or parking lots, you are required to have a two foot planning strip at the ends of each parking aisle. They are foregoing that standard and really proposing around the five outdoor guest parking spaces, just a pathway for motorists who park their car and easy access in and out. And further, consistent with the North De Anza conceptual plan area, on auxiliary streets like Bandley Drive, the a developer will be required to have a 25 foot setback from the property line that's landscaped, as well as the landscape area to be 25 times the width I think I'm right on that one, Pete 25 times the width of the parcel.

And so it's as similar to the first waiver, instead of being a 25 foot average, they're proposing just eight foot as closest point to the property line. The one concession is for the development of 100% residential development, where within the North De Anza special area, the general plan requires primary uses to be office R and D with limited commercial and residential uses. Here is the design of the building. Here's a rendering of it. I will let the applicant talk more about their design, which includes landscaping and whatever else, to the Planning Commission during their presentation.

Do note that part of the desk item was a correction to the design that was made as part of the public packet with a prior rendering was added not this one which is the most current but the plan set that the planning commission got directly does include all the correct sheets including this rendering right here. Environmental review. This application qualifies for Assembly Bill 130. We had our secret consultant review this project as well as peer reviewing the traffic analysis as well as the any soil sampling of the Phase 1s and Phase 2s. This project does qualify for AB 130, so it would be statutorily exempt.

We do have our consultant online right now if you have any questions as it relates to CEQUA. The recommended action is that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed draft resolutions to recommend the City Council to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the following permits: the architectural site approval, tentative final map, and tree removal permit. And the next step would be the Commission's recommendation would be forward to Council on June 2, first decision on the project. And any member of the public could reconsider the project within ten days of of the decision being made. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much. And I'll bring it back to the commission. Do we have any clarifying questions?

What was this building used for in the past? Was there ever any manufacturing done there?

I don't recall. I know in the recent past, it's been primarily commercial office.

Okay. Thank you.

I had probably a simple one. We had the benefit the commission had the benefit of receiving the plan set. So we actually could get more information. Can you summarize for the people, you know, for the people who are getting this online? Can you summarize the difference in the rendering?

Sure. The the rendering that was as part of the agenda packet that the public was shown was mostly had more of a almost like a mission style or Spanish style look to it where this is more clean, more grays, rectilinear and more of a modern look.

Thank you. Commissioner Owens Cog.

Can you give us information on who is occupying the existing structure and if any businesses are being displaced?

Sure. I know one I think the owner actually is one of the units, he's an architect. And I believe there's a studio not a fitness studio, but almost like a special education studio. I'll ask the applicant. Do you are you guys aware of who the current tenants are, Steve? That's right. And and what? HR. HR blocks in there. Okay. Yes. And assuming that they would assuming they would need to move once development started.

Thank you. Commissioner Rao.

Yes. Can staff clarify what is the status of or can staff clarify what plans are we supposed to be looking at to review this project? I understand the general plan, but there are also certain conceptual plans that may apply. So can you

the

David

Kramer then Sachs. Comes Kramer from

Okay. And the North De Ansel conceptual plan is a fairly old document probably from the seventies or eighties, but it is a it is an adopted plan and therefore is still something that commissioners should consider?

That's correct.

Okay. And then the findings in the resolutions and or the applicant's waiver requests would counter any requirements from the conceptual plan. Is that the understanding?

They have one waiver from the conceptual plan standards, which is the landscape setback along the front.

Okay. So are we then saying that the project is compliant with the conceptual plan with the exception of that waiver? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Rao, are your questions answered? Your hand is still raised.

I will yield for now, and I will come back with more questions.

I'm sorry. Go on. Go on, Vice Chair.

Sorry, but I hate to nitpick, but in the third slide, they spelled Bandley wrong twice. So maybe you can fix that in the if you update this presentation.

Thank you.

Yeah, had one clarifying question on the one of the draft resolutions for investing tentative map item G. It reads that no easement or right of way exists currently that would be impeded or in conflict with the proposed subdivision. Know, new public access easements will be required to address the policies. So my understanding is that there is an existing easement. So I'm just wondering if this is the correct language to be using to say that none exists currently. And then second question would be, if we are creating new easements, are there agreements to those? And what is that?

Great question, Chair. There are current easements on-site. The language of that would mean that the easements aren't being modified at all and the development is around those easements. So those easements will remain as currently designed. There's no intention to to create new new easements on the site. Just respect the the current ones and to facilitate any cross parcel access.

Okay. So, we are not creating new ones but it says new public access easements will be required.

Can you remind can you remind me where you're seeing that?

It's the letter g on page, I think, four of the

Is that for what?

Vesting tentative map approval.

The general plan requires easements to cross streets.

You answer. I can't. I don't know. I know.

So land use element of the general plan requires public access easements across streets that are proposed in the development. So if these are streets, then they would require public access easements, and that's what this is addressing to be compliant with the general plan.

Okay. So it's referring to just all of the new streets that are being created? Correct. Okay. Understood. Thank you very much. Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Rao.

Yes. So I am looking at the CEQA document, and it appears that we are looking to exempt CEQA, but yet there's a CEQA memorandum included. How should we treat that CEQA memorandum?

So the notice of exemption or the exemption memorandum essentially justifies the use of the statutory exemption of AB 130. So it's it's basically, this memorandum is a checklist, and you go through the table, and you look at it like a checklist, and then you go through and say, well, here's a standard that any development that wants to utilize this statutory exemption has to meet. And so as you go through that table, it demonstrates that the scope of the project, the project site more importantly, because of where it's located an example, it's surrounded by urban uses. It's under 20 acres, I believe. It's on a, what do you call, cortege list site.

So this qualifies statutorily for this exemption.

So part of the table is also the FEMA designation. The project cannot be within a special flood hazard area. Is that

right? Correct. Okay.

Has that condition been met?

All the conditions that would qualify this first for the own. Able to

a

Any relation to Easter States Drive? I don't believe so.

Okay. The table shows a FEMA report that is actually linking to Easter States Drive. The FEMA report or FEMA, I guess it's called the FEMA flood insurance rate map lookup is not a Bagley Drive, it's an Easterseeds, right? So how should we treat that?

Chair, if you could point to which page of the exemption document you're talking about, we can certainly take

a Page 14. Page 14 and Page 12. The page 12 is the FEMA clarification. It's the first row in the table.

So my understanding is that it's a live link and right now the system is unavailable. So when I click on it, it says system unavailable. So I'm not able to confirm the link on Okay. Page 14. UNIDENTIFIED

Yes. I looked at that previously and it is Easter

It might be a live map. And so it might be just be zooming to a different part of the city, but it appears to be a live map.

No. The address is actually embedded in the link. You can read it there. It's 165 Easter States Drive, Cupertino. You can read the address right there in the link.

Sorry. I I can't confirm. The system is unavailable right now. My apologies.

Sorry. If you look at page 14 footnote 12, the link is right there, and it states Easter Seas Drive. So I'm confused. Why is staff looking up Easter Seas Drive for this project?

I believe Commissioner Rao is just referring to the URL. Includes a different address. While

while staff is looking, if Alexis or Rachel, who are part of the PlaceWorks team can can look at this link, it's it's note 12 on page 14.

Yes. And I do have we have screenshots of all of our sources, and I can confirm that we did map the correct address on Bandley, and it it is in the five hundred year flood zone, not the one hundred year. So it does qualify for the exemption criterion, and we can update that note certainly prior to the next hearing.

Okay. So Placeworks acknowledges that the written evidence does not include evidence that the address of the project is actually compliant with the FEMA checklist item. Is that right?

Well, the information in the table is correct. We can update we can correct the URLs provided in the footnote.

Okay. But does the document need to include written evidence that the address of the project meets the requirement in the table.

That is what this that is what the table describes, in the right hand column, and so that information is correct. We just need to update the footnote.

