Loading...
PC 11-12-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 2002 SALUTETOTHEFLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Wong, Chairpersou Corr Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Glenn Goepfert, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 26, 2002 Planning Commission minutes: - Page 12, Line 4 of Paragraph 2: Policy 5-401 should read "Policy 5-41" - Page 14, Item 4: Com. Wong asked that his comments regarding charging tines tbr illegal units, and staff's response be included in the context. - Page 12, motion made on Application EA-2002-07, should read: MOTION: "Coin. Wong" moved approval of Application EA-2002-07" (Not Chair Corr) The ameuded August 26 minutes will be resubmitted for approval. September 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes: - Correct Com. Saadati's name spelling in text on Page 1 - Page 2, third paragraph should read: "Com. Chen said she felt ..... " "that her initial concern - Page 2, fourth paragraph should read: "Com. Saadati said that overall ..... " - Page 4, 3rd paragraph, Line 2: Com. Wong noted that the record should indicate his concern about closing off the driveway; that the reason for his concern was regarding emergency vehicles and that the public safety officials felt that it was acceptable to have the driveway closed. - Page 6: Relative to Coin. Wong's report on the Mayor's breakfast, he stated that staff explained that Coin. Wong did uot receive notification of the mayor's breakfast because of a mixup in the e-mails. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve the September 9, 2002 Planniug Commission minutes as amended. Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 12, 2002 September 23, 2002 Study Session - Page 2: Revise content to include Com. Wong's and Coin. Sadaati's comments in the text. Also Com. Saadati's comments about the newspaper racks were not included. - Coin. Auerbach: Page 3, second paragraph - Remove sentence "Businesses are being governed by quarterly results and the effect is seen." Start the next sentence "What if the city doesn't want to be bound simply by LOS in this area? - Page 3: Third paragraph, second last line "it downtown" should read "a downtown" - Page 3: Fourth paragraph from bottom of page: change tunnel through to '~tunnel through" - Page 4: Correct spelling of Mr. Watkins name. The amended September 9th minutes will be resubmitted for approval. September 23, 2002 Phtnning Commission meeting: - Page 2: Com. Wong requested that the commissioners' questious be iuclnded, with staff responses. - Page 6: Paragraph 3, "60,000 acres" should read "4,000 acres" - Paragraph 3, Page 6: Com. Auerbach said missing from his remarks was his response to Mr. McCarthy's contention that approval would lead to urban sprawl; and Com. Auerbach observed that Oak Valley was tile classic definition of sprawl. Tile audio tapes will be reviewed lbr the accurate comment. - Page 6, paragraph 5: Chair Corr asked that his comments relative to tile Adler's view being obstructed, be included. The audio tapes will be reviewed for correction. Tile amended September 23 Planning Commission ineeting minutes will be resubmitted tbr approval. October 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting: - Page 5, 4~h Paragraph - Coin. Auerbach said that Mr. Childress' answers were responses to his question on the green building aspects of the library, and should reflect that. - Com. Auerbach also asked that the record reflect he concluded by congratulating Mr. Childress oil what looks like a model building. - Page 2: Com. Wong asked that the question be listed relative to tile YMCA application. - Page 3: 4"' paragraph: Coin. Wong said that regarding reducing tile noise from the back area, tile comment should be specific that the noise was because of actious that were takeu late at night because of trespassing and also there were motor homes trespassiug, parking illegally at night, as stated by the Executive Director; which is ~vhy the mitigating factors staff suggested appropriate. The amended October 14'h minutes will be resubmitted for approval. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-08, EA-2002-18 Barry Watkins 20755 Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Commission Minutes _3 November 12, 2002 Use Permit to demolish a service station and construct an 11,000 square foot comlnercial building and adjacent site improvements (Bottegas Shopping Center) Tentative City Council Date: December 2, 2002 Applicant requests' postponement to Planning Commission meeting ~?/'Novemher 25, 2002 MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to postpone Application Nos. U-2002-08, EA-2002-18 to the November 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. SECOND: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Locatiou: TM-2002-04, M-2002-08, EA-2002-19 Don Bragg (Verona Apts) 30452 Stevens Creek Bonlevard Tentative map for 205 condominium units and four commercial units on an approved apartment/retail building site. Modification to a use permit (6-U-00) for a 206-unit apartment/retail complex to allow 'For Rent' Condominiums. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application lbr a tentative map lbr 206 condominium units, four commercial units aud one lot held in common at 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard; and a modification to the use permit to allow the rental of the condominium units. The original approval was for apartment rental units, and modification of the use permit is needed to modify the use for 'for reut' condominiums. The Planuing Commission recommendations and actions will be forwarded to the City Couucil on November 18. Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed the site location and noted that staff requested the removal of the word "vesting" from the tentative map sheets as a condition of approval. Stall' recommends that the Plauning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Applications TM-2002- 04, M-2002-08, and EA-2002-19. Com. Auerbach said he understood it was a technical matter to aide the applicant in financing arrangements for the property; there were no 'gotchas' in terms of doing this; as several councihnembers expressed a preference for having the units sold, but it was not occurring. Ms. Gil said it was correct; their application states that it would be simply for financing purposes; and although they have uo intent at this time, it does not mean that they may not coine back and ask to amend the use permit again and sell the condos. They will have that opportnnity with the tentative map. Com. Chen confirmed that it was originally reviewed as a rental unit, with the analysis based on renting out the units; if it is different from condo analysis in terms of traffic, environmental impact, she said she did not know if the change would create an impact in the neighborhood. Ms. Gil said she did not think it would be the same number of occupants; aud did not feel that it would create more traffic because they are ownership units. Relative to the building itsell; staff Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 12, 2002 has asked for a letter from the architect stating that the units have been constructed tbr condo standards. The building department has looked at it and does not see a problem. Mr. Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director of Public works, said that Public Works did not feel there would be any net change in traffic impacts. The project was built to condo standards, and there is no net change other than the way the condos are now held. He said Public Works did not perceive any problems. Com. Chen questioned the difference in renting out condo units; as there is no restriction in renting out condos individually or renting out apartments; they are managed centrally by a group. She also questioned why it had to go to the Planning Commission. Ms. Gil said the difference was with the condo map, they can actually sell tile units individually although they are not choosing to do so at this time, and the other apartment units over in the City Center area are both condo mapped, and are rented out. If for some reason tile applicant shonld ever fall upon hard times and the bank reclaimed the units, they could sell those and not have to keep them as rental units, which would make financing easier. Com. Chen asked if they decided to sell them, would they have to come back to Planuing Commission and change the rental condo to individual condos? Ms. Gil said they do not have to change the tentative map; they would have to modify the use permit one final time. 'File use permit is modified to acknowledge them as 'for rent' condos. If they chose to sell them, staff would modify that and have them as ownership condos or 'for sale' condos, and would have to come back to Planning Commission for approval. Com. Wong asked that since the City Council has expressed a concern about having more units available for sale, was there a way the Planning Commission could also encourage the applicant to have more units for sale. Ms. Gil said that the statement could be included, as they were going through the General Plan process at this time. Chair Corr said that it was well documented that the Planning Commissioners were in Ihvor o1' having more 'for sale' units available. In the hearing process, the commissioners expressed tile need for more 'for sale' units, but the developer wanted to retain them as rental units. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, said that the Planning Commission could encourage tile applicant and the applicant could take it into consideration. He said the use permit could be amended to allow them to sell the units, rather than having to come back should they decide to do that. That would open it up, with a use permit that allows 'for rent' condos or 'l'or sale' condos, whatever the applicant chooses. He said that they would like to see it happen since they recognize that it is an industry trend for financial institutions to ask that apartments are mapped, and it encourages the building of condos and rental condos. Without it, there may be a reluctance to finance, resulting in fewer units constructed, especially apartments. Fie said it was a positive thing to do as it is consistent with where the financial industry is relative to these kinds ot' projects, and they would like to support them as much as possible. Com. Saadati said he supported the motion to modify the use permit to allow tile option of selling the units, and said that it was not necessary to have it come back. Com. Auerbacb questioned if there bad been changes in the liability laws that some developers were reluctant to produce 'for sale' units as condos. Mr. Piasecki said there bad been some Planning Commission Minutes S November 12, 2002 changes as it was an open forum in the past where the townhouse or condo developer could be cballenged, but he was not certain of the extent of the changes. Com. Wong reported there was legislation in the pipeline in Sacramento to limit the liability since there has been no encouragement to build condos because of that liability; but he was not sure when the legislation was coming up. The applicant did not speak. Cbair Corr opeued tbe Ineeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Auerbacb said he was in favor of approval, and that changing tbe nse permit now would demonstrate their interest in 'for sale' units, and he was in favor of that. Corns. Chen, Saadati and Wong concurred. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application EA-2002-19 Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 SECOND: VOTE: Coin. Auerbach moved to approve Applications M-2002-04 and M-2002-08 with the addition to simultaneously amend tbe use permit to allow 'for sale' condo units (in addition to 'for rent' or 'for sale' condos; their option) Coin. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the recommendation will be forwarded to City Conncil on Nov. 18, 2002. Application No.: Applicant: Location: EA-2002-21 City of Cupertino Mary Avenue right-of-way across Interstate 280 between Homestead Road and Meteor Drive Environmental assessment for a pedestrian and bicycle footbridge and related site and landscaping improvements Tentative City Council date: November 18, 2002 Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the application for environmental assessment for a pedestrian and bicycle footbridge and related site and landscaping improvements, as outlined in the staff report. He illustrated the photo simulations of the proposed bridge structure, with views of the barrier landscaping, sound wall and buffer zone. He noted that some items were not completely addressed because the final design was not prepared yet; hence there is additional geological review needed at the building stage, and there is also concern that the lighting be designed in a way that is adequate for safety with minimal impact on tbe neigbbors. These will be added as mitigation, and staff is recommending that the Planning Com,nission recommend to the City Council to approve the mitigated negative declaration based on the recommendation by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). Staff answered Planning Commissioners' questions as summarized below: Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 12, 2002 Com. Saadati said there was a reference to some pesticides to keep the weeds down, and questioned if testing was done to determine the level, if any. Mr. Goepfert said be did not believe any testing was done, but there will be further studies for a final design. He said he did not think there was a specific recommendation, but the concern is to be able to landscape and have the maintenance as simple as possible. He said that particular aspect had not been fully explored. Com. Saadati had questions related to the design. Ms. Sbrivastava said that part of the anchor was for the suspension bridge and the back anchors will be tied to the wall. Com. Saadati said that usually the anchor is a huge deadman in the ground. Ms. Shrivastava said that tile t'easibility study estimated that there would be enough dead weight with the soil bebind the walls to take care of the strong requirement for a very heavy deadman. Com. Saadati expressed concern with the 8-10 toot wall height, and said that if there is a major earthquake, there needs to be assurance tbat the damage doesn't impact the bridge stability. Mr. Goepfert said that the type that was preliminarily selected is not the only solution, but tile preferred solution; and part of the request for proposal is asking for design services that would explore that as a possible problem. Further seismic studies will be undertaken. He said it was his opinion that a significant kind of signatt~re structure could be had with the suspension type bridge; and further studies on the final design would show if there would be any seismic problems. He said he felt it was mentioned specifically as a potential hard spot. Com. Saadati referred to the maintenance of the shrubs, and asked if the city will ensure that they are properly maintained, since past experience with ground covers at some schools was that over time the ground covers died. He also questioned if tbe shrubs would be sturdy enough. Mr. Goepfert said the city would maintain the landscape, and that the recommendation is for the plants to be Iow maintenance and drought resistant, but it would depend on the kind of activity there and how well the plants are established. Part of the idea as well is to buffer the residential areas, so special care will be taken to make sure that it is maintained. In response Com. Saadati's question about anti-graffiti coating, Mr. Goepfert said that hopefully it would be effective; and noted that the suspension bridge would have less potential for having surfaces prone to graffiti. Mr. Piasecki suggested that if feasible, the wall actually be planted out. He said there should be a philosophy of no blank walls in this community, so that palettes for graffiti are not provided. He said tbat if the wall was planted out, it would be more attractive and eliminate the opportunity for graffiti. Com. Wong questioned the reason for the buffer road zone for the patrol car maintenance. Mr. Goepfert said that it was partially for security; and to discourage elicit uses, encampments, etc., but also on the south side there is a need for access for a Santa Clara Valley Water District facility. Hopefully it is not used unnecessarily, since having the road in tile buffer area is something the neighbors would not be happy about. He said be was unsure of what type o1' enforcement was planned, and he did not know if it would be realistic to have any condition placed upon it. Com. Wong questioned what type of meetings were held with the residents of Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and asked if suggestions were overlooked. He said it was a good report relative to the mitigating factors and asked if there was support of the plan, and if the issues were addressed. Mr. Goepfert said that there were extensive meetings held, although he was not a party to them; the geometry of the pathway and planning for placing the patbway for buffers with residential Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 12, 2002 areas were a result of specific reactions to some of the public input. stage they would go back to the public again. Com. Auerbach had no questions. He said itl the final design Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mrs. Anna Polman-Black, Gardena Drive, said that she was a bridge committee member and said there had been a.feasibility meeting held where everyone said it was not in tile best interest o[ the public to have a bridge located there. Sire recalled that about five years ago, another bridge in tile area was voted against, and she questioned why it is being brought up again since so many residents were against having a bridge. She said students will go to the bridge and park their cars there, and also that tile storage lot owners were opposed to tile bridge. Ms. Pohnan-Black said shc felt tire City Council was over-achieving in the housing program and the projects; and she did not feel that every nook and cranny in the city should be filled up. She questioned the benefit o1' having trails and bike paths when there was no more air to breathe. She said that tile City Council should reconsider its intentions in the housing program as there were no parking spaces when events are held at the college and streets are roped off. Chair Corr closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Saadati said he supported the mitigated negative declaration, and felt tire design and landscaping and wall design helps to maintain privacy and is consistent with regionally what they were attempting to accomplish to connect all the communities with biking and walking. He said it was an attractive bridge, with still a long way to get funding. Com. Wong concurred, and said he looked forward to riding a bicycle down Homestead across Mary Avenue and down to Memorial Park with his young daughter when she was older. He said it would also provide the opportunity for the Homestead High School students to walk over tile bridge to get to the Oaks Shopping Center. He said he felt it was a well designed bridge, landscaped well; and the mitigating factors for the neighborhood were well thought through, and he strongly supported the project. Com. Auerbach concurred and said it was an outstanding report. He said the bridge was an excellent project which he strongly endorsed. He commented o ~ the cost of the project compared to the cost of Caltrans overpasses, and said that it was a worthy expenditure for tile pedestrians. Com. Chen said she strongly supported the project and concurred with her colleagues. Chair Corr agreed that it was a good project. He said tile berms were built up for years and then the road was to go in, and because the community was opposed, it left Mary Avenue running 18 lanes up to a hill; and that this at least gives somewhere to go when you get down to the end of the hill. He agreed that it was a well designed project, and said he looked forward to seeing the final design. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to recommend that the City Council approve the negative declaration based on the recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 12, 2002 3. Application Nos.: U-2002-09, EA-2002-22 Applicant: Richard Pedley Location: 26172 Granada Avenue Use Permit to demolish a residence and construct a two-story mixed use dental office and one bedroom apartment consisting of 2,665 square feet Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish a 1,468 square foot single family home and construct a 2,665 square foot two story mixed use development consisting of a dental office and a one bedroom apartment. A condition has been included regarding shared parking, and a condition has been added limiting tile dental off, ce to three full time employees and only two patients visiting tile facility at any given time. Staff' recommends approval of the application; Planning Commission action is final unless appealed. Ms. Gil discussed the two main areas of focus, parking and building design. Originally the applicant had requested a false door on the left side; Larry Cannon, consultant, requested that the applicant remove the false door and place a carriage light and signage there. Although higher than adjacent buildings, staff is not concerned since tile proposed buildings' roof slopes away from the street, thereby giving the appearance of a shorter building when viewed from the street. There are restrictions limiting the number of patients to two visiting at any given time; and restricting the number of employees on site to three. The site only accommodates six parking stalls including the garage. The applicant plans to live in tile apartment onit with the dental operation below. If they should choose not to live in the one bedroom nnit, the two spaces will continue to be shared with tile dental facility so that it can accommodate enough parking in that area. Staff recommends approval with conditions set forth. Com. Saadati said his concern was the parking and how to ensure there is only going to be two patients at once, and no more than two cars parked in tile neighborhood. He asked if there was enough street parking nearby that could be utilized. Ms. Gil said there appears to be enough onstreet parking both on Granada and itl front of the site. hnperial is a little more difficult with all construction and it is difficult to gage how much onstreet parking would be available. Relative to Pasadena and Granada, in the afternoon there appears to be enough onstreet parking. She said the only way to restrict the number of patients and ntflmber o1' employees on site is through the use permit. If someone complains they have a lot of cars parked there or they have more people in the unit, staffwould follow up as a code enforcement item. Com. Wong said he had a similar concern regarding parking. If the dental services in tile ft, ture were to be sold and rented and if there were two persons living there, it would be sale to assume that they ~vould each have a vehicle. Storage in the garage would be limited because o1' thc limited space. Ms. Gil said that the upstairs unit could not be sold; it would have to be sold with tile use below because they only have one parcel. If they chose not to live there, the apartment unit could be rented out. Storage would be a problem. She said she did not see how they could commit two spaces to that or even one space to that unit and still say there is enough parking onsite to accommodate the dental use. Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 12, 2002 Com. Wong asked if a striped parking space bad to be provided according to ADA regulations. Ms. Gil said that it did not need to be striped, but they need to accommodate a van, so the space must be large enough to accommodate a van plus the loading area. She said it relates to the size of the building and the size of the parking lot. Com. Auerbach said he agreed about the parking in the area; he commented that current rules try to accommodate 100% of the people who could be on the site at any given usage, with either onsite parking or immediately in front of their parcels. Ms. Gil said that formulas used for a dental/medical facility are strict; one space for every 175 square feet. She said there have been problems in the past with dental facilities that have exceeded tl~eir allotted number of spaces, and they try whenever possible to stick with those, yet also be flexible in the case of mixed uses and residential areas sharing with office or dental. In tbis case they tried to be flexible from going from the original II spaces needed to 6, accomplished by allowing tbe garage units to be shared with the dental facility. She said that onstreet or offsite parking was not taken into account. In this case, one of the things that helped with the flexibility was that onstreet parking on both Pasadena and Granada was plentiful in the afternoon. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that across the street on hnperial they were adding tile angled parking similar to Pasadena, which is increasing the onstreet parking availability. Also for a small project like this, the risk is relatively small as well, there may be one car that ends np oil the street. If they abuse the rules about how many patients they can have in the office at one time, it should be obvious to people, and if there are complaints, staffwill follow tip and they will have to abide by those. He said they were comfortable with it; if it were this much of an offset on a ranch larger project, there could be greater impacts and staffwould be more concerned. Com. Auerbach said it was the kind of use they were looking for in mixed uses, local serving, and dental offices. Mr. Piasecki said that they were difficult projects; again it is a mixed use, small mixed use project and flexibility is needed if you want to enable these kinds of projects to come into the community and staff feels it is a good one. Com. Auerbach said that as shown in tile video presentation, when the pavement in front of the unit is completed, pavement to tile comer and connecting to Imperial will otherwise be incomplete. In the video, it is visible with tile orange cone protecting people with the message to be cautious as the area is unpaved. Ms. Gil said tbey were relatively new two mixed uses that have the sidewalks and the curb, and across the street some portions of the street do not; they have not been redeveloped, and have not been required to put in tile sidewalk and curb and gutter which is similar for tbis lot and the lot next door. When this lot develops, they will put it in, but there will still be the small lot with the residence next door that has not installed their sidewalk. Coin. Auerbach said they had discussed it with Public Works before, the idea of completing those sections and banking them against future development, and questioned if it is a possibility. Mr. Goepfert said it was possible, but he was not sure what the past arrangements were. Usually sometbing so close, it depends on the level of development and that nexus does not seem to be there to connect the frontage improvements to the corner. Com. Auerbach added that tbere was a large development completing most of the sidewalk on hnperial and it would make a suitable connection there. Planning Commission Minutes to November 12, 2002 Mr. Piasecki said the other part of that is that the larger development on hnperial also has an open space area accessible to the public that leads to a trail out to Bubb Road, which could be a favored path for pedestrians and/or cyclists. He said it could be looked at in conjunction with the npdating sidewalks program where they go around the city and patch and repair. When the pedestrian plan was done, they identified gaps, and perhaps this gap could be added to the others and given a higher priority because it is so small. Coin. Auerbach said it would be ideal to have a policy stating if there was only 50 feet to connect, that it be completed. He said he felt it could be recorded against future developments. Mr. Piasecki commented that it may take ten years, but Public Works could take that into advisement and make sure that if it is not listed in the pedestrian guideline document that it is now, that it be recognized as a small gap and one to prioritize. Mr. Goepfert said he would follow tip. Com. Chen had no comment. Mr. Richard Pedley, applicant, clarified that the 1621 square foot included the garage and other areas; the actual dental office is over 1,000 square feet also. He said the actual usable space drops it down quite a bit, and it is closer to 7 vs. 6 spaces. He said it was a tight project and one they worked hard with staffto come up with a reasonable solution for the project. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, said he was neither pro nor con for the application, but was concerned about the parking across the street. He expressed concern about not looking forward to the future well enough, and cited the example of the buses from the Cyprus Hotel parked on Torte Avenue, and he noted that there were no plans for spaces for the large buses at the Cyprus Hotel. He questioned what other projects would go in the area, and expressed concern about the parking. He said he was concerned with over-building, and not planning tbr the t'uture. Is the city not going to allow any other projects to be built in that area so they can help the person that is asking for the permit not to have any potential problems in tile future. As long as tile city of Cupertino can promise there is not going to be any more development in there, that is fine: but can the city promise that? He said to be careful of future planning; when they built the Cyprus Hotel nobody expected that there would be large buses parked in front of Town Center and City Hall on a regular basis. That is the only place they can park now. Com. Auerbach asked Mr. Whitaker if he acknowledged that the public streets are for pnblic use and include parking for all. Mr. Whitaker said that the public was allowed to use the parking as meant by law, but said if they did not look to the future, how could they plan for the future. He said they were running into monstrous problems next door to his dental office. He reiterated his concern for the parking problems in the future with the added building on hnperial. Coin. Wong pointed out that Mr. Whitaker's office building was in the same office condo as his, and he asked Mr. Whitaker what experience he had with shared parking with other premises. Mr. Whitaker said that he was attempting to work with the neighbors that use the same parking lot for their access, easements in and out. He said they have a lot of clients coming in, a,~d at some times there is literally no place to park. He said the building adjacent to his does not have direct access to his parking lot, but their staff and clients park there all the time, with sometimes 8 to 12 cars from another building using his parking spaces, and they carved out vegetation and made walkways. He urged the Planning Commission to keep an open mind for looking down the road and making decisions, especially with dentists as they have a lot of people coming and going. Planning Commission Minutes I t November 12, 2002 Once the project is permitted, there is no control of how many people this person will hire and how many clients he will have. The city will have to hire a lot more permit people with the potential growth the city is planning or using or abusing other spaces. Mr. Richard Madden, 10101 Imperial Avenue, expressed concern with tile height of the project stating that nothing in the area is that high. He said the new ones going in on the other side of the street are 30 feet, and his house is 26 feet, and questioned wily it had to be a 32 tbot honse. Itc said they want things to look similar as a community, and don't need 18 foot ceilings. Chair Corr closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Wong said he felt the building was well designed, but he was still concerned about parking. He said he agreed with some of Mr. Whitaker's comments. He said be felt they could try it to see if it works, and if it doesn't work, code enforcement could suggest other ways to mitigate the problems. He said he would like to try it at the current stage that it is being presented. Com. Auerbach said he concurred; and it was his opinion that it was an outstanding design, one o1' the best that has come before the Planning Commission in terms of the detailing and appearance, and would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. The mixed use is what they were looking for; the reason this does not fall under regular R1 zoning is it is not an RI area, it is a quasi- industrial area perfect for mixed use. He recalled that the Imperial Avenue apartments across the street had bottom floor units which were also available for some type of in-home business, which confirmed the desire for mixed use in the area. With regard to parking, he noted, according to VTA that there are 7 spaces for every vehicle in Silicon Valley. He said in general the models how people actually use parking are inadequate and not sophisticated, and do not take into accotmt any of the dynamics or flexibility of people; if they are in a car they can drive around the comer, they can walk further, or they can use other spaces. Com. Auerbach said if people prefer to have a no-growth policy, they should vote in councilmembers who support no-growth policies. Cupertino has a growth policy and growth has to be accommodated in some ways and this mixed use is an ideal way to do so. What that means is that this model of having all the spaces for every conceivable peak hour use of a project to be within some fifty feet or some very short distance of the front door of the project is no longer tenable. Com. Auerbach said he did not have the same concerns relative to parking in general, as he felt it was a small test case with a Iow downside risk. He said he would like to see it move forward; and would like to finish the missing tooth of concrete sidewalk, which would add to the finished look as you look down the project on Imperial. Com. Chen said she felt it was a good design and would like to see the project move forward. She said her concerns about parking were addressed by staff; and agreed that it was a small enough project with little downside risk. She concurred with her colleagues and said she supported the project. Com. Saadati said the design was attractive and he supported the mixed use as it blends in. I Ic said he felt the height was not too overwhelming, and that every house could not be exactly the same height; variation adds character to the neighborhood. Chair Corr said he agreed that it was a good project, and that he was in fhvor of the mixed use. Ilo said he wished to be able to take several steps back and not have done some of the things that were done over the past years in terms of the big parking lots and trying to put stacks of buildings Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 12, 2002 and everyone sharing that sort of parking. He said he felt Mr. Whitaker's comments were accurate in thinking ahead in terms of what things we are doing to make sure we are not creating some terrible logjam along the way. He said he felt the possibility of it happening and having a log.jam are Iow. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application EA-2002-22 Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application U-2002-09 Com. Chen Com. Auerbach said he did not feel they could require the city under the guise of the motion to build a sidewalk adjacent to it. He said the recommendations made were appropriate but he looked forward to the General Plan update and having language included to cover such issues. VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Chair Corr declared a short recess from 8:05 to 8:15 p.m. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: GPA-2002-05, SPA-2002-01, EA-2002-0I City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and any other elements affected by tile Downtown Village Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to incorporate tile Downtown Village Plan Tentative City Council date: December 2, 2002 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed tile application summary the Downtown Village Plan for the Cupertino Crossroads area in the Heart of tile City Specific Planning area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and DeAnza Boulevard. Following City Council direction to develop a draft plan, the reasons were: desire for a focal point or a downtown to support, protect and enhance the city's retail base, and to enhance walkability and provide alternatives to the automobile. The economic reasons for tile Downtown Village Plan outlined for the plan itself is that Cupertino does not currently have a recognized area as a downtown, which a number of cities have and they do have a competitive advantage in locating a number of businesses that Cupertino has considered desirable. Staff has also had conversations with people who are interested in moving into such a setting and the development of a downtown village would enable Cupertino to attract businesses such as bookstores and restaurants that seek such a setting. Ms. Shrivastava reviewed the comments of City Council, Planning Cotnmission, Chamber of Commerce and the public, as outlined in the staff report. She said that the process staff planned to follow is following the input from the Planning Commission and the public, getting input l¥om the residents, merchants, property owners and other non-residents who use the planning area, with the process that she just described. Specific recommendations will be provided to concerns or ideas as to how the plan might be changed, and then staff proposes to bring the Crossroads area Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 12. 2002 streetscape plan to the Planning Commission by the December Planning Commission meeting and the City Council at the beginning of 2003. Relative to the December date, Ms. Shrivastava said that a notice would be sent out ten days in advance of the meeting and a neighborhood meeting scheduled. She said the neighbors were concerned about the four lane option and the 10 foot height increase proposed. She said they hoped to resolve a number of the issues at the neighborhood meeting and did not anticipate needing more time. If more time is needed, the process would have to be extended. Mr. Piasecki noted that the applicant was attempting to get through the process, and if delayed too long, it could potentially delay the application, therefore they wanted to be responsive to that. He said it appeared to be a good building that meets the criteria established here and does not come close to the increase in height discussed. Relative to Com. Saadati's concern with the 1,000 foot radius for notification, Ms. Shrivastava said that the current regulations are 500 feet, but for some of the larger projects such as the Civic Park Master Plan, neighbors within the 1,000 foot radius were notified. She added that if they go close to the edge of a block, the neighbors in the entire block would be notified. She said she t'clt confident that it would include all the neighbors directly behind and adjacent to the planning area. There will also be a newspaper notice and it has been advertised in the Cupertino Scene as well: therefore all residents itl Cupertino will have information on the plan and a contact to get information on the plan. The immediate neighborhood will also receive individual notices. Com. Saadati said that his experience was that even though neighbors are notified by letters and there are community meetings, once the project is started, people come in and speak against the project. He suggested adding door-to-door notices to the residents to ensure they are well informed and encouraged to get involved. Com. Wong said that with the holiday season approaching, it would lessen the audience attendance. He said he wanted to ensure that the proposal was the right one and it is done the right way instead of doing it haphazardly and then have to go back and fix it or have a room full of angry people. He suggested that a press release be sent to tile list of people included in notifications of position openings as set forth in the city policy, and also the Cnpertino Scene, Cupertino Courier, and World Journal. He suggested working with the Chamber of Commerce on the survey. Ms. Shrivastava said that staff planned to contact the store managers to let them know ot' their plans to survey outside businesses. She said they would be happy to work with the Chamber on anything but had planned to do it on their own and not have to have the Chamber put in manpower to do it. Com. Wong said he was concerned that the level of service not decrease with the increase in traffic, as it was D already. Ms. Shrivastava said that as in the current policy, each new project will be assessed lbr traffic impacts, and if there are traffic impacts, they would need to provide mitigation or scale the project back. She said the plan was development driven and every project that will conform to the plan will have a traffic study to go with it. When there are no development allocations over what currently exists, it is difficult to determine how much it will be, since the General Plan buildout Plauning Cmnmission Minutes t4 November 12, 2002 has actually considered all the development possible in that area. She said the current plan is consistent with the General Plan. Com. Wong said that following the neighborhood meetings regarding height and parking, he would like to see the effects of shared parking since they encouraged shared parking on different premises. He reported that he visited Santana Row and felt it was a beautiful project. He said while it may not be the right thing for Cupertino, a scaled down project similar to Santana Row might be appropriate. He suggested that a feasibility study be conducted for a location similar to Santana Row either at Vallco or on the Hewlett Packard property, including the pros and cous of such a project. Ms. Shrivastava said that Santana Row was development driven and had an individual developer who came in and developed the entire site. She said they could envision that with Vallco and Mr. Piasecki would provide information on how it could fold in the study. Mr. Piasecki said the goal was to create walkable commercial centers in the community and they should be striving to have a walkable commercial center at Vallco. He said it was definitely development driven; it is difficult for Cupertino to try and carve out a Santana Row especially in today's economy. Staff will look for the opportunities and ultimately the market will determine how much, if there is a scaled down Santana Row around or offthe beaten path in Vallco, it will determine how that will come out. He stressed they should be as walkable, pedestrian l¥iendly and as exciting both commercially and mixed-use wise as they can possibly be along the lines o~' the quality of Santana Row. He said they did not want a Disneyland mainstreet that isn't real; it has to be real from a market sense if it is going to last a long term. Mr. Piasecki agreed that they ' were needed in both centers; one may be a regional focus and the other a local focus. He said as discussed in the study session, he felt it would be the people of Cupertino who would decide il' it was going to be downtown or not, and it will be a function of whether the market can respond and build the kind of amenities that people associate with the downtown. He said if that happens that's greater yet, but if it shouldn't, there will be a great walking street as a result and they would make the best of it either way. Coml Wong said that relative to the orange mesh, he understood that 45 feet was not ideal, but questioned whether 55 feet would be more appropriate. Ms. Shrivastava said it would be difficult to convince a property owner who at this point is not considering building anything to put up orange mesh in front of his building. She said she did ,lot know how easy it would be to convince someone to put up an orange mesh. Mr. Piasecki said that photo simulations are effective at showing the same thiug. He said they could locate buildings that are configured the way buildings would be allowed under the plan and direct people to go out and look at them, which would be more effective than setting up tile orange mesh. He said it was the continuity of building forms that create the Santana Row effect which is what staff is trying to allow for in this particular area. Com. Wong said the only thing good about the orange mesh is that it does show in realistic terms how high it is in the residential area. Ms. Shrivastava said that it would be difficult; who would finance it and who would agree to put it in front of their business. If it was a developer building a project, he could be asked to put in the orange mesh; however, it is more difficult if they do not have a project and they are asked to put in the orange mesh. Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 12~ 2002 Com. Auerbach discussed comments made at the study session. He asked for stafffs response to the comment from a councilmember who thought it was too much of a thoroughfare, which was the function of Stevens Creek in this area and that compared to other cities, other cities have other routes around such as El Camino. Ms. Shrivastava said it would still remain a thoroughfare with three lanes and would have the added element of walkability while also servicing cars. The alternative was to look for another place to have the downtown and as previously mentioned, they do want this to be market driven; but not create a Disneyland. It has to have the right ingredients to begin with, and it was I'elt that this was the best place to have the local retail focus. In terms of the retail square footage and revenue generated today, Com. Auerbach asked where it is located in the city. Ms. Shrivastava responded that she was not certain about the revenue; but Vallco has been steadily falling, and there is about 600,000 square feet of retail in the Crossroads which are doing well in spite of the down market. He said much of 1.1 million square feet at Vallco is cnrrently vacant and the remainder not doing well because it is not cohesive and working together. Com. Auerbach questioned if there were other local major shopping centers with busy streets in front of them. Is it necessarily true that the high volume traffic resulting from continuing to have six lanes is really a detriment to shopping activity? Ms. Shrivastava said they did not feel that; and as mentioned it is still one of Cupertino's highest grossing retail areas and obviously the traffic hasn't deterred it any. She said they don't expect traffic volumes to reduce because of the plan, so it is hoped that with the walkability and with the mixed use, they will be able to get more customers for these, without adding auto trips, because some synergy is realized within the mixed use format; so you can actually increase the atnount of business in the area without adding trips. It would be so if you had a mix of office/commercial and residential, where the residential might use the restaurants at night or the office might be able to use the restaurant that they can walk to if they had a selection of them rather than get into the car and drive to find something, because they didn't have something close by. Mr. Piasecki said that tile Crossroads area was a vibrant area with a current blend of uses, from daycare centers to large department stores, markets, restaurants, and banks. He said the problem with a lot of other locations where it becomes high end specialty, is that it does not become an area where you can go to the grocery store, pick up a few things, get lunch, and then shop Target and go home. There is the opportunity for all the synergistic interrelationships between uses which exists in this location. Ms. Shrivastava said there were arterial routes and it is not expected that because of the plan they are going to have people shifting over, and it is hoped that they don't with the current lane configurations and everything else. They will not impact tile level of service, but there are existing connectors and arterials in the city tbat do take a lot of the traffic. In response to Com. Auerbach's request for clarification, Mr. Goepfert explained that an arterial carries traffic through an area, a main path from points not necessarily baying accesses to the local area through which it passes. A collector has access to local roads and has some access to the fronting properties. An arterial is meant to be a thoroughfare. He said one thing to avoid is to divert some of the traffic to more residential local or collector roads; however to a certain extent tbere may be some depending on the impact eventually, it may be estimated to have some dislocation to the routes where it is appropriate. You may turn the traffic more north on DeAnza and take it to the highway, but that is something to be studied more. Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 12, 2002 Mr. Piasecki said that another interesting point on the through trip activity, it is suspected that some people, especially in the morning, are opting not to get onto the tnetering ramps at 85 and DeAnza Boulevard near the San Jose Cupertino Boulevard and are electing to go up and cut through Cupertino and cut down Stevens Creek Boulevard to pick up the non-ramp metered access at Stevens Creek and Highway 85. He said there was concern about the phenomenon where Cupertino becomes a doormat for other communities. There is the need to be conscious of that and hopefully the possibility of discouraging some of that activity. Com. Auerbach said there was another entirely plausible outcome that changing traffic pattern in any way might encourage more local traffic using local merchants and discourage people t¥om using it just as a thoroughfare. He questioned if it was a reasonable possibility. Mr. Piasecki responded that it was. Com. Auerbach said that relative to the level of service, there is a General Plan which forecasts some level of buildout, with a growth strategy to that level of bnildout, and it is forecasted that the level of service will be acceptable at that level of growth. Ms. Shrivastava said all the development that is possible in this area generally, has been considered in the General Plan buildout, and in addition to that, additional security is built in lbr every project that comes in, and gets tested even though it complies with the General Plan to make sure that the LOS is not impacted. She said that there were a number of checks and balances built in to make sure that the LOS is not impacted. She said if they do nothing, a I to 1.2% increase in traffic per year is forecasted for the next decade. Com. Auerbach questioned how they would technically stay in compliance with the LOS. Ms. Shrivastava said with the new General Plan hopefully they would be using some of the newer counts and have better numbers, and in addition to that, as mentioned, existing conditions arc considered and background conditions, and project conditions for every project. For some of the larger projects, tbey actually do 20/10 counts that provide an increase over the next 8 years or l0 years. He said a lot can't be done about existing traffic, but whatever can be approved is studied carefully. She said with the plan, it is hoped that they will reduce some of the true move~nent, where people use it instead of the highway because it is easier to get throngb than any other street and any other city; but it is retained for a lot of the local uses, the business uses, and hope that with the mixed use they are able to realize more business without adding trips. Com. Auerbach said it is fair to say that there is no more room to expand our roads, we are probably not considering grade separates crossings; it seems tbat since we are forecasting a I% increase in traffic for tbe next decade and we have a growth plan, no matter what we do from an objective point of view, traffic is going to get worse. Ms. Shrivastava responded that it was a reasonable assumption, and their policy toward growth would be to not only check projects, but to try to sculpt growth in such a way that it does allow more walkability and doesn't result in a lot of trips. It would appear without increasing or taking land away from more lanes. Com. Auerbach said that some people said it would not become a downtown and it bas been mentioned not to refer to it as downtown. He said the definition was the commercial center of a town or city or synonym for business district. Ms. Shrivastava said that it was a lair characterization, and that it was the largest local business district. Com. Auerbach added that it can also be said that this is a major change and needs a lot of input. He said he felt it is indicated that it is really a change to the streetscape and perhaps the building height is the only real issue that has been brought forward. Ms. Shrivastava said at this point it is something they hope will Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 12, 2002 actually improve the plan and make it part of the resident's plan and they will finally determine the success of the business district. Mr. Piasecki said the concept was first put forward to the public as a community downtown and the issue was raised in past community congresses and the most recent one as well where people have questioned where the downtown is. The Planning Commission and City Council have been supportive of the concept of walkability and attractive streetscapes. It was logical to put the ideas together and create these kinds of spaces, not only in the Crossroads but also at Vallco and any other new development on Hewlett Packard. At the end of last year the City Council authorized the Planning Department to move ahead in January of this year. The public has known about thc specific plan for about 10 months. Com. Auerbach recalled that it came up at a community congress in 1999 or 2000. Mr. Piasecki said that it is constantly coming up, in the last community survey there was a strong interest in creating some kind of a visual and identifiable part of the community. In response to Com. Auerbach's question about the grand boulevard concept and how the downtown village differed, Mr. Piasecki said that the Heart of the City was adopted in 1995 and the grand boulevard predated that around 1993 or 1995. He explained that the grand boulevard looked at all of Stevens Creek Boulevard and essentially created a frontage road to provide calmer, slower traffic near the edges and then allow for four lanes in the middle, to be the high volume, high speed streets. The grand boulevard went beyond talk about fairly elaborate signage programs and lighting programs that were costly, very ambitious and attractive. He likened it to the Champs-Elysees example in trying to dress up Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said there were comments about the difficulty crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard and the intimidation for the pedestrians, and because there is so much focus on the automobile, people are starting to question whether it is the appropriate thing for this community. This committee may have to reevaluate that and staff hopes to bring that question of how do you re-evaluate that with the General Plan update. Com. Auerbach questioned the notion that some people sense an element of confusion over saying downtown, but really meaning civic center and downtown civic plaza. Ms. Shrivastava said that they looked at some downtowns, parts of Los Gatos and Mountain View, and most of them had over '/2 million square feet of retail to support a real downtown. Town Center doesn't have the mix of everything needed; it has 20,000 square feet, which is three restaurants and does not constitute a downtown. She said they were looking for walkable communities everywhere, but that in and of itself does not constitute a downtown. Com. Auerbach asked staff to respond to the feeling that a lot of people would say that it would change the character of Cupertino. Ms. Shrivastava said that it is essentially suburban, characterized by mainly Iow rise buildings. It is not proposed to change that a lot, with keeping the existing development allocations. However, it is proposed to increase the feeling of comfort while walking along a fairly wide street, about 140 feet from building to building as shown in the plan, hence the only change recommended was adding some height in the front while reducing it in the back; and staff felt that would bring a sense of enclosure so that people could feel comfortable walking along the