PC 09-23-08CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO 1?LANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission Study Session of September 23, 2008, was called to order at 5:30
p.m. in the Cupertino Con--nzunity Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by
Chairperson Marty Miller_
SALUTE TO T>FIE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Economic Development. Manager. Kelly Kline
NOTE: Because the meeting is a Study SESSlon, the votes taken during the
meeting are to be considered Strasw Votes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Planning Commission meeting ofAuguss 26, 2G~08:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, seconnd by Com. Kaneda, to approve the
August 26, 2008 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: S-O-O)
Planning Commission meeting of September 9, 2008:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the
September 9, 2008 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: S-O-O)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
STUDY SESSION•
SPA-2008-01 Updal=e the Heart of the City Specific Plan
City of Cupertino to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005
Stevens Creels Boulevard General Plan. ~Continuedfrom the
Between Hwy 85 and Eastern Augu:~t 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting
City Limits
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Alu Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reported that the Study Session is being conducted on the Heart of the City Specific Plan
Update (Update). The Update is part of the 2008/2009 Council approved work program
which was approved in February 2008, which requirement was to reflect the changes in the
2005 General Plan Update.
• On June 1 O, 2008, the draft plan was first presented to the Planning Commission for review;
at that time the Planning Commission requested some clarification on the Plan including
more of a description of why the elimination of the side yard setback was proposed in the
draft plan; whether a bicycle route should be included in the draft plan and also to provide
some streetscape concepts. It was brought back to the Planning Commission for review on
August 26 and formal draft plan was presented to the Planning Commission at that time,
which includes all the photos and formal fe~rmat of the plan. The Planning Commission at
that time had reviewed the plan and also coritemplated whether or not to consider additional
amendments beyond those Council directives to include the updates to t he 2005 General
Plan, but actually opening it up and looking at some of the other concepts in the plan. As a
result the Commission voted to have a st~idy session inviting the public to attend; and
requested that Kelly Kline, Economic Redevelopment Manager, attend.
• She reviewed the fundamentals of the Heart of the City Plan as outlined in the staff report,
Page 2.
• She also explained the key changes to the draft plan which include updates to map, policy
framework section, circulation/parking goads, development standards, development/design
standards, streetscape design, new concepts and language in the development standards and
design guidelines outlined in detail in the staffreport, Pages 3-5.
• The draft plan proposes retail and allows for mixed use development along the Stevens
Creek frontage; one of the points brought up by the Commission at the August 26 meeting
was a concern about the viability of retail frontages and mixed use along Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The Commission may consider ~~vhether this is a suitable use in mid-block areas,
or if other such uses as office and residential are more appropriate along some portions of
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
• Staff recommends that if the Commission wants to open up the Update Plan for review, it
may consider requesting the Council to allow for more comprehensive review of the Draft
Plan, rather than just incorporating those 2005 General Plan updates.
• The Conin~ission can continue the study session, based upon its discussion tonight, or
request City Council to allow for more comprehensive review of the Draft Heart of the City
Specific Plan, meaning they can request to open up more than just the 2005 General Plan
updates, or recommend approval of Draft Plain and subsequently request the Council to allow
for the more comprehensive review or rc:coimiiend the approval of the Draft Plan as
presented.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application.
Chair Miller:
• Asked why staff did not propose some minimum setback requirement; and who makes the
decision of what the setback will be?
Ald Snelling:
• The reason staff suggested eliminating the side yard setbacks was to allow for more flexibility
so that developments proposed next to existing; buildings could have a better relationship to the
existing buildings, and have a better continuity of street frontages, rather than having a
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 September 23, 2008
Study Session
prescriptive side yard setback. It also helps with the narrow lots and odd shaped lots as well
where providing that larger side yard setbacks reduce the amount of development.
• The decision would not be made by staff; because it would mean development in Heart of the
City would come to the Planning Commission as part of an architectural review; and it could
be going up to the City Council if it was required as well. Any commercial development would
come to a public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Said he was not comfortable with no setback requirements.
Com. Brophy:
• Relative to Chair Miller's comment, he said it seemed that regardless of the language in the
Specific Plan for Heart of the City, you would still have whatever side setbacks are in the
zoning ordinance.
Alci Snelling:
• Said the Heart of the City had the development standards; it would supersede.
Com. Brophy;
• Said he was concerned that the purpose of they Update as presented, was to either adjust it to
the adopted General Plan or clean up language that is no longer relevant. At the last meeting,
there were a number of the proposed changes that reflect policy decisions not required by the
General Plan that are not the best choices for t]-ie community.
• Said his primary concern is the issue that Cupertino is a low density to medium density
suburban community, and clauses in the Heart of the City Specific Plan that encourage higher
density and other forms of land use, will create unattractive projects, have adverse impacts and
will not offer the kind of benefits that higher density projects would offer in an urban
community. 1n the past, the city has tried high density development in the center city area and
clearly there was strong unhappiness when people saw the results of that. This is not a city
that is well suited for walking from one parcel to another; there is no reduction of trips, and the
only effect of high density at center city was to increase the traffic demand on the city streets.
After the unhappiness about that, we went to ]ieight limitations, so we did not have any more
of that, but instead wound up with a series of ~~ondominium projects along Stevens Creek and
DeAnza Boulevard, that has commercial on the ground floor and condos two or three floors
above that, which also created an adverse feeling in the community. There are those projects
as residential units that are aesthetically unattractive and the commercial space that was
created in those units is not effective commercial space.
• Another concern with the update of the Heart of the City Plan as proposed is that some of the
things that are wrong with it are an attempt to require mixed use development on individual
projects when it has been shown that mixed use within a particular project has not been
effective. It is an attempt to force retail developments that have little chance for success and is
due to the factor that all California cities are forever trying to create more retail space so they
can get more sales tax dollars which is a fine objective; but if you create space that is not
effective for retailers, you end up with unattractive space that provides little or no tax revenues
and just reduces the attractiveness of the community. In general, there is a word somewhere in
the Heart of the City Plan that's intensification which is a mistake, and primarily is occurring
through the repeated encouragement of using parking structures.
• Said Palo Alto, Mountain View and Walnut Creek were examples of successful suburban type
cities, having in common apre-existing historic downtown around which to develop. Palo
Alto and Mountain View are communities that were focused around the train stations; when
people primarily commuted to the city; Walnut Creek, has one or two BART stops that
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 23, 2008
Study Session
encouraged that development. Said that Stevens Creek row has a linear that is a couple of
miles long and he did not feel it was possible to create a true walkable experience in a sense
that people will see substantial numbers of pedestrians going from one use to another. The
plans discussed to have Stevens Creek Boulevard landscaped with various tree plants along the
entire length, makes it a more attractive way to walk but will not dramatically change the
number of people who choose to walk. He said they may want to consider whether it makes
more sense to look at what they can do •avith Stevens Creek Boulevard to make it a
significantly better place for bicyclists. Amore serious bicycle plan has a much better chance
of success than any hopes of making it truly a walkable street.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was not convinced that mixed use development would not work. I hear what Com.
Brophy is saying, that what we have now doe:~n't work really well; but my thinking has been
for some of these things there is a critical mass: that you have to reach for it to work. Whether
or not Stevens Creek is appropriate, is getting into an area of expertise that I don't have; but
there are plenty of examples of small cities uF> and down the peninsula where they do have a
denser set of zoning rules that allow building:: to be close together; and I don't think it ruins
the city. He said it would be enjoyable for Cupertino to have a section or block with a small
town feel; Cupertino has always felt like it is just suburbia. He was not opposed to trying to set
up guidelines that will allow development of one, although it is likely a decade long endeavor;
it is not something that is going to happen in one year or two.