Okay. I'm going to let this go for now, but I think the written evidence needs to include that before it goes to the council. We need to probably include that in the condition of approval that this is updated.

Can certainly update But report before it gets to the documentation in on Page 12 indicates FEMA's FEMA's flood flood insurance rate map designates the project site as Zone X. And that I believe our consultants are confirming is accurate.

Yes. It needs to include evidence and I would recommend that we not use live links for exactly the reason we just saw. It doesn't guarantee that the link is accessible during the hearing, so we should include a screenshot or a downloaded proof that the project site is actually compliant.

Okay, thank you. Vice Chair?

Yeah, thank you Commissioner Rao. I think, I mean the issue here is probably they took a document for East Estates and did some kind of search and replace without actually looking at all the things in the document, which is really not acceptable. I mean, to have a completely different address in the link is just, it's sloppy. Thank you.

Commissioner Rao?

Yes. I have more questions. So I'm looking at the written evidence, and we require that we notify the tribes within fourteen days of the application being deemed complete. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Question for staff. Okay. Yes. But it appears that we did not meet that window because the notification went out after sixteen days. Why was that?

Where are seeing that?

The project was deemed complete on November 3. The notification letters went out on November 13 on November 19. So we missed the deadline. What does that mean?

I don't believe we missed the deadline.

Okay. I'm confused. So is there a fourteen day requirement?

I'll I'll defer to PlaceWorks to to clarify that point.

It is a fourteen day requirement however, state statute stipulates, how, days are counted for different purposes and I'm off the top of my head I'm not sure if it's every calendar day or if it has to do with business days so I'm looking into that right now because different methodologies sometimes result in different ways of counting the days.

Okay. And where is it documented as to what methodology was used?

That's what I'm looking into right

now. Okay. Another question for staff. Where is the written evidence of what was the date when we found the application to be deemed complete because a number of these deadlines run off of that date. And where in the evidence packet is the written evidence that what was the date that the application was deemed complete.

Staff is looking that up right now, sorry for you.

We deem the application to be January I believe for purposes of AB130, a complete application to commence notification of tribes is when they submit the SB3 once they submit the application, the formal application, if they had submitted an SB three thirty application prior.

So we notified the tribes on November 19, but you're saying the application was not deemed complete at that time?

So deemed complete for purposes of CEQA documentation is different from deemed complete for purposes of Permit Streamlining Act.

Okay. So which one should we talk about when we talk about tribal notifications?

The

CEQA. And in the statute itself, it also kind of ties it back to the date of the application for projects that have submitted for SB three thirty pre applications. So it's a little bit complicated in terms of the timeline. However, the city has not missed a deadline. And November 19 is the date that the tribal notifications were sent out.

Okay. So the SEQ deemed complete was November 3, correct? Correct. Okay. So I don't understand how we have not missed the deadline. The deadline's fourteen days. We did miss the deadline and we were at sixteen days. I will let that be. I will go on to the next question. Are these tribal outreach required to document any outcome from the tribal outreach?

Yes, we did have some tribes reach back out to us just to acknowledge receipt of the communication. But none requested any type of consultation formally.

And for the tribes that we reach out, do we need an explicit confirmation that they have no issues or they give approval?

A no response would mean that they'd forego their consultation.

Okay. So no response means they expired their deadline to respond. Correct. Okay. Because I didn't see any response documented for the Indian Kenyan consultation. Is that just it would be good to just document that no response was received. I will withhold further questions and yield my time.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions from the commission?

Commissioner Linzkog. Yeah. Just to go back to my earlier question, have we had any conversations with the small businesses that are being displaced in terms of helping them find replacement locations within the city?

Sure. Our economic development manager, I know, has been on-site a number of times to to to talk with the current businesses and offer his support for relocation.

So can I suggest that in the future, we include this information in the staff report? Sure. So we don't have to ask. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions from the Commission Vice Chair?

No. So going back to what Commissioner Rao raised, what are the repercussions for us missing that fourteen day window? Because it seems like he's correct. I went and looked at the requirement in state law. It's not like fourteen business days, it's fourteen calendar days. And it looks like we clearly missed it by two days. Is there anything we have to do to rectify this?

Well, we're still looking to see. We don't believe we missed the deadlines, we believe we're we firmly believe we're in compliance with AB 130.

Okay. So, it's not, you're saying it's not fourteen days then?

I believe it is fourteen days. I'm just trying to find the reference back from the fourteen days. I'm I'm just, we're trying to confirm that.

Okay.

Commissioner Rao?

Maybe question for either staff or I don't know who maybe place for the staff or at NIPU. If the deadline was missed, what does it mean?

Again, we don't believe we've missed any deadlines. But in terms of, hypothetically, if we had missed a deadline, we still have had the tribal notification. There are actually requirements in the state law for standard conditions of approval that would apply to the project. From a tribal consultation perspective, those conditions would be automatically included in the resolutions and the requirements.

Okay. So if we missed the fourteen day tribal notification window, does it mean that we still have to view this project under AB130? Or is it exempt from AB130?

Again, we don't believe we've missed any deadlines, but we'll look into that.

That is not the question to staff. The question is what is the implication of missing the window? Does it mean the project is exempt from maybe one thirty?

That would probably be a legal question that we'll have to look into.

So Commissioner, typically when this is a deadline, then you look to the party who has been standing to challenge that action. And that party would be the tribes and they're no longer here, just hypothetically. But at this point, the belief, the understanding is that the deadlines we comply with and there's no entity to challenge this secret document.

Okay. I will just remind staff that the determination of whether the deadline was missed will be left to commissioners, but I hear and acknowledge what Acnebu said.

Well, can I just clarify? So let's assume if a deadline was missed for this one particular sub item within the AB130, would that invalidate the entire AB130 application? How does that work? Would they just assuming it wasn't validated, would they just redo the entire AB130 application with all the deadlines met? And then I assume the results would be similar. What exactly are we looking at?

That would we'd have to look into the legal implications of that. We have not evaluated that prospect. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Rao?

Do I have my hand raised? You do. I'm going to lower my hand. Okay.

Okay. Do we have any further clarifying questions from the commission? Okay. Then we will move on to the applicant presentation.

Evening, Planning Commissioners. My name is Jared Brotman, Director of Development with Summerhill Homes. I'm joined tonight by Steve Bull, VP of Development for the project Kevin Ibrahimi, Senior Vice President of Development and members of our design team. We'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our project to you tonight. For those of you not familiar with Summerhill, we're a local residential builder based in San Ramon.

Since 1976, we've built over 7,000 homes across the Bay Area. We truly pride ourselves on the quality of our homes and the communities that we build. We're really excited to bring another thoughtfully designed community to the North Deans area, which will bring new homes within walking distance of the commercial centers along Stevens Creek, including Target and Whole Foods. The project will also be within walking distance of Cupertino's Memorial Park, Gardinggate Elementary, Collins Elementary, and Lawson Middle School. Before I discuss the project further, I'd like to take a moment to thank staff for their assistance and professionalism throughout the process.

In particular, John Martier for always being on top of it and being able to address questions in a timely manner. We'd also like to thank Luke Connolly in planning, Jennifer Chew in public works, as well as Matthew McKenna and Caleb Flanagan in Santa Clara County Fire. Next slide, please. We're proposing to develop 27 townhome style condominiums. The project consists of three and four bedroom units for growing families, which range in size from 1,500 to 2,300 square feet, each of which will have a two car garage.

All of the homes will be made for sale with the majority of them being market rate. However, five of them will be designated as below market rate and sold through the city's affordable housing program. Next slide, please. We work closely with city staff to develop a project that complies with Cupertino's development standards. In addition, we conducted outreach to the neighboring property owners and tenants to minimize both construction related disruptions and long Additionally, we are in receipt of an e mail request yesterday from one of our neighboring property owners.