street; something not presently felt. The automobile and the lanes dominate the street and prevent one from feeling good about walking along there. Planning Commission Minutes 18 November 12, 2002 Com. Auerbach illustrated photos of Stevens Creek Boulevard as it is, and with added insets ot' buildings, showing the width of the street, heights of buildings, and newly built homes on Stelling Road. He said there was good framing at 30 feet on Stelling, but poor framing on Stevens Creek. In response to Com. Auerbach's comment about some businesses putting restrictions on building in tile front of other buildings, Ms. Shrivastava cited examples of Target and Mervyns as tile retailers having control over any project on their site. He said it was entirely development driven; nothing can be built without tile agreement of the existing retailers, and many of the pro. jects provide an opportunity by allowing them to go closer to the front. They actually can realize better usage of the site because they can bring the buildings closer and get more of the area between tile older buildings in the back and the buildings in the front for parking. Relative to underground parking, Com. Auerbach said there was a concern that as things build out and the requirement for parking does exist, if there was an applicant with a two story dense project and needed to provide underground parking, the result would be various underground parking lots. Ms. Shrivastava said that the current situation, the Heart of the City, people can propose underground parking structures just about anywhere; there is a project at the comer of Blaney and Stevens Creek Boulevard where it is a mixed use with retail office and residential, with an underground parking garage. Staffwill review it to make certain the parking format works. There is a current situation that allows that and it would not change. Relative to the trees blocking the signs, she said that it surfaced during the Heart of the City Plan, and they compromised on having the current street trees spaced, and that is not being changed. The canopy is being raised so that the first floor signage, which is the main signage, would be visible. She said that tree planting is one of the very important streetscape features that people recognize as Cupertino's signature. It provides shading, frames the street, and it is planned to plant some in the median that will help to reduce the width of the street at least from a pedestrian's perception. Relative to medians, Ms. Shrivastava said that they reduced the size of the mounds to allow visibility of pedestrians and stores across the street; a number of people, commissioners and council members expressed an interest in leaving the medians as they are. She said they mn the risk of having that same situation but they do have crosswalks that will be provided at the cross street, and with the current median arrangement, if some trees could be added itl the median, it would realize the intent of the plan just as well. In response to Com. Auerbach's question of how success is measured, Ms. Shrivastava said that the measure of success is the people walking in the area, enjoying themselves and also comments from people saying that it is a wonderful experience. Also business sales increase will be an indication of success. Com. Chen and Chair Corr had no questions. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Chair Corr commented that consideration will be given to make sure there is more publicity and more public bearing before taking action oil any of the suggestions. Mr. Ned Britt, 20850 Pepper Tree Lane, said he felt there has been a lack of allegiance to the people who are homeowners and live nearby in the area. He said it appeared that everything Planning Commission Minutes 19 November 12, 2002 seems to be motivated by development, density and degradation of the neighborhood life. He said most of his time spent in interaction with the community and City Council has been trying to stave offtheir actions; trying to perhaps create a New York City type environment. People want to live in Cupertino because it is nice to be here, and the people who want to change it are those who don't live in Cupertino. In his opinion people living on the upper floor of a multi story building are not going downstairs to work, but driving somewhere else to work. Most of tile people who live in Cupertino don't work in Cupertino. He said he was involved in the founding of 5 businesses and almost never did the majority of the people where we had the business live in that town. Mr. Britt said he was opposed to the taller buildings. He said they settled in Cnpertino because of the quality of schools, and the openness, and talk of bike paths and walkways, and felt that having a General Plan with a density of 13 units per acre was not in keeping witb the objective, and was deceptive. Mr. Britt said not to be fooled by renaming it a streetscape plan; it was simply a change in the General Plan, and the General Plan is constantly amended to exacerbate the issue. He said he felt public input was lacking, and snggested mailing the Powerpoint presentation and photos to the people in the area, not only the ones backed up against Stevens Creek Boulevard but also the ones in the area near DeAnza College and Faria School. He said the school district now had a plan to move the students across DeAnza Boulevard to Hyde, making them walk there every day, which would definitely increase traffic. Ms. Jody Hansen, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, thanked everyone for including the Chamber in the joint study session with the City Council; she said it was important to be able to express the concerns of the business community. She said she felt some of their concerns were beard especially regarding the lane reductions on Stevens Creek. She said they supported a slower process, but expressed concern that she felt they were still fast tracking. She said she felt tile survey of residents, businesses and customers would take tnore than one month and the Chamber is willing to help in any way needed. One thing expressed at the study session was tile need for more community input from a number of levels. If it can be done, the result will be a better plan that reflects the expectations and needs of the community. She addressed the General Plato rezoning of commercial areas and said she felt the Chamber would support maintaining the commercial areas zoned now rather than rezoning them into residential areas. She said it is felt that tbe commercial businesses and their employees do support the retailers. Ms. Hansen questioned how long it would take for the street trees to mature, since there is a period when tbey will block some signage. Ms. Shrivastava said it would be similar to the current situation with new businesses planting new trees. She said there was a minimum size, possibly 8 feet bigh when planted, but there is a growing period. It would not differ from what presently exists. Ms. Hansen said she would be glad to be involved in the process of seeking tnore community input. Com. Auerbach noted that in the Chamber's letter, it mentioned a correlation with a reduction in lanes and retailers revisiting their leases with the reduction lanes. He asked how the Chamber felt about other shopping areas, in particular, shopping malls operating on tbe principle that you park once and do a lot of shopping. There are no lanes of traffic in them and how is the situation compared. Ms. Hansen said that she sees the Cupertino consumers doing aggregate trips so that they will use their car and are trying to go to as many places as possible on their lunch hour. She said it was critical to keep the level of service up, as those people are trying to hit as many businesses as Planning Commission Minutes 20 November 12, 2002 possible to do their dry cleaning, get their lunch, and any other errands that they can do at once. People are time poverty and the important part is being able to get in and out of those places quickly. In order to change that, a new shopping environment would have to be created where they might stop, park and walk to a number of places. Com. Auerbach questioned if the Chamber endorsed converting the frontage lots that are currently pavement, into more shops, thus increasing the odds that people would do more than one errand at one stop, which would hopefully lead to more shopping. Ms. Hansen said it would be all ideal situation, since the retail mix with a variety of retailers in one area would increase tile sales tax revenue. However, it would take time to create and would take some critical mass to have that happen, and it would not be an overnight sensation. Com. Auerbach said witb regard to signage, there have been people who have visited Santana Row, perhaps not knowing what shops are there. It is not necessary to see the individual signs to the stores because it is the possible discovery of something there because you know it is a good shopping district. He asked if it was something the Chamber generally thinks is a logical scenario. Ms. Hansen said that in a large mall there is the expectation to see a variety of stores; ill Cnpertino there are more habitual shoppers, people who go to certain places because they like them or there is ease of shopping there. She said she felt they should work to have larger retail areas that people will go to because they know there will be a variety of stores they call shop ill. She said she did not think it was a possibility for Stevens Creek in the near future, perhaps ill 20 years, but would take some real marketing and planning and developing certain sectious well in order to have that happen. In response to Com. Auerbach question about Palo Alto's University Avenue, the assertion that the restaurants made it a vibrant place, Ms. Hansen said that restaurants were a definite key, and was true in Mountain View as well. When you call draw a uumber of restaurants into an area, it does create something to go to in the evening and during the day. In response to Com. Auerbach's question about the Chamber's involvement ill customer surveys, Ms. Hansen said that they had not surveyed the customers to ascertain who were local and who were from the outside; but it was something she was getting into the process ol; as they were starting to survey tbe businesses since her arrival. Com. Wong questioned if customers would go to another business if they felt it was not convenient to get to a certain business. Ms. Hansen said that ill the case of Target, because people can get in and out of Target easily, even though sometimes the parking is a challenge, it is not going to keep them away; but if there is too much traffic ill the area, there will be people who will go to otber areas because they know its easier to get in and out of that particular store. Com. Wong asked if there was an infrastructure ready, aud light rail was brought ill and made easier for consumers, because a lot of people are using their cars, would people come to tile retailers if high density was put in. Ms. Hansen said she felt the light rail was a real critical long term plan especially with the fact that DeAnza College is looking at increasing their enrolhneut and that will stress tbe streets with city traffic and would also be a reason for them to use the stores and shopping. She said it was key for the future and we will all have to rely on it, especially as