Kelly Kline, Economic Development Manager:
• Said it was the first time she had seen the comments in written form, but would be happy to
respond on some of the mixed use and retail discussions based on what she has heard this
evening.
• She said she did not feel that the Plan is trying to take a hard line approach on it. We
recognize that there is a process that needs to go through as each proposal comes in to take a
look at the specifics of that development and the dynamics of the proforma and exactly where
it is at on the street, what is surrounding it, to figure out what the best plan for it is. In many
cases, we hope that will be mixed use and we think that is critical to the vitality of an area.
• What has been interesting lately is hearing the discussion around Mainstreet Cupertino, a
proposed project that Sand Hill Properties is ~~ndertaking between Tantau and Finch Avenue
along Stevens Creek; their retail brokers haves said that Stevens Creek Boulevard is the best
retail address in the entire region, which is a powerful statement. It is one of the most
continuous retail frontages anywhere in the va lley in terms of sheer volume. I think that there
is definitely some sympathy with the idea that doing that continuous frontage is very difficult
to achieve and even some of the best retail destinations anywhere in the nation, if not the
world, have a hard time keeping it up from block to block or more than a certain section at a
time. We feel strongly about holding corners for retail; the mid-block is something that has to
be addressed more on a case-by-case basis. There are some things that need to be considered
in terms of tenanting and there are some comments made about what the caliber of the retail
that we are seeing at some of our mixed use ~~rojects; and you can argue about whether they
are A or B tenants, and whether or not we want the B or C tenants.
• Cupertino has some strong high traffic, high priced leasing centers; not everyone can afford to
be in those centers, and there is likely a place within the city to incubate or to allow the
smaller, starting out tenant the place to be as they grow and expand, and then hopefully they
grow into some of our more high traffic centers that command the higher lease rates. There is
something to be said for having a variety of spaces in a variety of locations, and all that space
works together. There was a question earlier about the breakdown between the office and the
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 23, 2008
Study Session
retail leasing. None of the major brokerage firms track retail vacancy or total retail space to
the extent that there are any numbers on this.
There has been a lot of scrutiny about Cupertino's first mixed use projects and what the
relative success of those has been on the leasing front. They have evolved in the way they
have evolved in many places; they are very slow to lease at first; especially for the first tenants
in. Not every tenant wants to be in a mixed use project because it has some challenges and
especially true of a lot of the more mainstream national credit tenant types haven't had a lot of
experience leasing a mixed use downtown or urban street front settings, they are used to being
in shopping malls.
Said that another phenomenon seen is that in the case of a mixed use project, the housing or
office developer will put all of their last dol]_ars into the residential or office unit, and then
there is no money left to finish the retail space. What you got is what they call in the industry,
a very cold shell and they are looking for the retail tenant to come in and fund the $50,000 or
$100,000 worth of improvements to get that s]~ell to a condition where they can actually build
out their tenant improvements, which is why i.t can take a long time to find somebody who is
willing to do that or can find financing for it or re-negotiate with the landlord to do the basic
improvements where they can actually move in. You will find that once the tenant spaces
have been improved, there is some regular lea:;ing activity.
We are not in this alone; it might be interesting if we are exploring this topic more to follow
what is going on with the Grand Boulevard project which is El Camino Real. El Camino Real
for many cities is their Stevens Creek Boulev~ird and there is a massive effort underway with
every city along the El Camino to talk about design standards, uses, how they can energize the
streets, and there is a group of cities of the: higher ranking officials in the cities coming
together on a monthly basis and talking about those and they have an awards program for
many of the mixed use product and they are trying to do what is even more daunting task that
tackling Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Chair Miller:
• It has been said that part of the challenge of leasing space is poor design to begin with. He
said that each time he goes by Metropolitari, he may be tempted to stop there, but when
looking at where to park, it looks too challenging and he passes it by. It becomes an issue with
some of the other spaces, even with La Boul«ngerie, many people say they give up on going
there because parking is so challenging.
• There are a number of spaces in town where mixed use has not been successful, and there are
other areas of town, and in other towns where mixed use has been successful. He said he liked
the idea of compiling the best practices that some neighbors have done and then look at it more
carefully to see if those paradigms or those models fit better in Cupertino.
• He agreed with Com. Brophy who pointed out that their policies of forcing a particular form of
development because they want some other form of development, is not in the best interest of
either. It seems appropriate to review the present policies, particularly with the Heart of the
City Plan, and take some input from the suggestion of looking at what other cities are doing.
Com. Rose:
• Asked if Panera Bakery was an example oi' the direction they are going. She said as a
community member for 15 years who had not done much walking from her neighborhood to
Memorial Park area, she sensed the new Wlhole Foods and Panera Bakery has been made
walkable. She said she now walks there frequently, the biggest challenge being crossing
Stelling Road safely. You don't want to be too prescriptive to developers about what they
have to do when they look at a piece of property; but as a resident she feels that if you build a
walkable place, they will walk there.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Kelly Kline:
• One of the reasons for considering retail along this corridor is that it not only promotes
walkability, but it gives that activity a reason to exist, more than just between the hours of 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. When you have a Panera or Peets you get the early morning activity, the
evening activity; 7 days a week activity and ;you avoid what you have when it is solely one
environment, which is that it is only busy at certain times of the week and the rest of the time it
is a void. The idea is that it enlivens the street at many different times, and if they cannot
always do that at every single juncture, hopefully they can do it in enough places where when
you are driving through to get a sense that the city is alive.
Com. Brophy:
• If Panera's is an example of a successful retail project, which even though it is in front of a
part of a larger office complex, it is a free standing retail building, and if you compare its
success as a retail location with that of La Ioulangerie which is not an attractive place to
drive, it seems evident that we should not be looking at individual structures that are mixed use
• There is nothing to prevent applicants from proposing a number of separate buildings that have
different uses, but trying to force an urban de:~ign concept of this idea of retail on the ground
floor, office on the second, and residences above; is there any evidence that it consistently can
work in a suburban setting.
Kelly Kline:
• I think it merits addressing whether or not you can say that the retail uses have been successful
at that location; and I would argue that they have. I have had many conversations with the
operators of La Boulangerie and they report they have very healthy business, and I think the
reason for that is they are not depending on everybody to drive there; some of their audience is
getting in their car and parking in the garage a.nd walking to the site; but they also have 1,800
office workers onsite; they have substantial :Four star hotel next door and they also have a
number of residential units and all of that onsit:e activity not to mention those within a block or
two. They are getting a fair amount of foot tn~ffic which is what keeps those businesses alive
and healthy. That is an unusual example because I don't know that we have that kind of
density at any other corner on Stevens Creek Btoulevard, so I don't know that you can compare
that to another mixed use project that doesn't have that kind of audience built into it. Iri that
particular case those tenants are enjoying the fact that there are a lot of other built in uses that
can get there on foot_
Chair Miller:
• He said that the Manager of La Boulangerie s~iid business is good there; however, not as good
as it was when they were across the street. Chair Miller said he attributed that to the parking
issue.