The request includes a list of eight items to be considered for our project. The items were reasonable and manageable and will be incorporated into the plans and associated project documents. To address the last item on the list, we have included a seven foot tall acoustic fence in accordance with the city's fencing ordinance. Throughout the Bay Area, Summerhill has a strong track record of transforming underutilized commercial properties into successful residential communities. These projects often serve as catalysts for thoughtful evolution of transitional areas between residential and commercial uses.

And although this site was not designated as a priority site in the housing element, staff has confirmed that these units to be built can be counted towards the city's RINA numbers. Next slide, please. We hosted a neighborhood meeting in April 2025, submitted our SB330 preliminary application in July 2025, and made our formal submittal to the city in November 2025, including a request for AB130 CEQA exemption. After the project was deemed complete in January 26, we worked closely with staff and the fire department through several rounds of detailed review of the plans and technical reports. Can we go to the next slide, please?

The architectural design adopts a contemporary style that fits well with the surrounding neighborhood. Simple shapes, like flattened hip roofs, add visual interest while keeping an overall balanced look. A mix of materials, including stucco, siding and metal details, creates a variety and a polished appearance. Subtle changes in the building form and detailing help reduce the building's perceived massing to one that is appropriate for a residential community in an urban setting. And to maintain the walkability of the area, homes facing Bentley will have doors facing the street with the garages hidden behind Additionally, the homes have been oriented so that the main windows for the bedrooms and living rooms face towards Banley or back towards North De Anza to minimize the privacy impact of the neighboring uses.

Next slide, please. In addition to complying with the state energy code and the city's REACH code, the project will be all electric, and all homes will be equipped with solar panels. The community will include drought tolerant landscaping, water conserving irrigation systems, and low impact design for the treatment of storm water runoff. Also, every garage will be EV ready for a level two EV charger. Next slide, please.

The project will provide several important community benefits. First, it will provide 27 new homes, giving first time homebuyers and families the opportunity to purchase a home in Cupertino. Second, we're proposing to designate five of the homes as below market rate to median and moderate income households. And finally, the project will contribute approximately $1,300,000 in park dollars 2 and 85,000 in school fees and a surplus of $18,000 annually to the city's general fund from estimated property tax, sales tax and parcel transfer taxes as confirmed by the city's third party consultant. We will also be making a contribution to the city's public art program.

Next slide, please. Thank you again for your consideration of our project, and we respectfully request recommendation this evening.

Thank you very much. So we will bring this back to the commission. Do we have any clarifying questions for the applicant? I'll have one. I'll go first. So you mentioned, seven foot tall acoustic fence, I did see that in the, plans as well. Yet in the staff report, it mentions an eight foot tall sound wall sound barrier. So what is actually going to be the final wall or fence?

So the plan spec a a seven foot fence, and it's considered an acoustic barrier based on the density and the way that the boards are lined up.

Okay. Then I suppose this might be a staff question then because the staff report says eight feet on the fence.

For the conditional approval or in staff report?

In the conditions of approval, yes.

Well, there's enough flexibility in there that we can use any type of sound mitigation measure compared to what's there currently, which is, I believe, a seven foot wooden fence.

Okay. And do you feel that the fence is sufficient? And I did go to the site and listen to this. I don't know if it's HVAC or generator noise. Do you feel that a wooden fence is sufficient in mitigating that noise or would something stronger or thicker be more appropriate?

Yeah, we have used that type of fencing and we do feel it's appropriate.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Winscott?

Yeah, I just want to clarify. So it's not just a simple wooden fence?

That's correct. It's rated per our acoustical consultants design.

Question?

Can you put the slide back up with the what the neighbors requested for the You said you

They didn't have a

slide for that.

Oh, didn't have a slide for that.

Yeah, there was an email.

Okay, I saw the email. Thank you. So how do we incorporate that into our motion then to require all the items that were in that email that the applicant is agreeing to?

So we do have a CCNR condition in the ASA that well, one thing is that it's there's incorporated in the CCNOs will be a notification of neighboring uses. They each when they when a new homeowner comes in inside their, I guess, CCR packet, that they would acknowledge that there'll be existing uses that are nonresidential and whatnot. I don't know if you can feel free to jump in, but you would I mean, the Planning Commission could be more specific within that condition if there's certain things that you

want So to there were a few things that that email brought up. One thing was the easement, the cross easement, which is a civil document that kind of is between the two parties. It allows going over that property line. And so any park, it doesn't necessarily address parking. It does address parking in one portion, but that doesn't pertain to it as it stands today. So if the property owner could put a private signs to ensure that towing would be allowed on that site. So that's not pertaining to this project. That's something that they would do on their own side. There's no change to the easement documents. Like we said, that's a document that the two parties have entered into.

The other thing that they agreed to was the acoustical wall, which was which already the applicant is agreeing to do, and there's already a condition of approval in the resolutions. And finally, with respect to the ongoing easement, no changes are being proposed to that easement. So, is no need to have any amendments. And we already have a conditional approval that addresses easements that kind of run with the property. So, those were all kind of incorporated into the draft resolutions that have been presented, just not in the form that was in the email, but they're all addressed.

Okay. And it shows the existing uses, but the homeowners need to be notified of the possible uses that that land is zoned for.

And the condition is broad in the sense that it talks about the fact that future adjacent that adjacent uses could be non residential and not just what they exist as today essentially. It could be any number of non residential uses. So, it's an acknowledgement that it may not be necessarily a compatible use that ends up.

Right. I mean, was trying to research this today and I found an example of a residential community. All of a sudden, they put in a brewery right next to it with outdoor seating and all. And they're complaining how noisy it is, but it was an allowed use of that parcel. And just like these are zoned for residential, commercial, industrial, right?

Oh, right. And yes, that's right. And the general plan overall, overarchingly kind of views this area as a non residential area with some supportive residential uses. This project happens to be 100% residential use, which we have to allow due to the state laws and bills. But with that said, any future operation that may abut this use would still have to comply with the city's regulations regarding noise and So other that will be evaluated if such a thing were to occur. For the project itself, we're just going to let the future residents know that there are going to be non residential

leases Okay, thank you.

Yes, Commissioner? Oh, sorry.

I did want hand the microphone to GP chair for just a second to clarify the tribes issue.

Yeah, so the thank you. So the notification from the applicant to utilize AB 130 was actually November 6, so not November 3. So if we do two weeks from November 6, would be November 20, would be the deadline to notify the tribes from those fourteen days. So the staff was well, I mean, kind of close, but the tribes were notified in time and no deadlines were missed.

And where is that November 6 in the documentation we have? What page?

It's not there, but we can

We can add some information in the council staff report to lay out the dates just to make it clear and maybe with the because the CEQA exemption is going to be updated in any case to fix the URL, this information can be added to the CEQA exemption memo. But the date for that request received was 11/06/2025.

Okay. And so just where is the evidence of that?

Well, do have the letter from the applicant which I can either email or I

We can send that

That would be great to see before we vote today. Thank you.

Commissioner Rao?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Through the chair, I was just going to say the November 6 date in AB 130 hearings, think it's important to include written evidence of the dates because all deadlines start with the dates that we are given. And so I believe there is still an outstanding question on whether this project is actually subject to AB130 if that deadline was missed. Absent written evidence of what the date that staff is claiming, there is no evidence to indicate the fourteen day deadline was met based on the evidence in the document. So I just want to be careful that we are not sort of just because this came up previously in a different hearing involving the same applicant, and we got a lot of backlash after that meeting that commissioners voted based on what was not in written evidence. And I urge commissioners to keep that in mind.

And I urge staff to be extra diligent in making sure the written evidence includes all evidence that should be considered and no oral evidence will be considered.