we bring higher density into the main thoroughfares. Ms. Sbrivastava clarified that higher density was not being proposed; nor a change ill development allocations or density for this plan. Planning Commission Minutes 21 November 12, 2002 Chair Corr stated, and Ms. Shrivastava confirmed, that the issue was about being able to bring the development, whatever may go on, closer to the street than it would have been bet'ore. Ms. Shrivastava said that it is only allowed in certain cases and one of those would be if it had a pitched roof and it could even make that the only case; again as part of this public process that il' people are overly concerned about the increase height, she said she felt recommendations could be made to alleviate those concerns. Ms. Shrivastava said that in order to go to 55 feet, a General Plan amendment would be required for this project. Com. Wong said that in the previous General Plan the community agreed that for ten years that it would be 45 feet and that goes back to making amendments after amendments. She said that as part of the public process, it is a concern that staff will address. Mrs. Penny Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, commented on tile publicizing of tile meetings. She said at the joint study session on Monday, November 4"', it was stated that the meeting was publicized in the Cupertino Scene. She said she heard of the meeting from someone else, and her Cupertino Scene arrived on November 7th. She stressed the need for improvement in announcing the meetings, especially important meetings about changes to the General Plan, suggesting they be publicized in a timely manner, preferably at least one month ahead. She expressed concern that there was no mention in the newspaper article that the General Plan was to be changed by moving the buildings 15 feet closer to the street or that the buildings would be raised from 45 feet to a height of 55 feet. Relative to the three lanes of traffic in each direction on Stevens Creek, she asked if it was taken into consideration that one of the lanes will be blocked by cars trying to parallel park along Stevens Creek. She also asked if the bus turnouts will be removed; and if so, was consideration given to the fact that buses will be blocking one of those lanes also. She said another concern she has heard continually from citizens of Cupertino is how to get the retail alive in Vallco instead of encouraging more building along Stevens Creek. She said her fellow citizens do not want another Santana Row in Cupertino. She urged the Planning Commission not to push the application through to accommodate one applicant when a whole city could be harmed; and she thanked Com. Wong for suggesting that this not be rushed through at this time of the year. Relative to Com. Wong's question about whether or not difficult parking sends people away, she said she felt it did, and cited the example of the shopping area where Subway and Gourmet Wraps is now located. She said she avoids patronizing the shops because it is too difficult to get in and out of the parking lot. In response to Com. Auerbach's request for Mrs. Whitaker to clarify her concerns about the height, she said she was concerned about more people in an already congested area and the problems that higher density would bring, particularly with the hotels at full capacity. She said that there is a feeling of being swallowed up by the higher density buildings being constructed, tbr example at the corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza. Com. Auerbach said that in terms of allocation, the General Plan had not changed since 1993, and although there have been amendments, he was uncertain the allocation was affected. He said it appeared from Mrs. Whitaker's remarks that she would rather see a General Plan amendment to stop the planned growth. Mrs. Whitaker said that she was not saying to stop growth, but to stop building so much in one concentrated area. Relative to the building height, extending it by ten feet may lead to another ten the next year and so on, and it has to stop somewhere. Com. Auerbach asked Mrs. Whitaker if she would like to see a General Plan amendment that would reduce tile level of growth or spread the growth throughout the city somehow. Mrs. Whitaker replied careful growth, including mainly input from citizens; listen to their concerns; hear what they want done to that particular area. She said she was willing to accommodate additional people, not all people. Planning Commission Minutes 22 November 12, 2002 Mr. Whitaker stated at the recent community congress, people went into the congress meeting with specific boards and specific questions, and placed dots on the boards and then broke into discussion groups. The high density that everyone put dots on was an indication to the city that people initially wanted high density, yet at the first discussion group that be atteuded nobody wanted high density; some people did not want any growth, hence most wanted moderate growth. He said that was what Mrs. Whitaker was referring to. Coin. Auerbach questioned their preference for less growth than currently experienced, and whether or not they believed the traffic studies that state the projected growth can be accommodated. Mrs. Whitaker said that before she became so involved in the process, the area behind them on DeAnza and Stevens Creek, the area of Blaney and tbe CCS housing were all approved and they have yet to see the repercussions of it. She said the people in the community were unhappy with what was there now and said she was unsure they could predict on paper what the actual result would be. Mrs. Whitaker said she could visualize light rail down Stevens Creek and did not object if it was done properly. She said she objected to continuously high density, higher buildings that block the neighbors around it from being able to see the sunlight. She reiterated that she did not like living in the shadows ora four or five story building. Com. Auerbacb said that it could be demonstrated that even 50 foot buildings along Steveus Creek wouldn't block the neighborhood. He said he resided in Rancho Rinconada and was ,lot faced with that particular issue. Mrs. Whitaker said that the residents felt they were not listened to and wanted consideration shown to their feelings about their surroundings. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, said that he envisioned Cupertino as a suburban area, not an urban area. He said the mayor had said at a Chamber of Commerce fuuction that their primary responsibility is to the current citizens of Cupertino; yet he was bearing tonight that a developer is more important than the current citizens of Cupertino. Because of the holiday season, people are not going to be able to attend public meetings and be requested that the application be slowed down. Mr. Whitaker reported on a recent visit to Paseo Colorado, a mall in Pasadena, and also State Street in Santa Barbara. Relative to the orange ,nesh, be suggested putting tbe orange mesh in the driveway separating the retaining wall from the structures behind McWhorters and Mervyns. He said the citizens were entitled to see what the 55 feet looked like. He asked for a clear definition of walkable. Relative to Com. Auerbach's question about two major arteries, he commented on the example on Westridge where there is Hamilton and Saratoga Avenues, they have so much more space than the Crossroads area to work with, but it is one area we are looking at. He said they were talking about through traffic and that means a lot of things; DeAnza College is going to expand now and they will probably want to expand down tile road to become a four year college; also the Hansen Place that is going to be developed in 10 or 15 years, also the post office; why was the post office moved so far away. He questioned if the 2300 units being discussed were included in the traffic proposals; and were the areas on Blaney, hnperial, tip and down Stevens Creek and DeAnza and the areas in the Town Center part of it? Com. Auerbach asked Mr. Wbitaker to define his vision of Cupertino in terms of accommodating the growth. Mr. Whitaker said he was not one for no growth, but would like to see moderate growth. There need to be places for the city workers to stay, places for its students to come back into the community. He said he was proud of the community as it is now. When he looked at the intersection of Stevens Creek and DeAnza and the monstrous high rises, up until the hotel was Planning Commission Minutes 23 November 12, 2002 built, the ugliest building in the world was the brick building at DeAnza and Stevens Creek. I-lc said his concern is once you start something, once you build something, you can't take it away, it is a mistake that is there forever. Give the process time. Mr. Whitaker said that he and Mrs. Whitaker visited Costa Mesa and Woodland Hills and there are high rises everywhere that block the residents' views of the hills and skyline. He said he did not want the same thing to happen in the Cupertino area. He said they enjoy walking through the surrounding neighborhoods and the big buildings will detract from the home values. Mr. Whitaker said he was concerned about growth without tile infrastructure. He said if the concern is indeed about the current citizens of Cupertino, use a thought process and slow the process down, so that there will be no regrets later. Relative to Com. Auerbach's question about urban development, Mr. Whitaker said he liked tile city as it is now; and said he was concerned that the character of the city was being mined by more and more building. He encouraged staff and the Planning Commission to visit Pasadeua and Santa Barbara to see the wonderful shops and State Street in Santa Barbara. He said he felt the Crossroads area was the better choice and where it would fit. Com. Wong questioned what Mr. Whitaker's comfort level was relative to height. Mr. Whitaker said that in their visit to Pasadena and Santa Barbara, they looked at the 55 foot height. He said there was no reason why it has to go over 45 feet, the planners in past years had set a limit for 45 feet; if you go to 55 feet, you then go to 65 feet and it does not stop there. Tile bulk of the street in Santa Barbara is about 45 feet, inset about 20 feet and the heights were about 20 to 30 feet on State Street. Around the corner there is one tall building with the framing to 55 feet. The closest parking was about 2 blocks away. He said that two lanes were different than six lanes, and asked that they not allow the UPS and Federal Express trucks to park. He said that he would like a mall similar to the one in Pasadena and to be able to walk around the neighborhoods. He urged the city and Planning Commission to reinforce the idea that the current citizens are more important than a developer. He said there can be an affordable product to put on the plate for any developer if planning is done ahead of time, let the community citizen come together. He said he would be able to get 200 interested people to attend a meeting in a short period of time; he emphasized that people should have a chance to have input. Com. Wong said that on Nov. 4th at the last study session, regarding to the Town Center, Mr. Whitaker was very forceful in reaching a compromise; and ended up supporting the Town Center project. Mr. Whitaker said it was because in his mind everything had to be stopped because