Alci Snelling:
• Said nothing mandates mixed use; it is taking ~[he language from the General Plan which states
that the Council may allow for mixed use; nothing requires it, but merely allows for the
opportunity to have the mixed use development.
Chair Miller:
• Said he understood there seemed to be a bias on staff's part to encourage mixed use when
applicants come in, and there are also discussions about, in return for doing some commercial,
they would allow them to have some residential squares as well. From the developer's
standpoint, they feel that there is that bias towards doing things in that manner and that is what
Com. Brophy was trying to address.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Com. Brophy:
• Said that when it states that an active pedestrian oriented shopping district shall have retail
uses with storefronts on the ground level, commercial uses may be allowed on the second
level, the words shall and should say that you are putting pressure on the applicant to put
retail in a multi-story building. He said he ciid not see it as letting the applicant decide for
himself.
Kelly Kline:
• Said there have been plenty of cases where the determination was made that it wasn't in the
best interest of anybody to do mixed use, and some examples of that would be where there is
not enough frontage to warrant the retail pl~ry; that you don't get enough from it to make
enough sense. It also depends on what surrou~ids it, if you have residential units on either side
and you are expecting to shoehorn in retail in between those other uses, without any
opportunity for co-tenants to be on either side, the likelihood of any success is going to be very
small and the last thing you want to do i:> set somebody up for something that is not
commercially viable. There is probably in~~reasing appreciation for what some of those
dynamics are and not forcing somebody into a situation that everyone recognizes does not
make a lot of sense.
Com. Brophy:
• If a site is such a good retail location, shouldn't we let the applicant determine that, rather than
having the staff put pressure to create; it semis to me that probably our worst retail locations
are exactly the sort that you have described; ~~ou look at the Adobe Condo project where we
have essentially a free standing vitamin shop; I think that is a tough location to work. If there
are locations in the city where mixed use works, why not let the applicants come forward and
tell us rather than having the staff start off with proof to us that it is not workable, which is my
understanding of the current policy.
Aki Snelling:
• We do try to encourage what the Council policies are to try to encourage pedestrian oriented
area along Stevens Creek Boulevard enharicing it with uses that would be financially
beneficial to the city as well. I think those are the reasons why we are trying to encourage
those types of retail uses where we do thinl~: it could work. I am not sure that we force
developers to do that, but we want to encourage that as much as possible.
Chair Miller:
• To your question before Com. Brophy, clearly there are good examples of mixed use. The
obvious one is Santana Row; you can find some examples also in downtown Palo Alto and
Mountain View.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for staff's view on the concept of continuity along a street. He said some towns have
areas where retail along the street runs into buildings with different uses; which cuts the
district in half by having a half block of some other buildings in an area that had a lively mixed
use retail on the ground. Some of the intern of the rules is to try to prevent that from
happening. Is that a big problem or not that bid; of an issue?
Alti Snelling:
• Said what part of the dra$ plan is trying to do particularly with eliminating prescriptive side
yard setbacks, is to try to create better relationships from building to building, create the
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 23, 2008
Study Session
streetscape idea, buildings that are associated better with their adjoining properties, and trying
to prevent things happening where there are different types of uses or building forms that are
disassociated with an adjacent development to prevent some continuity.
Kelly Kline:
• That can be achieved in other ways than the retail can be through design or landscaping and
other things that make it feel very hospitable ~~r interactive in some fashion. Historically, the
big traffic breakers were banks; however banks were not as externalized as they are now; they
are doing a good job of it; they are making them smaller and more customer service oriented.
Com. Brophy:
• Said the argument being made constitutes wi:;hful thinking; real estate brokers may say that
Stevens Creek is a great retail street, but what they are saying is that east of where 280 crosses
the retail along from 280 all the way up to V«lley Fair is a great area, but we don't have any
land available for large scale retail uses. What instead we have developed over the last few
years with the spaces that are in the ground floor of condos is a collection of small shops
which are fine for coffee shops, nail salons, etc., but there is a limit to how many we can put in
the town- I think the condominium projects 'built on Stevens Creek and DeAnza have been
there long enough that we can no longer use the excuse that it is just a matter of time until
retailers find what a great location they are. The market has spoken that the citizens of
Cupertino and employees have a very limited interest in shopping in places that require them
to go into parking.
• Said that they need weak locations so that ne~~v startups can eventually work their way up to
strong centers; if you drive Stevens Creek one end to another, presently there is a collection of
weak centers. There is a strong Target, a strong Whole Foods, Crossroads Center is not what
it used to be, but at least it is a decent center; but if you look at one center after another,
whether it is the Oaks or United Furniture Center, Azumas or Chucky Cheese, what we are
looking at is a collection of weak centers, and by having the Heart of the City Plan where
essentially we are if not forcing, nudging very hard, residential developers to squeeze retail in
a location that makes no sense, and we are not helping the aesthetic or the economic part of the
community.
• I have no problem with the idea that we would have mixed various types of development,
whether office or retail, or residential along ~~tevens Creek, but I think the consistent effort
within the plan is drafted to force developers to combine them all within a single structure has
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is a very difficult way to work. There is no
question that developers who have done that have done it only because the staff, Planning
Commission, and City Council have held a gun to their heads and told them that is how you
get projects approved in Cupertino.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Asked what would happen on Stevens Creek if all of the Commissioners did not support Heart
of the City.
Chair Miller:
• I had a similar question; the comments here :ire mostly addressed what is not working, but
what do you envision would work?
Com. Brophy:
• Stevens Creek Boulevard is a great street; Cupertino is a great town; builders want to do
projects in this town. I think if we looked at individual structures that are single use and
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 23, 2008
Study Session
possibly on larger parcels such as South Vallco, you might have individual buildings that are
single use but are multiple use within the overall concept. I think you would see a series of
projects come in that would be attractive anc~ would benefit the community aesthetically as
well as economically-
Vice Chair Giefer:
• How is that different; if you had projects come to us that were multiple use, how is that
different than what is being advocated in this plan, other than we are not fishing?
Com. Brophy:
• What I interpret the plan as saying, both in terms of how projects have been built here, and as I
read the language in the draft, is that we are forcing the owners of individual parcels to
squeeze multiple uses onto a site which I don't believe works in a suburban context. The idea
that we were going to do commercial or retail on the first floor, office on the second, two
floors of residential above that, I think is a concept that does not work within a suburban
location. That is what I am arguing against.
Kelly Kline:
• Said it was worth noting that they have seen ;several projects come in without any prompting
from us whatsoever that are showing the mix of uses and I don't think it is because they got
the message that is all they were approving. I think it is because the market is rewarding a
diversification and the portfolio, so that you don't have all your eggs in one basket, and so that
diversified approach to land use is working better for people now, so it is interesting to see that
there is more of that coming in on its own whc;reas before you would have to nudge for it and
now it seems to have a life of its own-
Com. Brophy:
• Said he had no objection to developers proposing them, but objected when the city essentially
tells people that is what they need to do in order to get a permit.
Chair Miller:
• You addressed the larger parcels; but for some of the smaller parcels on Stevens Creek
Boulevard, how would you guide, or what kind of rules or regulations would you have relative
to the smaller parcels.
• What is your feeling of residential on a mid-block parcel?
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would not focus on land use choice, but focus instead on landscaping or design,
whatever choice the applicant thinks the marl,_et supports and he would focus more on those
issues than trying to control what use goes on a corner parcel, what use goes on mid-block
parcel, etc.