Commissioner Wiskoch? Yes,

so I just wanted to clarify. So, one of the questions from the neighbors or one of the statements from the neighbors to the north and south was related to potential noise issues like generators and other equipment and deliveries. So I just want to clarify that they are still subject to the city noise ordinance. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

I also had one question around just circulation. Looking at this plan, you know, so a lot of cars will be coming in the morning, will be coming into this property to cross over office building on the North. And then at the same time, you'll have townhome residents trying to exit the property. Do you foresee that being any sort of traffic issue? Does there need to be like yield signage or something like that?

So I've been in that same spot in the morning and in afternoon during the time business hours. Our traffic consultant has. The volume is really we haven't found anything to be a problem in respect to the amount of vehicles that will be traveling from the commercial buildings.

Okay, great. Thank you. Commissioner Rao?

Yes. Can the applicant or staff clarify what is the width of the road, the driveway inside the project that is either modified or nearly being created? What is the width of the road?

The inside road is 30 feet.

Commissioner Rao, if you could clarify which driveway with your requesting information on?

Any new driveways created by the applicant within the project, what is the width of the driveway?

We'll look that up in just a second.

I believe it's 34 feet. I think it was in the map.

Commissioner Rao, I think I can answer the question. I'm going to kind of ask the question back, but I think you're asking the width of the road on the north side where it has the big access easement, that's 30 feet which matches exactly the width of the access easement. The other roads within the development are 22 feet wide curb to curb.

The alleys.

Okay. The North De Anza conceptual plan requires that any driveway within any development project within these properties is 30 feet. Was that a waiver that was included in the findings?

I'm not aware of that.

Sorry? I'm sorry. I could not hear the staff response.

I don't understand your question.

The question was what is the width of the driveway? Believe the applicant clarified that there is at least one driveway at 22 feet. Is that correct?

No, the driveway is not 22 feet. The alley is 22 feet. The driveway is 30 feet. So What do you mean by the

Can you put up the site map? Can you see the site map when you respond to the question?

So, he's referring to Street B. If you could show the project plan from the applicant's slide. TV team, can you show the slide?

Or can I use this? Maybe it'd be helpful to point.

Do you

want us to do this here? We can show you. There you go.

There is. So the applicant is referring to Street B and Street D as being 22 feet. The driveway entrance along Banley is thirty two and thirty six feet respectively going north to Saudi.

Okay. So my comment then still holds. The Page six, I guess, in Roman numeral, number three of the conceptual plan states that the privatized will have minimum of 30 feet. Has that been waived?

I believe those are referencing drives driveways that are shared between properties.

Where is that interpretation? I don't see it in the writing.

It's the section you just read.

Sorry, can you put up your view of that and maybe highlight where the text states that it's a shared driveway? I'm not following you.

So these are talking about shared driveways that are located between properties for integrated circulation on the block. For the driveways, for the alleyways that are street D and B, those are not for shared access across the properties. This

Sorry to interrupt, but if you're sharing, I'm not seeing it.

No, I'm not sharing anything. Actually, the language that you referenced, it talks about integrating circulation patterns with mutual access drives. And then it talks about the private driveways for that mutual and shared access would be 30 feet. So street D and B are not for shared driveways across properties. Hence, they just have

to meet

the municipal code requirements, and the development does meet those requirements.

Okay. But those are two different paragraphs and the second paragraph talks about private drive. It does not say anything about the previous paragraph, which is, you're right, the mutual access drive. I don't see where it says that the private drive is the mutual access drive.

Because it does talk about 10 feet of it would be located on parallel to the rear lot lines of the generally smaller properties that front De Anza and the remaining 20 feet of the width would be located on the generally larger properties that are located to the west of said generally smaller properties.

Okay. I will yield on that question. So what we're seeing is the shared access highway remains 30 feet. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. I will yield my time. No more question at this time.

Do we have any further questions from the commission? Okay, I think, oh sorry, Commissioner Owens Scott. Yes.

You're answering your question.

Hi there. So we had discussed potentially putting a sound barrier on the north side, a sound wall on the north side and that depends on the easement rules or the easement agreement that you guys have with the property to the north. Have you had a chance to talk with them about it?

No, we haven't been able to connect with them. We are agreeable to a condition that would stipulate based on the neighboring property owner agreeing to fencing along that northern property line, we would install the same acoustical rated fencing. But again, it has we need to have their agreement. So we want to make sure that they would agree to that.

Right. So to clarify, I asked them if they would be willing to put a seven foot sound wall on the north side of the property where the north side development is quite close to the edge of the property. And that is something they would need to negotiate within the terms of their easement agreement.

Okay. I had one final question. Just on the eight foot setback, I believe reviewing a lot of our previous townhome projects that this is one of the smallest front setbacks that we've ever had. All previous projects I've looked at were anywhere from 20 to 35. And I know that that's not something we can demand of you, but I suppose I will at least just ask, is there any way to get a little bit more of the front setback back to make this more consistent with the neighbors?

Yeah. And just a clarification, that's the absolute minimum spot. I think in a staff report there was a clarification I do want to make. It says eight foot to the curb. Actually eight foot to the property line and so there's another nine and a half. So from curb to the nearest point on the building is a minimum of 17 and a half.

Okay.

And that only occurs at two units. The other four units on that frontage have another three feet. So now you're really it's twenty, twenty point five feet to the fronts of those units from the curb. So I think there's just a little bit of a typo in the staff report.

Thank you. That is helpful clarification.

And when you look at the plans, it's clear that this sense becomes very clear.

So I'm going through the staff report right now. Is this actually stated in the detail section? Yes.

Yeah, it should stay under the waiver

In the waiver section.

Table. It's the first waiver. It should state to the property line not to the curb. I apologize for that.

Okay, excellent. Thank you. Yes.

Sorry, one more question about the trees. Can you talk about how many trees are taking away, how many trees you're going to add in and new approach to that?

Yes, there are 25 existing trees that we're going to be removing. That calculates out to a replacement ratio of approximately 35. It is 35, combination of 24 inch and 36 inch trees. And, we're replacing those 35 with 55 trees. Commissioner Rao asked if we could find additional trees and we found that we could fit in an additional four so we can go up to 59.

Great. Thank you.

I believe Steph, you had

a remark. Yes, just had a clarification in terms of the documentation that is being requested for the deemed complete date for the CEQA review. An email was forwarded to the clerk and maybe she can share her screen to indicate when that request came in, when that was 11/06/2025, just to state it for the record and to have it in the written documentation as was requested.

Thank you. Through so that will

the be chair, may that be forwarded to commissioners?

Yes, and Lindsay can share that email on the screen as well for the public to see as well.

One moment while I Through bring that

the chair, only evidence commissioners can consider is the written evidence. I want to remind us once again of the backlash we got from members of the public for having considered evidence that was not written evidence and therefore I would ask this be sent out by email. Thank you.

And sorry, while she's pulling that up, Pugh, may I just clarify or actually, John, what should the staff report read in the front setback section?

It should be eight feet to the property line, not eight feet to the curb.

Got it. Thank you.

Through the chair, if I may ask that correction be included before it goes to council.

Noted.

So, City Clerk, are you able to pull that up on the screen? One sec. Okay, thank you.

So while we're doing that, can I ask another question?

Yes, Commissioner Lestkop.

Okay, so we talked about the pedestrian crossing in front. There is a mid block pedestrian crossing right in front of the development, which is going to see a lot more pedestrian traffic because it's right in front. Can you talk to any discussions you've had with the city on how to ensure that the pedestrian safety is accounted for?

Yeah, I spoke with David Stillman, the city's traffic engineer today. He said, yeah, that's a fairly new flashing beacon that the city installed at that location. So that was the best feature for safety.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. So I'm looking at what is on the screen right now and I'm not seeing the

November It's actually in the body of the email. Okay. So the the date on this letter is when the date was actually written. But the application was submitted and paid for on November 6, which basically started the timeline for the notification of the fourteen days, over the fourteen days when the staff had to notify the tribal, the tribes.