• He compared some projects that have been built in recent years that have caused an uproar in
the community with earlier projects. The condo project at the southwest corner of Portal and
Stevens Creek has blended into the community very well; and the condo projects on Rodrigues
north of City Hall have blended into the residential area very well. Problems occurred when
high density projects requiring parking structures to support them were allowed. If the use of
parking structures was discouraged, residential might make sense on some parcels.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Chair Miller:
• Said there were two schools of thought. One: is to just allow the developer to do whatever
makes sense for a particular development; [hen you will get developers coming in more
frequently because they have more flexibility to do one type vs. the other.
• Another approach is to say that from an overall design standpoint, perhaps we do want Stevens
Creek to be, for example, primarily commercial with some office, and then you put that design
in place and you wait for the market to dictare that it is economically feasible to build it. It
takes longer for build-out, but then you get ei plan after a number of years that the city has
planned for and designed. It is the plan approach vs. we are allowing certain uses to happen
here, but we don't particularly care where they happen or at any particular point in time.
Com. Brophy:
• Said they already had a mixture of uses along :itevens Creek; residential, retail, office; it seems
that trying to master plan each parcel that somehow we are smart enough to figure out what the
best use for each parcel over the next 10 years or whatever is just unrealistic.
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed, and did not think they wanted 'to master plan each parcel.
Com. Brophy:
• To the extent that we are starting to list specific uses for each parcel, I think that is the
direction we are going in; I think to the extent. that we stick to design standards, if we stick to
maximum heights, we stick to landscaping plains consistent with the Heart of the City Plan, I
think we will end up with a quality set of buildings without having to predict ahead of time
which is the best use for any given parcel-
Chair Miller opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was concerned about losing the Longs, CVC, and Walgreens and how that would
affect where she shops. Having a discussion Hof where retail is in Cupertino is important as it
affects the retailers and the residents; if there i:> no place in Cupertino to shop, people will have
to go outside the city to shop
• Said she would like to see the entire length of Stevens Creek Boulevard have the same look
and feel. There is a plan that the Oak Shopping Center is going to have the Heart of the City
landscaping along the front of it with the nev~~ hotel complex that is going in there. It is very
important that we have and respect the full 3 5 foot public right of way setback all the way
down Stevens Creek Boulevard. I hope that vrhen we have the 35 foot right of way there, we
keep the buildings back beyond that; we don't have any accessory structures from those
buildings in the public right of way because that is what it is; it is the area where the public
walk; it is an area of enjoyment and that is what makes Cupertino contiguous. Perhaps we can
get more of that on DeAnza Boulevard although there are Hearts of the City for northern and
southern DeAnza Boulevard.
• She said there also needs to be a double row oi' Ash trees in the eastern end of Cupertino; it is a
very hot point for the South Vallco area because there are currently no trees.
• Said she was not in favor of getting rid of the side yard setbacks on lots along Stevens Creek
Blvd, which will result in a rowhouse effect, one building attached to the other all the way
down Stevens Creek. She said she didn't lil~:e to shop in places like that or like to look at
them.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 September 23, 2008
Study Session
• She urged the 45 foot height not be put up against the sidewalk and to ensure that they get
down Stevens Creek; the traffic is not so slow that we take Hwy. 280 to shop in other cities.
• There may be more time needed to study this than just tonight.
Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident:
• Said he did not feel there was enough public notice on this particular hearing, especially
something that is key to being a General Plar~ amendment and Heart of the City, which once
was a revered plan, and served a good purpose:.
• I respect Com. Brophy's comments and I am wondering where it is all going because we are
lacking input; it is one thing to say that Stevens Creek Boulevard is profitable in the eyes of
retailers, but that is zip code; if it is up near Valley Fair it is profitable, if down by Cupertino,
it is questionable. I wish it was the other cvay around; Westfield left Vallco and went to
Valley Fair and we see what happened.
• He referred to the grand boulevard project: in Santa Clara, stating what they did as a
community. They will send out a flier, a larger mailer designed for residents and businesses to
complete, and allow a generous timeframe for them to give their feedback on how they think
the city is working, where is focus needed. ]-ie said Cupertino could get feedback from both
the residential and business community on what is working, what is not, and get input,
because people are not showing up to the meetings.
• Said he has experienced parking problems at the Metropolitan and has had disagreements
with the security guards about where to park.
• Said it was unfortunate that they were losing street furniture for the walkability aspect; he said
his elderly father sits on transit benches because of lack of street furniture, and it is difficult
during commute hours.
AI diFrancesco, Cupertino resident:
• Said they are Cupertino; if they wanted to be West San Jose, they would change everything;
they would cut down the trees, would move everything right up the sidewalk and would have
nice big block. They are different and want to lie different; that is why people moved here.
• Cupertino needs something that is unique; it took 50 to 75 years to get what is on Stevens
Creek now; I don't think we want to do a lot of things that would jeopardize what it has
developed into so far. Unfortunately, Stevens (.reek is not a walkable street; the reality is that
Santana Row is very walkable once you drive There and park there. As long as we understand
that and deal with that, I think we are in good shape. We do want to keep the trees, we want to
improve what we have and not fill in. Mixed use works because the housing pays for that
empty space that never gets built.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Said the notification on the hearing has been somewhat dubious; I never received a card, nor
have my neighbors that live on the other side of the library, so many people did not know this
was going to happen. Holding a study session about 5:30 p.m. guarantees that some of the
public who are working may have a problem getting here.
• If you look down DeAnza Boulevard at Prospect, going from Saratoga into Cupertino, you see
a contrast; on the ride side you have what San :lose has been doing or lack thereof; whereas on
the left side you see a tree lined street, granl:ed that is DeAnza Boulevard but for Stevens
Creek Boulevard for the center of the city, I would prefer to see what is on the left as I drive in
vs. what I see on the right. We need to make sure we preserve the tree lined boulevard which
is the character of the city, and that is what mar-y were drawn to whenwe moved here. I don't
see this as something where we could push buildings up the street, having bee successful; it is
quite frankly suburbia.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 23, 2008
Study Session
• Stevens Creek Boulevard is a commercial c~~rridor; let's make sure everybody understands
that; I believe that business is conducted; retail is conducted along Stevens Creek, there are
some office complexes on Stevens Creek but riot predominantly; there are more retail locations
there. I don't know whether shoving retail on the bottom and putting stuff on the top really
benefits us in some ways. Some centers such as the Marketplace have done very well; we
have done something right in some of these centers; we are getting business in there.
• Try to preserve the retail along Stevens Creek; that is our main objective.
Farolch Deboo, Cupertino resident:
• Reviewed some of the past projects, and said they want things that will attract the public, not
just mall stores; they want to go to the Cypres:~ Hotel and not have to fight over parking. They
do not need the height to attract people; but wsxnt a nice traffic-less and easy to reach place and
there have been a lot of examples brought up, not everything works in every city. Palo Alto
still has a parking problem.
• Said there was a history of crime that has not been brought up; police in Vallco watch for gang
activity. In the past in Vallco Village, the restaurant was a constant source of activity with the
police; we haven't addressed the criminal activity that will come into these kinds of places and
hope it will be considered.
• Said they moved out of their condo in Cupertino because they do not feel it provided the
quality of lives they desired; however they still owned property in Cupertino and are very
interested in making Cupertino a good place to live.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Said it was originally staff's intention to make the Heart of the City Plan consistent with the
General Plan; where it is headed tonight, it is now morphing into a larger exercise, which is
not necessarily bad, but they need to decide if they want to go there. It may make sense to do
that now since it has been 13 years since the Plan was first introduced;, and there have been
many changes since then. Presently there are major developments going in at the eastern end
and perhaps some more developing going in at the western end and it may make sense to
review this and not just of and by itself, but in the context of what else is going on in the city.
He asked the Commission to comment.
Com. Kaneda:
• I support the attempt to make the two documents reconcile with each other. In many ways I
view this as an issue of long term planning and control of how a city develops vs. a free
market philosophy of letting the market decide what to do and what is best. It seems like
through the use of our General Plan and also the Heart of the City Plan that the intent has
always been to exercise some amount of contr~~l over what develops and where it develops, so
I presume if somebody decided they wanted to put a shopping mall next to Kennedy Middle
School, they wouldn't be able to do that because the city exercises control over things like
that. I know that is an extreme example but there are certain things that a city does that puts
restraints on how and where a city develops, so I am comfortable with what the city is trying to
do here and I do believe this is a very long term endeavor and I don't think we are anywhere
through how that area is gong to develop.
Chair Miller:
• Asked if they were saying they wanted to limit the exercise or want to consider some of the
concepts that Com. Brophy brought up.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Com. Kaneda:
• At this point I think I would move to approve:, if we are going to do that, we could certainly
talk about doing a full blown review, but in my mind I would rather do this as a completely
separate exercise, if we are going to take that on.
• Said he supported allowing some flexibility on the side setbacks; and was pleased with the
proposed changes to allow those setbacks to bey minimized and to be reviewed that way.
Com. Rose:
• Said the recommended updates provide a lot of consistency to an area that is going to change
in the next decade and also is full of vision, and she subscribed more to that being something
that is important when you want to get an en.d result from the development of an area is to
approach it with vision.
• Said she felt that the areas where they have seven this happen and be built, such as the Whole
Foods area and the Pane:ra Bakery, are accomf~lishing what they envisioned for that space, and
although she appreciated Com. Brophy's effort there, she felt the language allows enough
flexibility for proposals to have a single or mixed use design. If they feel strongly or are trying
to find a compromise that people can feel good about, she said she was not sure it is possible
they could highlight that concern and ask the Council to discuss it at their level, not necessarily
making a recommendation, but letting them know it was something they spent time
considering. Are they being flexible enough for a perspective developer to decide whether
they want to have a mixed use or not, which was one of Com. Brophy's main concerns. She
said she was not opposed to discussing how they could address that; it might be something to
think about moving forward. She said she was comfortable with the setback comments.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said that Com. Brophy's comments helped h~~r better understand how she viewed the entire
visioning process and where the city was headed, and it helped her define her own ideas on the
specific plan.
• The public comment also brought up some key things that are important to us as
Commissioners and also residents. I think that the vision we have of Stevens Creek that we
have been working on as a city, and specifically with regards to the landscaping and the
boulevard of improvements, I do support; I like the way it looks. I prefer the way Stevens
Creek looks in Cupertino than it does as you are driving through the other side of Hwy. 280
into Santa Clara and to San Jose. I don't want Stevens Creek to look like that; I may envy
some of the big box and mid-box retailers they have there, but I don't like the look of the
street. I think that our vision is much more conducive to the small suburban city which we are;
I think that it does encourage walkability; I see people walking along Stevens Creek at lunch
time and in the evening.
• I made several comments last time we discussed this, with regard to some specific things such
as I did support the more flexible side yard setbacks because I think if we want to encourage
walkability, we need to encourage shared drives between the buildings so we have less curb
cuts, so it is a more comfortable environment for pedestrians to walk along the sidewalks,
because you don't have to worry about cars coming out of the driveway and hitting you. I
would also encourage a very specific bike lame where we have it; there are many different
ways you could cordon off a bike lane, and I tl-ink alternative transportation is very important.
I made several comments about native plants acid water wise drought tolerant plantings that
when a developer comes to us I would like to see them use those types of water wise plantings
when they present their project to us.
• I do agree with Com. Brophy that the developer needs to come in with a project that they
believe in, and if they don't believe that mixed use is the right project for that specific area,
then we need to listen to them. If they are a developer like the developer who is coming to us
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 23, 2008
Study Session
for the redevelopment of the old HP lands, it is well connected and is trying to tenant the
project before it is built, we want to see those kinds of developers here, and if they can get that
done as well as implement our streetscape plan, I want to see that work together, because I
think we win as residents with very high quality projects along Stevens Creek.
With some very specific changes to the Plan that we can discuss tonight, I would not
recommend to Council that we reopen the entire corridor in the Specific Plan. It is a good
goal to work on this document, make it compatible with the General Plan and tweak it, provide
the flexibility and some of the enhancements that we as a group have discussed in the past,
both the last time we heard this, and with the public testimony and comments heard tonight.
Com. Brophy:
• Responding to one of Com. Kaneda's points, I don't think my comments were "free market"
in a sense that anything goes here. We have height limits, we have design limits, we have
always had a strong emphasis on implementing the city's landscape plan and nothing would
change that. Where I raise questions is tryirig to work out what is the best possible use for
any given parcel at any given time, and to that extent, I do believe the developer should be out
there gauging what is in demand, but [ don't think this is hardly a laissez-faire
recommendation.
• Several of the speakers have reiterated the importance of the landscape plan for Stevens
Creek and I don't think that is an issue; I don't think anybody has questioned that and the
desire to continue to fully implement that plan as new projects come before us. As far as
projects like Whole Foods, Panera Breads, Peets Coffee, those are single uses; those are not
complex projects and there is nothing about those projects that I think anything I have said
tonight is being critical of. What I have been saying is if you read the Heart of the City Plan
as it written, we probably should not have approved those; we should have been encouraging
mixed use on those parcels; and I don't think it was anyone's intention.
• The final point to emphasize is that Cupertino is a suburban community with suburban
densities and I think we have to limit the extent that we try to introduce urban design forms
just because either we think incorrectly in my mind that it will somehow generate lots of sales
tax dollars or because that is what that sort of planning belief that mixed use in and of itself
must be good. I don't think it is necessary to do a complete rewrite to make a General Plan
amendment and the point I tried to make in the beginning of this, is I think there are a number
of policy decisions that are not required by the General Plan and that we can incorporate in
the Specific Plan; I am opposed to forcing or strongly encouraging developers to do mixed
use on individual projects; although I think mixed use is correct; we shouldn't try to force
retail development types that have been prove~z unsuccessful along Stevens Creek through the
use of parking structures to get higher density structures because I don't think the benefits to
the community begin to outweigh the cost it would face.
Chair Miller:
Said he saw both good and bad things along StE:vens Creek. They are unanimous in saying the
landscaping plan is a good thing; the bad thing is the number of businesses that don't make it
from a commercial standpoint. He said he agreed with Com. Brophy on some points. As a
Planning Commission given that this plan wars put into effect 13 years ago and hasn't been
reviewed since then, it does deserve some input and doesn't necessarily have to be a full
review. Perhaps it should be limited to just ha~ring staff look into best practices in other cities
and why some of their projects are more successful than ours, and what they do differently.
Staff has already suggested that.