Sorry. I'm not following this. Where is November 6 in

this state? As stated as stated, the body of the email has a November 6 date.

Can we scroll down to exactly So that is I don't see that.

Get out of the attachment. Lindsay, just if you just do a screenshot of the email. The body email acknowledges from the applicant the November 6 date of submission.

And the e mail was sent out or still waiting for the e mail, I guess. Somebody's gonna have to explain this. I'm not sure.

Last sentence in the second paragraph says, Summerhill submitted an SB330 preliminary application for the project on 07/15/2025, and an AB 130 eligibility notice on 11/06/2025, such that the city is required to initiate tribal consultation within fourteen days or by 11/20/2025.

Thank you. So I think this should satisfy the question around the date. Do we have any further questions from Commissioner Yes.

Through the chair, I would ask the reference to November 3 be clarified then in that case before it goes to council. And I have further questions.

Please go ahead and ask your further questions.

Okay. So can staff comment on whether there is an open space maintenance district and whether the written evidence includes that the applicant is signing a written agreement to join the open space maintenance district? I understand there's an open space maintenance district for this North Piazza Boulevard across the existing applicants. Is that true?

Piazza and I are looking right now through the conceptual plan to get the reference.

Is this applicant hearing ready for a hearing if you are looking through the conceptual plan now? I will leave that question for consideration to the commissioners.

Okay. Do we have any further questions from the commission? Okay then, city clerk, may we please have public comments if there are

any?

So sorry, Chair. I don't think the question was answered. I thought staff was looking through but they were going to respond.

Okay.

What is the response? Is there a maintenance district? Does the written evidence include the applicant joining the maintenance district?

It is my understanding that the open space district pertains to the very large landscape easements that were proposed on the properties. And in this particular case this is they're asking for a waiver from that landscape easement requirement and are simply proposing an eight foot setback on the front and each property would be on its own parcel. So they are not required to join that open space district because they don't have that landscape easement.

Where is that interpretation in the written conceptual plan? I take offense to these oral interpretations that cannot be found in written evidence. Where is it in the written evidence?

Perhaps if this is something that might take a while to resolve, we can move to public comments first and then circle back with staff once they have found the answer.

That sounds reasonable, Chad. Thank So,

city clerk.

And thank you to the applicant for patiently waiting.

Thank you.

We have one speaker in person and two hands raised on Zoom. Our first speaker is Kathy Helgerson, followed by Esteban Lopez, followed by Jennifer Griffin. Welcome, Kathy.

Hello. I submitted a letter to all of you. You got it and read it, I hope. Okay. I live on the other side of the wall where Apple Computer has their R and D facility. And at one time, Better Cupertino had fabricated a picture of a five story building on the other side of the wall next to my home, the cul de sac that's there. Scared the hell out of me. Okay. This is the beginning. And I've seen what's going on Stevens Creek Boulevard. This is the beginning. We are creating a slum. Who is going to monitor these facilities? And then, they're going to be sold, and then someone's going to buy them and rent them out. And then, we're going to get all these different people in there.

Subsidy housing is government housing. They will come in and try to house the homeless. They'll try to house immigrants, migrants, you name it, people from all over the country coming in to our California. And this is why we have a housing shortage which was created, okay, not by me, by the government. We need to do something, but that's not the solution. I want this stopped. There should be no residential on Banley Drive. It should be strictly commercial. We need our commercial businesses. You're trying to attract more businesses into Cupertino.

You're going to have places you've got to have places to put these businesses that you're trying to attract. This is all money. The city's going to earn a lot of money from these contracts these builders. Okay? I couldn't even get a copy of their application. The city won't give it to me. I went down to the building department, and they wouldn't give it to me. Okay? This is wrong. This report that goes to our representative, okay, our state senator, has to be I have to look at it. And I don't even I don't have a copy. The city won't give me a copy. Nobody will give me a copy. Things at the city, nobody knows what's going on at the city. This is ridiculous, okay?

I want this to start, all right? Now, if you guys want to talk about how many units, 4,600 units is what our quota is. It can go up to 5,800, all right? And I original bill was SB330. Okay. I don't know where we are with that. I don't know if we reached the quota. Is that every year there's a quota, a different quota? Are they going put another quota on? What how did they reach the quota? The public is not being told anything, all right, about all of this. And I've just started. This is just the beginning, believe me, okay, because I'm going to be looking into a lot of other things here. All right, I don't really care how many buildings that they've built. And I want to know what's at the other side behind these buildings.

De Anza Boulevard is right there. Are you putting a big wall up? That's going to look really great. A wonderful wall right there. Oh, don't forget, they're gonna put some trees up there. Then they're gonna get rid of all the trees that are already there. These are live trees. This is ridiculous. We're always built cutting trees down, putting more trees up. What kind of government is this? This is crazy. What kind of city is it? And I'll tell you one more thing. You're gonna have to hire more sheriffs.

If you

keep bringing

more people in here, you will have to hire more sheriffs. Kathy? Our

next speaker is Estefan Lopez followed by Jennifer Griffin. Welcome, Estefan.

I'd like to ask that we please be respectful in the audience. Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, was there another speaker?

Yes, there's another speaker. I'm just having a technical issue. We're having a technical issue with our next speaker. So I'm going to go ahead to the next speaker, Jennifer Griffin. Welcome, Jennifer.

Thank you. Can you all hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you to the staff and to Summerhill for a good presentation. I will say I'm normally there in person, but I wasn't able to come tonight. But I am following on Zoom. And first of all, I wanted to say I didn't see any advertisement of community meetings for this project,

and

I know that the city had said that they would start having community meetings advertised. I noticed you said there was one in April 2025, but we've had nine of these SB three thirty's. So I think we need to start out and make sure that we have community meetings on these. I'm scared to death. If this was a year from now and we had that, Buffy Wicks bill public input, we would have no way to even know what was going on.

So I'm I'm really, really kind of scared and concerned about this. We need to we need to do better. The other thing is I find I would much prefer the Spanish architecture. This architecture is extremely stark, and I don't think it fits the character of Cupertino. I really hope we're not gonna have any red or yellow or green on the buildings because I find that I would not buy, believe me, I would not buy a townhouse if it was in a building that had, I would call it, uncharacteristic of the architecture in Cupertino, and there is some lovely architecture in Cupertino to respond to.

I hope that they put it back to the mission style that is the historic approach of Cupertino. It looks like Los Altos, etcetera, etcetera, downtown Palo Alto, and I really don't like this hospital square edges because it's not just people who might like I don't know who likes that architecture, but to me, I'm a Queen Anne girl. I don't I this is something that's not attractive to the city. So please, please, put it back to the Spanish architecture like at Westport. It's so much better.

It's gonna sell better too. I mean, we're talking about close to $2,000,000 for these buildings. I'm also concerned about school children coming in and out of this property. This is in the middle of a tech parker. We need to make sure they're safe. Also, I will tell you, I am very scared about not having CEQA. I worked in Tandem buildings Parkway in the nineteen eighties, and I have found out that I worked at a contaminated site for several years. No housing can be built there. You can tell how frightening that would be to me. We need to make sure that these projects are fully vetted.

Please make sure that there's adequate setbacks and that we're not creating a problem in the middle of the tech park. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Our next speaker is Esteban Lopez. Welcome, Esteban.

Hello. Can everyone hear me?

Yes. We can hear you.

Perfect. Sorry about that earlier. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Esteban Lopez. I'm a research analyst with the Bay Area Council. We represent more than three seventy of the Bay Area's largest employers whose members employ over 4,500,000 workers across the region. I'm here in strong support of the Summerhill Homes proposed 27 townhomes at 10,268 Bandley Drive. The National Association of Realtors reports that the median age of a first time home buyer is now 40, up from the age of 28 in 1992. First time buyers are just 21% of the market, which is a historic low. Here in Cupertino, the median home sale price hit $3,400,000 in March, which is up 16% year over year.