Another reason for not voting on this tonight and continuing it, is that several speakers
indicated that there wasn't sufficient noticing, hence we haven't really listened to other
potential input from the community and we would be making a decision without that input.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 September 23, 2008
Study Session
• Com. Brophy just presented more ideas here tonight and they haven't been fully digested with
time to vet them, and come back and see what makes sense and what doesn't make sense for
me personally.
• For those reasons I would encourage the Planning Commission to continue this item, have
staff do more research and come back at another hearing where we do a better job of noticing
and then try at that point in time to see if we can't wrap it up.
Aki Snelling:
• Discussed the noticing process used for the study session. She said the original noticing
because it was planned to be an update including those policies from the General Plan, was
just a legal notice in the newspaper. What it rnorphed into with the study session inviting the
public, we sent out courtesy notices, not public hearing notices, to capture all of the property
owners and occupants within the Heart of the City that would be directly affected by this and a
500 foot radius beyond that. No citywide courtesy notice was sent.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Suggested they increase the noticing to citywide if they decide to open up the Heart of the City
and look to make substantial changes to it; if eve were considering doing things that would be
above and beyond General Plan conformance. It is a well established plan that is a known
vehicle and has been around and implemented ].°or the past 13 years, if not longer.
• If we are just trying to tune it so it is compatible with the General Plan, I don't think we need
further noticing, though we generally like to let. people know what we are doing and appreciate
the public input.
• I support looking at it regarding the General Plain conformance and keeping it smaller.
• She suggested that they discuss some issues 1:hat were discussed at the last meeting, before
making a decision on how to proceed.
Flexible side yard setbacks. (Chair Miller stated there was a majority on that)
The use of native and water-wise plants anal specific project landscaping; no change to the
treescape.
Improving bike traffic.
Street furniture -staff said at the last meeting they would work on getting the furniture
out there; however, it was suggested to lie struck from the Plan. Need to decide if we
want the furniture or not.
The concept of specifically prohibiting drive thrus in the area; If we want to have a grand
Boulevard we don't want drive thru burgers and coffee shops off Stevens Creek.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff to elaborate on what the stree tscape is supposed to be that has not been
implemented.
Alci Snelling:
• What you see in the current Plan as it exists now is a number of photos of specific types of
furniture shown with specific types of materials; I think there are specific numbers associated
with the type of bench for example that is supposed to be out there; and that has never been
implemented to require that and so the rationale was that if it is not being implemented, it is
obsolete, so that is why it was taken out.
• With the new plan, the pedestrian orientation rind getting the street and pedestrian orientation
with the tables and chairs is being stressed. One of the problems with the existing plan is that
there was no specific language stating how many and where the street furniture would be
placed.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked the Commission if they wanted to propose a change to require more specific language
about the placement of street fimiiture in the c ity.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she found language on a plan she had from the past. It calls for having fumiture per the
Plan; it does not specify how far apart the furniture should be placed.
Chair Miller:
• Clarified that the meeting was advertised as a Study Session, and not an application; and
questioned whether it was correct to vote on the issue.
Alci Snelling:
• Said they were permitted to vote on whether or not to recommend approval to the City
Council; continue the Study Session, or ask thc: Council for additional direction.
Com. Rose:
• I feel we are in a position to wrap it up; but would like a condition that staff could recommend
to the Council some language that would allow them to encourage street furniture.
• The issue of drive thrus on Stevens Creek Boulevard was not discussed.
Com. Brophy:
• I have a series of clauses that I think I would like to see changed; I think it is a good idea to
move forward because we have busy agendas coming up in the months ahead. If we can go
through any issues any of us have and send it too the Council as amended, that would be fine.
Chair Miller:
• Said he was in the minority and did not see an~~ reason to rush through this; they are a Planning
Commission and it is a planning exercise; the~~ haven't taken input from the entire community
and haven't had a chance to digest the comments that Com. Brophy brought to the meeting.
This is a very important part of the city and he said it didn't seem to be appropriate to do that.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he felt convinced about that; and he held expressed his concern earlier as the newest
member of the Commission that they spend a disproportionate amount of their time on trivial
issues and the broad issues that will shape they community tend to slide through quickly. He
said if the role of the Planning Conmiission is to plan, he would change his mind and agree
with Chair Miller, although it still left one vote short.
Com. Rose:
• Asked Chair Miller what items he would like to pursue in another meeting, rather than finalize
it tonight.
Chair Miller:
• Said that he felt Com. Brophy brought up a very significant issue that they have approved a
number of unsuccessful projects on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
• Reiterated that he was uncomfortable with :moving forward because he felt they did not
properly vet the issue. He said he would rather have a continuance, have staff do more
research, and they all look at the issues brou;~ht up tonight and have staff return with some
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 September 23, 2008
Study Session
recommendations and discuss it one more time. It is an important part of the city, and it
makes sense for the Planning Commission to spend more time on it_
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she felt they were not rushing through the Plan_ It is a known plan that has been around
for years; and they have seen it implemented. The document is largely flexible to provide
single tenant use, such as Whole Foods and P;anera/Peets, but it is also flexible enough so that
somebody can come in with a mixed use project, if that is what they choose.
• I agree with what Chair Miller said, that we need to understand as a Commission what makes a
mixed use project successful, and what makes. a mixed use project unsuccessful; because I do
view this as a very flexible plan, I don't know that it will preclude us from making decisions,
or that it will significantly change this p tan. One of the examples brought up was
redevelopment of the Adobe Restaurant site. ~~ouncil very strongly wanted some token mixed
use in that project and that is what we got. R~hen we make up our minds that this is the only
kind of development that goes in there, I agree: that it is not the right way for us to go, but that
is on aproject-by-project basis; this is a specific plan for a specific area in the city; it is not
unlike Vallco South or Vallco North plan that we have. Every project that comes to us will be
approved individually; and I agree we need further education on what makes a mixed use
project successful or not, so that we can make better decisions as we approve every project that
comes before us.
• Said she did not feel they were acting in hasbe if they move along the project, provided that
specific issues can be addressed this evening ~cnd they are comfortable with the language, and
can conclude that
Chair Miller:
• He reiterated that his position differed and lie was uncomfortable moving forward without
hearing everything and understanding the many issues Com. Brophy presented at the present
meeting.
Com. Kaneda:
• Chair Miller is asking about staff getting some input as to what things may work and may not
work. Is that something we can get informatie~n on about what will probably or potentially be
successful or is this something that is very difficult to tell. If we continue, will staff be able to
come back with something that will actually €;ive us better information to base a decision on,
or is this one of these things for the most part, ~~nly time will tell.
• Said he felt the real issue is do you require retailing along that corridor and if people want to
build other things, they have to have retailing plus the other things which makes it mixed use,
or alternatively they have retailing which is ~~hat we have in some cases. 7n my mind that is
what a big part of the discussion is boiling down to; are we requiring areas to have retailing so
you get that density of retailing along the street. If it is continued, will the extra time be useful
to get more information to make better decisions.
Kelly Kline:
• Said it was a million dollar question of what makes mixed use successful. There is a list of
things that will make it more successful and a list that if you don't consider, are definitely
going to make the project challenged. It is something you have to look at on a case-by-case
basis, when it comes forward.
Com. Brophy:
• In the 25 years in retail development, my experience has been that the percentage of mixed use
projects that have been successful, has not gone up, the learning curve has been slow. We live
Cupertino Planning Couniiission 18 September 23, 2008
Study Session
by the words of our General Plan, our Specific Plans, our zoning ordinances; and to the extent
we tend to slide through on these issues in the desire to deal with specific applications before
us, we wind up creating language that we live ley and we never really fully analyze. At the risk
of delaying this; I think Chair Miller has convinced me that I was wrong and I think it is
important that we consider, we just not send this on, but look at the language specifically.
There are several clauses in here that have very strong emphasis on mixed use development;
and to say that the staff will, if we don't think this is the right site, we won't enforce that
clause. That says to me that we have already abrogated the right to the staff to emphasis
mixed use structures, which I have said I thin]< is a mistake. I think if we don't focus on the
specific documents that control the applications before us, it will come back to regret it. I
concur with Chair Miller to look at this document in more detail and deal with any specific
changes to the language that any of us would wish our colleagues to consider.
Chair Miller:
• Proposed that staff get all the input and attempt writing language; look at what is happening on
El Camino and any other input we could get i:n terms of what other people are doing on their
major through street, and do more noticing than we have in the past and hear it one more time.
• Vice Chair Giefer suggested there by no drive thrus, improve walkability and biking,
comments from Com. Brophy about specific language, Com. Kaneda wants to address the
street furniture issue and whatever comments Com. Rose would like to add.
• Reiterated that he needed more time to study C:om. Brophy's comments, and saw no reason to
rush to judgment until he thought more about them.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Initially, three Commissioners were supportive; of working with the Plan and working toward
General Plan conformance. Com. Brophy made some good comments and suggestions on how
to move forward with this; but what I have~i't heard specifically is what other things are
missing or what other discussion points the other Commissioners would like to have held,
because it seems a number of them brought up can be resolved this evening. Com. Brophy
made some over-arching issues that would greatly change the nature of the document, and
potentially make it less walkable in my opinion., which I am not comfortable with.
• The Stevens Creek corridor being less walkable is a concern if we move forward on those. I
have not heard enough from the other Commissioners about specific things they would want
added to or changed and fortunately I do have any notes from our first meeting on it with some
very specifics regarding page numbers etc. I halve not given up on trying to move it forward.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he did not feel his comments made it less walkable; Stevens Creek is inherently not a
particular walkable street; putting vacant commercial spaces that have little or no chance of
being occupied by productive uses will not make it more walkable. He said the changes he
suggested are not an attempt to modify the General Plan or to go against the General Plan, but
he sees the language that is an attempt to extend the staff's position on what should be in the
Heart of the City above and beyond what is already in the General Plan. Those are the areas of
his concern that he would like to address.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Chair Miller, to continue Application SPA-
2008-01 to the October 7, 2008 Planning Commission meeting in order to put
together a list of any proposed amendments to the staff document. (Vote: 2-3-0,
failed)
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve Application SPA-
2008-01 with the following modifical:ions:
That the Plan includes flexible side yard setbacks;
• That there by no drive-thru businesses permitted along the Stevens Creek
Heart of the City corridor;
For consistency with the General Plan, native plants and water-wise
landscaping with drip systems sire encouraged on specific projects that move
forward under this plan;
That there is no change to the treescape;
That a separate bike lane be added along Stevens Creek Boulevard;
• Staff make a recommendation with regards to the placement and frequency
of street furniture;
With regard to fencing materials, Pages 2-91, that in addition to no chain
link fences, no barbed wire or razor wire be allowed on Stevens Creek;
With regard to HVAC systems .on Page 2-68, that all HVAC systems must be
screened from the street below.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff to clarify that the streetscaping plan has trees, grass and meandering sidewalks;
and all is not native landscaping and not particularly drought tolerant. There is consensus that
they don't want to change that even though it is not; I want to make sure that I understand that
when Com. Giefer is suggesting drought tolerant landscaping and things like that; how does
that work as far as the delineation; is that in they public way and therefore not part of the project
even though it needs to be done by the project?
Aki Snelling:
• It is not a contradiction to do that. In the Crossroads area in the draft plan it already talks
about using the native plants and shrubs along with those types of trees. One of the things the
landscaper would have to look at on a specific development is to make sure whatever drought
tolerant native species they pick for shrubbery or ground cover, works with that particular tree.
Com. Kaneda:
• Are those two completely different zones within the development as far as, if we are making
this blanket statement that they are supposed to be doing drought tolerant landscaping, and
then they are required to put the planting in that they are required to put in along the street,
how do we make it clear that it is exempt or is it implied through some other mechanism that it
is exempt.
Aki Snelling:
• If you look at the streetscape concept and their specific types of trees and what you are saying
is not to vary from those specific types of trees and speak only to the ground cover and
shrubbery around that. The Plan does address what kind of ground cover and shrubbery you
could have around that. We could add language to specify that difference; that there is no
change in that specific type of tree for those particular areas; but this is only having to deal
with shrubbery and ground cover.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Noted on the streetscape concept, Page 2-17 (Page 12 of Plan), it shows when it is appropriate
to use which trees in the Heart of the City diagram. Those areas we would stick to the
landscaping plan, the areas near the boulevard, and that is not the area where I am talking
about using drought tolerant landscaping.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Com. Kaneda:
• I know that is the intent, I just wanted to make sure that it is stated clearly what your intent is.
It needs to be clear that it is outside the tree l;~and, it is the area that is set back on the private
property; the intent should be that you follow that tree landscaping plan, and once you get out
of that area then you get drought tolerant landscaping.
Com. Brophy:
• Section 1 - If the idea is to allow the developers to do a mixed projects but not that the city
bludgeon them; I would like to on Page 1-55 (red lined version; Policy Framework) I would
like to strike the paragraph 1 which is proposed to be added, where there is language about
mixed ... the language "of retail with storefronts in the ground level; commercial uses on the
second level ... " 'to allow us to look at each project individually without the presumption that
mixed use is required.
• Strike Para. 3, "on or near intersections shall have a neighborhood commercial component; "
I think we should not pressure people to do retail; but look at individual applications as they
come.
• Page 1-58, just General Plan language, but I think it is going to come back to bite us one day;
the last sentence where they add the sentence "require shared parking agreements ... Shared
parking requirements. "Anyone who has been to Target or Whole Foods or Marina knows that
there is not a surplus of parking there and v~~e should be reluctant to be not only reducing
parking requirements, but practically requiring that the parking be reduced.
• Page 1-66, paragraph that has been inserted next to last paragraph recommending projects such
as Adobe Terrace, Marketplace and Verona as examples of what we want to see more of.
Those are good examples of what we want to s~se less of; suggest that the paragraph be deleted.
• Page 1-74, under B Parking, Subsection 1, strike the language "subsurface parking is highly
recommended. " It is an encouragement at higher density that is counter productive to the
desired physical appearance for Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Com. Kaneda:
• Relative to Com. Brophy's suggested changes/deletions, he said he did not agree with the
shared parking; said he could live with underground parking.
• Page 1-66: strike that.
• Page 1-56, Para 3, Policies, (page 8 of 57) "parcels on or near intersections on Stevens Creek
Boulevard area shall have neighborhood com~~rrercial component" -More thought is needed
on this.
Com. Rose:
• I have all the same.
• Page 1-56 Para 3 -neighborhood commercial component - I don't have a strong opinion on
that; the sentence is a mandate, that it shall h«ve it; suggested "if it could have it, "make it
more flexible so that it is something that i;> looked at each intersection and considered
individually;
• Com. Brophy was suggesting striking it; if we are just going to change "shale' to "may" we
already can do that without that sentence.