That math does not work for the next generation of Cupertino families. Our region's housing shortage is immense, and no project is too small to help. Family Drive is exactly the kind of location we should be building. It sits inside of an office park surrounded by Apple Apple facilities with thousands of jobs in walking distance. Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards are under a half mile away with a target less than a quarter mile away.

William Ferrier Elementary, Lawson Middle, Cupertino Memorial Park and the Quinlan Community Center all sit within a mile. This project fully conforms to the city's zoning and general plan and the use of AB 130 CEQUA exemption pathway is appropriate for a project that meets all zoning, design, and building code requirements. At 17 units per acre, Summerhill is proposing well below what the site allows. Five of the 27 homes will be deed restricted affordable for median and moderate income households. Cupertino's teachers, nurses, and public safety workers desperately need these homes. Townhomes like these are a generational starter home. For these reasons, the Bay Area Council respectfully urges the commission to recommend approval. Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Esteban. We have no speakers in person and no hands raised on Zoom, chair.

Thank you very much, city clerk. And now we will have the applicant if they would like to respond to any of the comments.

Thank you. We're available for any questions.

Thank you. All right. Then we will return back to the commission. Are there any further questions? I did have

Through one the Chair, was going to suggest at the end of these questions perhaps we may take a break. Think we've been going for an hour and a half at least.

Okay. Thank you. All right. I did have one question for staff. Just in response to some of the community feedback. What would be the repercussions of rejecting such a townhome project proposal?

Are

very specific findings that the city would have to make under the Housing Accountability Act, which pertain to a specific adverse impact to health. And those findings are very particular, and we can actually pull up those findings for the commission to look at to determine whether it can make those in order to deny a project, any kind of housing project essentially, that provides two or more units. Okay, thank you.

Are there any further questions? Commissioner Rao?

Yes. So, am I missing a transportation demand management PDM or was that not included? And if not, why not? Maybe a question to staff.

Doctor. Commissioner Rao, if you could repeat your question, please. Thank you.

Doctor. Is a TDM included? And if not, why not?

A TDM is not required for this project. It is screened out under the VMT requirements that the city has and it does not have other VMT other TDM requirements.

I'm confused. So how do we determine that TDM does not apply here?

The project is screened out from any kind of CEQA review, and so that review doesn't occur under CEQA. There is under the city's transportation requirements, I believe any projects that, such as this one would also not be required to provide any TDM measures under the city's own transportation guidelines.

Okay, but the mobility element of the general plan has certain aspects it emphasizes, such as multimodal transportation, reduced automotive dependency, and so on. Are we saying that we should not consider the mobility element?

That is not true. The city adopts various documents that are under the general plan that implement the policies in the general plan, and it can exempt certain projects on certain items. So a project such as this is does not have to do is basically exempt from doing certain things that that basically the governing document would be the city's transportation guidelines which would dictate what the requirements would be by project size and other things, metrics.

Let me ask again. Does the CEQA exemption exempt consideration of the mobility element?

The CEQA exemption, essentially as far as CEQA goes, yes. We cannot require anything under the CEQA side of things on the transportation.

No. That was not the question. The question was, are commissioners being told to ignore the mobility element?

No. We're basically saying that we have found that the project meets all the requirements of the city's regulations with regard to transportation for this project.

Which finding in the resolution talks about the aspects in the mobility element involving reduced automobile automotive or automobile dependency and multimodal transportation?

There isn't a finding that the city specifically has for that.

Okay. So is it then feasible to include as conditions of approval a TDM?

I don't believe so.

Okay. Why not?

Because the project is screened out of the CEQA requirements and meets all the city's other requirements as it pertains to transportation. Does provide by parking The

questions The questions arise from the mobility element, not from CEQA. I don't understand why we keep talking about CEQA. I've asked for the mobility element can be considered or not.

In general, yes. But the implementing documents are the city's transportation requirements otherwise. So from a policy perspective, yes, the city does encourage TDM and requires those things. But the implementing documents are the city's municipal code and other requirements which project meets.

Okay. I will ask my commissioners to see if you believe a TDM is warranted here. The mobility element as well as the transportation master plans both are options unless it was explicitly waived for some reason. I have to take the issue with the interpretation by staff on this matter unless there is something I'm missing on whether mobility element should be ignored.

Commissioner Winskog?

I'm just seeking some clarification. So Commissioner Rao, are you saying that in the mobility element, it says that a TDM is required to be done on every development in the city? And if so, can you point to that page?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the mobility element emphasizes certain aspects around transportation, and I do not see this project resolution addressing any of those aspects as far as addressing reduced demand around transportation. How do we reconcile some of the aspects of mobility element to the particularly the reduced guest parking on this property? Why should we not, for example, require a TDM to address the project given its severe shortage of guest parking? Again, this is a consideration for commissioners.

You may

choose to

ignore it. You may choose to consider it.

Through the Chair, just a correction, the municipal code for townhome developments requires only one parking space per unit. And this project far exceeds almost doubles more than doubles the amount of parking that's required. They're providing two parking spaces per unit plus an additional five for guest parking spaces. Guest parking spaces are not a requirement for townhome developments.

They're also including a bike parking in every garage, I think is not required. So I guess I'm a little bit confused because it sounded like Commissioner Rao was saying that the mobility element requires all development, like requires a TDM, but I don't remember seeing that in

That's not through the chair, that was not what was stated. What was stated was why should we not consider a TDM given the shortage of multimodal and automotive facilities on the project given five guest parking spaces? While I hear what staff is saying about the number of parking per unit, that is besides the guest parking

issue. The chair, I think this project might also be eligible for certain state benefits on parking reductions. And I see that Assistant Director Connolly has stepped in, maybe he can support.

I just wanna try to resolve this. Transportation demand management is done as a mitigation measure. Projects that are exempt from CEQUA have nothing to mitigate at all. So you cannot require something that is inherently a mitigation measure for a project where the state has weighed in saying there are no mitigations required. This project meets AB one thirty. It would be arbitrary to apply TDM measures for something where there's no basis to do so. So I just wanna be clear about that. And parking is not a sequel issue under any circumstance.

And I want to thank staff for that clarification. And chair, perhaps is a good time to close the public hearing, bring this back for the for the commissioners to to deliberate. Maybe you can start with a with a motion to frame your discussion.

Yes, thank you, state attorney. Thank you, Assistant Director Connolly. Commissioner Rao, does this resolve your concern? Think we are ready to

Yeah, I I am I am not sure because the mobility element does talk about a strategy to reduce demand. The strategies I'm reading verbatim. The strategies in this element seek to reduce demand of the city's infrastructure through careful use of land use planning, encourage alternative water transportation, utilize best practice in TDM and TSM. And so I hear what staff is saying that TDM is a mitigation and there is no mitigation and sequence exempt. And where is that written evidence that TDM is mitigation?

Again, there's a lot of verbal interpretation. Maybe we can benefit through written evidence that states that what is in the mobility element that references TDM cannot apply because it is a mitigation. Where does it say it's a mitigation?

Well, Commissioner Rao, I think it was established that the TDM is not something that we can demand. I suppose if you wanted to make a motion to Through

the chair, where was it established? How was it established? Where is the written evidence that was established?

If I may, chair, the other part is this is a housing project. The only metrics that we can review this against are objective standards. The project meets those objective standards. So a requirement that says the applicant shall implement a TDM program. We don't know what that program might have.