Chair Miller-
s Said he did not think they should be doing or not doing something just because it is in the
General Plan; the intent here is to try to improve something_
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Com. Rose:
• Said it was the same language that is in the Plan; she felt they should move forward with
keeping it consistent.
Chair Miller:
• Com. Rose said she would rather not do that o~ie.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would have to give it more thought. He said he could support softening it some, but
thought the concept was to encourage deveaopment of neighborhood commercial projects
along this area. Said if they were going to cto it, he supported it whether you say "shall "
which means you don't have a choice, you must do it; Said he did not like "could -change to
"should "
Com. Rose: Support "should"
Com. Brophy:
• Shall is the same as should; your choices are really "shale' or "may"
Com. Kaneda: Stay with "should "
Com. Rose:
• Page 1-58; "required shared parking in the Crossroads area ... "Supports leaving it in.
• Page 1-74 -subsurface parking issue: okay with getting rid of it.
Com. Brophy: Strike it.
Com. Kaneda: Leave it.
Page I-SS. Striking Para. l:
Com. Rose:
• Comfortable with making it more flexible o f a statement; I like the statement in there; I
appreciate what the language is mandating with the word "shall" but perhaps Com. Brophy
would be more comfortable if we just change the language so that it is "recommended" or
"encouraged" but not necessarily that it "must have ".
Com. Brophy:
• I would resist that, but if I need to get that for 3 votes on this, I would say that.
Com. Kaneda:
• Keep it the way it is; I like "shall"
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Page 1-55; Under the Policies land use economic goal, rewrite that to develop a Heart of the
City that provides a variety of land use opportunities that include mixed use, enhanced activity
nodes, etc. and then leave it the way it is. Fw-ther down the page, I am ambivalent between
"shall" and "should" but would like the end of that to be "limited residential uses may be
allowed ". I would soften it as opposed to making it absolute that they are allowed; it has to
make sense with the criteria that is laid out in this part. I would not delete the descriptors of
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 September 23, 2008
Study Session
where these are applied in the Heart of the City, hence would keep the following paragraphs
below that.
• Page 1-56, change that to "should" but listening to Com. Kaneda, I will stay with "shall."
Would also keep 4.5 in because it is in the General Plan.
• On Page 1-58, with regards to strategy, add the following language to the additional language
which is in the General Plan that makes it n-iore clear in terms of what the city's intent is:
"Required shared parking agreements in the Crossroads area with overall parking standards
reduced to reflect shared parking agreements• in mixed use projects" because I believe that
was the intent of the General Plan Task Force when we put that language in.
• Page 1-66, would support striking the .paragraph that Com. Brophy brought to our attention
with the examples. I am comfortable with that..
• Page 1-74, Regarding surface parking lots and subsurface, change "subsurface parking is
highly recommended" to say that "it is recommended".
Chair Miller:
• Page 1-74, what is the feeling about removing 1:he word "highly"
Com. Kaneda and Com. Rose: Support the deletion.
Chair Miller:
• There is general agreement on removing the paragraph on Page 1-66 which begins "while
progress has been made ....." (Page 18)
• Page 1-58, Vice Chair Giefer suggested adding the words "in mixed use projects"
Com. Kaneda and Com. Rose: Support the wording.
Chair Miller:
• Not enough votes for removing Item 3 on Page 1-56; it stands the way it is. ("shall')
Com. Kaneda: Said "shall "was acceptable.
Staff: Said it is "shall " in the General Plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Suggested a different modification to Page 1-55, to make it more of an inventory of
appropriate uses and that it should read under Land Use Economic Goal "develop a Heart of
the City that provides a variety of Zand use opportunities that include mixed use, enhanced
activity nodes and safe and efficient circulation .... '
Com. Kaneda and Com. Rose: Support the amendment.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Page, 1-55; Policies, under No. 1, first subparagraph for Crossroads: change "shale' to
"should" in the third line down, between "DeAnza Boulevard and Stelling Road development
should have retail uses" because I do want it to be flexible. If it doesn't make sense, I do not
want to force someone's hand. Additionally iri the same paragraph, the last sentence "limited
residential uses may be allowed"
Com. Kaneda and Com. Rose: Support the language.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 September 23, 2008
Study Session
Chair Miller:
• Summarized there was a majority for leaving the setbacks flexible; all agreed about the street
furniture issue, the trees, and the bike path-
Com. Brophy:
• Relative to bike paths, I would favor at least ~i full paragraph to emphasize the importance of
upgrading the quality of the bicycling experience on Stevens Creek Boulevard. It needs to be
addressed more than what is done on two lane :roads.
Vice Chair Giefer: Said the motion said a specific; lane for bicycles.
Com. Rose: Said she supported the general language.
Com. Brophy:
• Saida serious effort was needed to make Stevens Creek a bicycle friendly area. Said he
supported general language.
Kelly Kline:
• The comment I would like to make on the drive thrus is that you might want to have some
flexibility in the language for things you may not anticipate; for example, while you may not
want the In N Out Burger, you might want the drugstore that was discussed on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and your likelihood of getting a dnugstore on Stevens Creek Boulevard ever again
without having a drive thru is about less than zero. There might be occasions on which you
would want to consider it; my suggestion would be to use language that it be discouraged or it
provides for a higher level of review for a drive through so that it can't slip through the cracks
that there is a full vetting of that at this level. I just would say don't exclude options that you
might have wanted to consider by having the carte blanche.
Com. Brophy:
• Suggested language "drive thru lanes shall be discouraged"
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Asked staff to clarify the process if In and Out Burger came to them; they would have to
review that specific project for compatibility, at which point they could make up their minds if
a drive thru was appropriate. She said she would not be comfortable with that; but if a
Walgreens or another drugstore wanted to come back on it, she would support it. It would not
face onto Stevens Creek.
Alci Snelling:
• Any new development project coming througih to the city in the Heart of the City must go
through Planning Commission and City Council.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Com. Brophy said that drive thru lanes are discouraged on Stevens Creek; she said she agreed
that was strong enough language.
Com. Rose and Com. Kaneda: Both agreed-
Amended Motion:
• Vice Chair Giefer who presented the motion, and Com. Rose who seconded the motion,
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 September 23, 2008
Study Session
accepted all changes.
(Vote: Vote not stated on recorder)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported the: main point of discussion was the South Vallco
Master Plan.
Mayors Monthly MeetinE With Commissioners:
Chair Miller reported:
• Very few Commissions were represented at they meeting.
• There is a vacancy rate for office at less than 3% of the city; she mentioned that we will be
hiring a new City Attorney in November.
• October 18 is recycle day at DeAnza College
• Telecommunications Commission is looking :into solar in some various aspects and pointed
out that presently every building or facility is metered separately, and even though some might
be under the same ownership, they still are treated as separate entities by the utility company
and cannot be aggregated to get reduced rates or higher rates.
• The Library Commission reported a record tuniout of 2500 children during the summer for the
reading programs.
• The seniors are studying how they use the parks to come up with some recommendations on
future uses.
• The Parks and Rec Commission is reviewing a dog park.
• Fine Arts Commission held an auction the evening before the Fall Festival.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
Report of the Director of Community Development: No additional report.
ADJOiIRNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting
at 6:45 p.m. on October 14, 2008.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabet s, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: October I4, 2008