If the city had an adopted ordinance that basically said any townhome project that blah blah blah blah meets these requirements shall provide x y z and lists out what those standards are. That could be applicable to a housing project. In this particular case this is an arbitrary, would be an arbitrary requirement to establish a TDM program, and there is no threshold to require that as a as a as a condition of approval.

And and so is there a finding that states that to that effect? That absent an objective

is SB So three

a project is exempt from CEQA, you can't even consider VMT. Is that true?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Fung.

Yes. I was just going say I think there had been a request to close the public hearing. We should do that.

Okay. Yes, there was a request to close public hearing

from the rest

of the Commission. There's no further questions. So we will close sorry, go on.

These are separate things, right?

Yes.

There's nobody asking to speak, we should close the public hearing.

We can close the public hearing. We also had a request for a five minute break, so let's adjourn briefly for a five minute break and then we will reconvene for the motion and the comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we are reconvening to now move on to a motion.

Do we have a motion?

I have a motion. I I can make a motion that we that the Planning Commission accept the approved the resolution as written by staff.

May I make a friendly amendment to this motion? I would like to include so we I would motion to approve the staff recommendation but include CCNRs informing neighbors specifically this is an office park and that there will be ongoing noise from commercial activities, including but not limited to HVAC and truck traffic, as well as consideration of a wall on the north side, if possible. And then that construction management plan will also be shared with the neighbor. Those would be my additions.

Point point of order, we do not yet have a second. I don't believe we can discuss

the I'll second the original.

Okay. Sorry.

Motion for that. But I I would like to discuss the possible. Think

could we repeat the friendly amendment so that it is made after the second?

Apologies for making that early. So thank you Commissioner Feng for your second and my amendment was to include the CCRs in the CCRs informing the neighbors that this is an office park and there will be ongoing noise from commercial activities, including but not limited to HVAC noise and truck traffic. And the reason for that specifically is when I visited this property, there was a reasonable amount of ongoing HVAC noise. And then second point is include that the construction management plan will be shared with the neighbors. And the third would be consideration of an additional wall on the north side of the property.

Oh, you

want I wanted to make an amendment to your amendment that it's not really an office park. It's zoned commercial, industrial, residential. Right now, it's office use. It could be many other things. It needs to be made clear in the CCNR that in the future there could be all sorts of different uses in the buildings on all sides.

So if I could comment along that same line, I think rather than

Point point of order for Attorney Wu. There's a friendly amendment on the table. I think we should only be discussing whether it's accepted or not. And not any further discussion until the amendment is either accepted or not. Can you clarify?

So Commissioner Rao, technically, you're correct. And as I was sitting here and observing this discussion, I thought that I'll facilitate the decision making. I've heard the motion by Commissioner Linskoff, seconded by Commissioner Feng. And then the chair sought to advance a friendly amendment that was further clarified by Commissioner Scharf, and then sounds like it's going be further clarified by Commissioner Fung. I think that's appropriate to do, but having said that, I mean, do bring up technically you are correct. So I'll defer to the chair as to how she wants to proceed.

If I can just comment since it's my motion, I would like to hear the clarification so that we all know exactly what we're voting on.

Are you sorry, to confirm, are you referring to Vice Chair's clarification?

No, both. Both are clarifications with the Vice Chair and Commissioner Feng. Any clarifications may be necessary

before we can vote?

Before point of order, we can only consider one friendly amendment at a time. We do not yet have an except for the first before we can consider a second. I urge Attorney Woo to keep us in compliance. Thank you.

So at this point, I'm gonna recommend that we have the original motion that's been seconded by commissioner Feng. And I'm gonna ask the chair to restate your friendly amendment in light of what you've heard from Commissioner Scharf. And at that point, I'm going to ask Commissioner Linzkog to see whether she would accept that friendly amendment and ask the seconder whether he would accept. And if the seconder, which Commissioner Feng has further clarifications, then he can ask. He can seek that just for a process.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying, city attorney. So vice chair, can you I am happy to incorporate your language into my friendly amendment, but can you clarify it was to we don't consider this to be an office park. So perhaps the language is actually just not even classifying what kind of an area this is. It's just that we are trying to inform neighbors that there will be ongoing noise from commercial activities, including HVAC and truck traffic. Does that work?

No. Okay.

No. I think it's make it clear that this is zoned industrial, commercial, residential, and that any of those uses are possible in the future.

Hang on, I'm just writing that down.

Chair, if I may add something to that, and apologies for jumping in at this point. There is in condition number 17 in staff's resolution, it does talk about inclusion of a notice of neighboring uses disclosure acknowledging the adjacent nonresidential use surrounding the development. So we already have a condition related. I just wanted to let you know.

Yes, thank you. And I did see that. However, it did not specify the noise and the type of noise. I do actually think as a resident, if I was moving into somewhere, I would want to know, you know, we have had a lot of feedback from residents living near Lehi, for example, that the trucks are very noisy. And, you know, when I spoke with the tenant next door, they mentioned that some of the noise that they were concerned about was just large loading vehicles. So I think if we just add the specific types, it would just be probably a

And those details will be included in the CCNRs. They're just not included in the condition of approval. So that language will be reviewed and approved by the city before it gets included in the CCNRs.

Okay. So the CCNRs would specify the type of noise?

Correct. That is usually what we do is, you know, this is just the here's what you're gonna do, but the details of what's in there, you know, we and if if the commission wishes to specify something, feel free, and we can add that in as well. But our thoughts were we were going to address the issues with this. This was just the introduction for how we get to it. The details of what we get to would be hashed out when we review the CCNRs.

Got it. Thank you very much. Yeah, I I think since we have had a reasonable amount of feedback from the surrounding landlords, tenants, that it would be good just to be extra clear about this. So I I would like to add that amendment. So now what I have is include ensure that the CCNRs inform neighbors that this is zoned industrial, commercial and residential. Any of those uses may be possible in the future, and there will be ongoing noise from commercial activities, including HVAC and truck traffic.

Point of clarification. Yes. A CCNR is a perpetually long lived document. Construction is prior to the properties occupied. I see no correlation between construction and a CCNR. I'm confused. Having been an HOA plus fit myself

You're not speaking about the right? You're

you're talking a CCNR. Yeah.

I I am thank you, Commissioner Fang. I am talking about for the residents that move into this completed project, the ongoing noise that they would experience living there.

Sorry, I thought I heard construction traffic noise or something.

No. So if you go to the property today and you just spend a few minutes there, you will hear HVAC noise Could on the

the chair put off your if you are reading, could you share screen so we can read the motion that is being considered right now? Because I thought I heard construction and traffic noise or truck noise. Maybe I heard wrong.

I see. Since I'm not signed into the Zoom, perhaps it might be faster for me to just email it to city clerk. So let me just

Can can the can the chair clarify if construction and truck noise was mentioned, or I heard wrong?

I heard delivery trucks. I just

I did not specify what type of truck. I let me just I'm going to email this to the city clerk really quickly, and that can be posted.

What point of clarification? We have trucks everywhere with every project. This is a somewhat unique condition. Why is this unique to this property versus all of the other projects we've had?

So this is to ensure that the neighbors are comfortable. You know, this is the first residential use that has happened in this area, and the neighbors are very concerned that there will be complaints about all the types of activities that happen on an ongoing basis at there is apple to the south and north, I believe. So we are just trying

Point to of point of clarification. What objective design standard allows for that?

I'm sorry. What do you mean objective design standard?

I believe staff consistently reminds us that unless there is an objective design standard, we cannot require the applicant to make a to hold the applicant to a condition. So I'm trying to understand how we would factor this in based on what finding and what objective requirement.

We are we would not be holding them accountable to any this is just ensuring that language in CCNRs is very specific.

I'll try the point of clarification thread then because this is actually what I was going to comment on and we can do this without going through the formality. One of the things that was brought up in staff report was that the noise and usage in the area will be consistent with the municipal code. I actually think I agree that it's worth mentioning here that there is this is a special planning zone and that that should be highlighted so that it's clear to the people who are buying homes here. Here. But that I don't think we actually need to be specific.

I'm talking about HVAC noise or there are certain there's a certain element. They should be aware that this is not a residential neighborhood is the, I think, the takeaway. And I also agree Commissioner Scharf's comment really was there are a set of things which are allowed here. These are allowed because it is a special zone, PC, which included industrial. And that's the one that I think people would be worried about.

There are people the concern that's raised today is I have loading equipment in my business and I can't I I don't want to have to shut that down because because people moved into this place later. I think that, you know, as an office use, most people will probably not complain. People could easily complain if we're industrial, if somebody had a small manufacturing facility there. Anybody who's moving into this place should know that as part of the CCRs should make that clear. But I think that trying to go into detail beyond saying there's a PCR, it is general purpose. I prefer to see that wording.

Point of clarification, we have had multiple projects on Stevens Creek that is far more noisy than this project located on an inner street which is Bentley. And I'm on that street pretty often and Bentley is a very quiet street. And I fail to understand why we hold applicants to a different standard because there is a certain tenant next door while we do not hold the applicant to that standard when we have residences next door that have asked repeatedly for concessions that we could not obtain. Thank you. I take objection to holding an applicant to a standard that is not consistent depending on who the neighbor is.

We should not be, as commissioners, treating adjacent neighbors differently. Just because it's a well known neighbor, that does not make them any different than the neighbors that were considered in the previous project of the same applicant.

Commissioner Rao, this is not holding applicant the to a standard. It is just making a disclosure in a CCNR. I'm not clear what concession you feel we are asking for or standard we're requiring.

A point of clarification, I would state the noise on Stevens Creek is an ongoing noise at a higher decibel level compared to the noise on Bentley.

We are not asking the applicant to do anything differently about the noise. We are simply asking for a disclosure, or I am simply asking for a more specific disclosure in the CCNR. There's there's no change being requested here.

I I'm just I'm just pointing out to the chair that we're using different standards based on who the neighbor is, and I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. I will let it be. Thank you.

So just just for clarity of the record, I'm gonna recommend that at this point that original mover withdraw your motion and remake your motion. And then ask for a second. And then we can ask for if that doesn't cover the intention, then we can ask for a then we can let someone else make a friendly amendment, just so the record is clear.

Okay. And before I do that, I just want to comment. I think what the chair is looking for is clarity and disclosure, whether it's in the CCRs or anywhere else. So I think if we just use the word request disclosure, that should hopefully address your concerns. So I'll move that we adopt the that we approve the resolutions as recommended by staff with a request that the applicant provide specific disclosure on the type of properties that are zoned around this development to residents who are considering moving there.

Do I have a second?

Yeah, I'll second that.

Commissioner Mau, you have your hand raised.

I was going to move on to questions since we have a motion and a second. Do we have time for questions or are we still on the motion?

We're waiting to see whether there's a friendly amendment.

I'll I'll may I suggest one friendly amendment, which was regarding the there was a notation in the report about the setback, the eight feet being from the property line instead of from the curb. I don't know whether that requires an amendment.

That does not require commission's motion. It's a correction that we will automatically make before we issue the report for the city council.

Okay. So I withdraw the friendly amendment.

And I also have a question for staff. I had thrown this into the motion but I'm not sure that it needs to be there. How does construction management plan get distributed or notified to neighbors?

There is noticing that is required prior to construction, and that's required under the city's municipal code. So every property owner will get noticed. Believe it's fourteen days prior to construction, at least fourteen days prior to construction that will go out. In terms of the actual construction management plan, itself doesn't get sent to neighbors. But that's part of the coordination. There is a specific noise coordinator that's identified and things like that. And that's on the notice board. So if they call them, they can get that access access to information. And that should go to Summerhill and their construction crews, essentially.

Okay. So any member of the public who wishes to see the construction plan can

They can come into City Hall and view it or contact Summerhill for a copy.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Do we have any further comments on this motion?

Yes. We are not ready to vote. We have just got a motion in a second. I do have several questions and comments.

Please go ahead, Commissioner Rowe.

Okay. So I'm going to go back to the, CEQA document. And the exemption checklist states that there's a number of conditions that need to be adhered to before we can exempt the project from SQL. I have a question on the phase one ESA. The phase one ESA says there's a BER but does not indicate what kind of risk or what kind of contaminants are present on the site.

What is the nature of BER and why is it not disclosed in the CEQA exemption document? Maybe a question for place works.

Through the Chair, we do have our CEQUA consultants online on Zoom, and maybe either Rachel or Alexis could answer that question.

Yes. The information in the phase one is that was identified was due to historic agricultural uses.

Okay. So what is the contaminant specifically?

I'm not seeing, like, a scientific name, but it says it's due to past pesticides, herbicides, metals.

Why is that not in the report?

It oh, that specific detail? The technical information is included as part of the record for the CEQA analysis. However, all that the CEQA exemption criteria is is concerned with, it has to do with the the process requirement to prepare prepare a phase one and then prepare a phase two if required. So the the proper process was adhered to for CEVA purposes. And so that's that's what is the focus of the exemption memorandum.

Okay. I'm confused. So there's a hazardous waste site checklist criteria. And the basis for evaluating that criteria includes a list of substances, a list of hazardous waste and substances. Where in the report can we verify what substances exist on that site in order to assess this criteria in the report? I'm specifically referring to Page 11 in the CEQA document. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and I'm consistently finding verbal explanations where written evidence is missing.

So the

The table has an item for hazardous waste site. In that, the first bullet states list of hazardous waste and substance sites. We do not know what substance exists on the site, but we know that there's a BER. So what is how should we interpret that?

Yeah. So the hazardous materials come into play in two places in the CEQUA document. So one is on in the table that you're referencing, and that has to do with whether the site is listed as on what's the Cortezi list, and so it is not listed it is not included on that list. So that's the information that's in the table. The second place that hazardous materials come into play is later in the document on page 18.

Page started, sorry, starting on page 17 going on to page 18, and that discusses the phase one report that was done, and those were the process requirements I was referring to previously. So that talks about the findings of the phase one. Based on the phase one and the BER that you referred to, phase two was prepared, and so that means that actual, you know, site investigation was done and there was testing done. And based on the phase two, there were it was just determined that there was no hazard to the future residential users of the property.

Okay. But staying on Page 18, you're saying based on the REC that was found, a Phase II was prepared and the Phase II did not find any RECs. However, a BER What is that What is the specific substance?

Yes. The yeah, the Phase I doesn't include actual soil testing, so it just kind of looks at the previous previous uses of the site. And so based on the fact that there were previous agricultural uses, it was determined that there's the potential for, you know, certain materials to exist in the soil. So that's why then the phase two was prepared that did include actual soil testing to kind of hone in on those details.

Where are the results of that Phase two?

Well, so it's summarized in the CEQUA document that you're looking at.

Why do we not have the report? Why do we need a summary? Why don't we have the results of the Phase II as written evidence?

That's available as written evidence. There is a written report about it. I'm not sure exactly, maybe I don't know if John can answer to the technical reports,

and there Point would be a of We have been repeatedly castized by the public for not holding a high bar on written evidence. I failed to understand if we had a Phase two investigation prepared why the results of that report are not in the written evidence. Should we continue the hearing till we can have that included in the written evidence?

Chair, the findings of the Phase I and the Phase II are summarized in the CEQA documents. And that those findings are included, which directly reference into the findings of the CEQA consultant?

Point of order, a summary is not written evidence. The results of a report and investigation, the results of an investigation is written evidence for the consideration of commissioners. We keep using a loose bar. I'd ask Acne Wu to remind all of us what constitutes written evidence. Summaries are not written evidence.

Okay.

We have to hold ourselves to a higher bar.