there was so much citizen output from four different areas, and he felt it could be done constructively. He said he felt it could be done the right way if the citizens from that block and area were involved since they have a right to know what is going to affect them and the values of their homes. Mr. Piasecki said that Mr. Whitaker made a point that it would be good to have quieter back streets with a complementary commercial environment and it is envisioned between the back stores and any front buildings built along Stevens Creek Boulevard that you could create a double entry and make those back areas walkable. He said that State Street has connecting paseos and it would be worthy to measure the height of the buildings in the Paseo Nuevo as well as Macy's and Borders, but the concept of having connections is the issue. In response to Mr. Whitaker's request for a definition of walkability, Mr. Piasecki said that it was about connectivity, knitting the community together and building the community that way and Planning Commission Minutes 24 November 12, 2002 trying to get around all the closings, walled-in and disconnections from the past. The only way to get people to walk to places such as Whole Foods instead of driving their car is to have a comfortable walking environment, which is a difficult challenge, as they are built in a suburban drive-your-car mode, get out on the 8 lane road, and keep widening it if you need to, so it's a different philosophy and one which needs to be promoted. Mr. E. J. Conens, Pinefield Drive, a resident of Cupertino since 1959, said be resented the t'act tbat elected officials and some hired people in the city are so concerned tbat the developer has to be taken care of. He said he felt the remark about the anxious developer wanting to get into the project and the city not wanting to lose bim, was inappropriate. He said that the voters and residents have a right to be heard. He noted that in Rancho Rinconada they do pnt the orange netting up, there are also some huge houses in Rancho. He said he was opposed to the project on Stevens Creek. It was said at tbe November 4th meeting that things were moving too fast, and to slow down and study the issue. He said what was occurring was not in line with what was previously discussed. Mr. Conens said he felt the building height spread over the city was out ol' control. He said the original plan for the buildings on Stevens Creek and DeAnza was to step up the buildings away from the street, and that is lost now with the new monster hotel there. He questioned what the status of Vallco and the Oaks is and commented on the loss of the small center on Blaney. He said that expansion or growth is fine, but not all at once. Mr. Conens urged the Planning Commission to listen to its constituents and slow down the process and think it tbrougb. Com. Auerbacb said that Rancho Rinconada, like all R1 neighborhoods in Cupertino, requires story poles to be put up when greater than 35% floor area ratio is proposed to allow neighbors to get an idea of the size, but that is only for R1, it is not done for commercial properties. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Chert said she appreciated the public input. She said she wanted to address the traffic issue: they were facing a huge challenge to create a safe walking environment without sacrificing any the level of service, and the reason is the location picked for this particular function. To address the framing issue, she said she agreed witb Com. Auerbach that the street is too wide for people cross; but is increasing the height the only solution to resolving the framing issue? Should the possibility of a different location for this particular function be considered? She questioned how to create a local business center and also community gathering place where it is pleasant and sale to walk, but without baying to impact those people in their daily life who bave to use the street to go from one place to another. Com. Cben said she felt strongly that they should revisit tbe location. A list of potential locations as suggested by the public should be used, iudicating the reasons for selecting them, and the impact of using those locations, and also the potential mitigation plans to address the impacts. Regarding the timing, Com. Chen said she concurred, aud also heard from the Council on November 4th' that the process was moving too last. She asked staff to reconsider the timing, especially because of the upcoming holiday season, when getting community input would be difficult. Mr. Piasecki said that it was the Planning Commission's prerogative to direct staff as they see fit. He emphasized that it is the goal of the city to provide a higb level of service, and as such are sensitive to developers and residents and when they apply for a building permit, stafftries to make it a quick process. In this case, Mr. Barry Watkins has been working with staff for about six months to get his plans together and has been in the cue for about three months trying to get bis application moving, waiting for the plan to come to fruition so he could move forward. He said Planning Commission Minutes 25 November 12, 2002 the plan can be heard, and made contingent on this plan being approved, which is putting the cart before the horse; or if the commission wishes, put it off. Relative to the comments about moving too fast, Mr. Piasecki said that in January it will mark a year since initiation. He said they were rarely accused of moving too fast, but staff said the concept would give them more time to organize the notices to the neighborhoods and hold the meetings. He said if the meetings were held in January, it would likely be February before coming back to the Planning Commission and March for the City Council. Mr. Piasecki said that the fundamental issues are should you go up 10 feet, should you come closer than 15 feet? He said it would be made clear that it is not a complicated issue, and isn't the question of is this going to be the downtown of Cupertino. That is unknown, there are walkable streets everywhere and it should be a walkable community and it should be at Vallco, Hewlett Packard, Crossroads, the Oaks, Town Center and everywhere else. The public will ultimately decide the downtown area. He said the answer to the question is to delay it to February, intbrm the applicant he is going to have to take a three month delay because he will be in through the process about three months ahead of this plan. Com. Chen said the vision needs to be shared with the community. It is a community gathering center; it does not just impact the neighbors around the area, and the outreach program has to go out to the community and not just the 300 or 500 feet required by code. She suggested if supported by her colleagues, to facilitate another discussion on the specific topic; to share tile vision, share the information of locations and share the plan of mitigating the traffic and also hear from the public as to what they want for Cupertino as a community gathering place and also as a local business center. Com. Auerbach said not to lose sight that this was not totally negated by the City Council, that many of the comments were that residents have asked for this for a long time, it is a reasonable plan that takes into account an enormous number of constraints, such as how do you create some sort of viable community space with six lanes of traffic; bow do you do it when you are not as a city going to put any skin in the game and you are going to rely entirely on developer driven requests to redevelop the street. He said it was an outstanding document produced by tile Planning Department. He said as a Planning Commission their purpose is to implement the General Plan and the General Plan plan calls for a lot more growth than the people here tonight are willing to suffer, and that is an issue between your City Council and yourselves; you have to elect a City Council that wants a lot less growth, as you mentioned we are trying to get 2300 new housing units; we are not even sure that would bring us up to a level of jobs housing balance that is appropriate; we might even need more housing to get to that level. All cities in the Bay Area and beyond have to do a lot to achieve that to get to jobs/housing balance and that is what is in the current General Plan and what they are trying to implement. The current state of the art in urban development is to preserve your neighborhoods the way they are; if it ~neans that yon may see taller buildings from some back yards in your neighborhood, that is true, but cotnpared to allowing duets or multiplexes in neighborhoods in R1, that won't happen, so you say you want less growth, you want to put 2300 people in the city, where are you going to do it? The evidence is that when you show people 50 units to the acre, and it would take densities around 50 traits per acre to interest the VTA in getting light rail down Stevens Creek; light rail could not be on Stevens Creek today at the kind of densities discussed because there is not enough usage there. Look where light rail has been produced throughout the city, and it is specifically designed to connect dense developments in Mountain View and elsewhere, San Jose, two Ciscos and the like, and that is part of the current state of the urban planning, to build communities along those transit corridors and Planning Commission Minutes 26 November 12, 2002 do that with higher density, so you can do that at the street level without having to impact the R I neighborhoods. Com. Auerbach said that if a different plan is desired where growth is started in tile RI neighborhoods, that is fine, and City Council has to address it. Work is on the General Plan that calls for finding a home for this and it has been around since 1993, and ten years later we are not even close to achieving it, so the rate of growth is actually relatively slow compared to tile plan and so if you can't stand this level of growth, then really in essence you are not for little growth, you are for zero growth and you should call on your City Council members for zero growth policy. Relative to the comments about it moving too fast, Com.-Auerbach said that for the mininmm number of changes considered, it has been more than two years since originally suggested ~'rom the first community congress, a year since the Planning Department was directed to move ahead faster than the General Plan update, so that a start could be made on the street ahead of the General Plan update. He clarified that the Planning Department was asked to accelerate this portion of the General Plan update to make progress with developers who already wanted to move their buildings up. He said it was his opinion that it was not moving too fast, considering the minimum amount of changes remaining, but the desire seemed to be to get more input. He proposed that it be decoupled to remove any suspicion that it is developer-driven; it is not developer driven in terms of getting on this on a fast track, but developer-driven in that the developers want to do this kind of development which in terms of square footage, additional traffic, people is totally contemplated within the current General Plan; they want to do it in a modern state-of-the-art way by bringing the buildings up to the street front and they are going to have to wait longer before they can do that. He said he felt the orange mesh is not a good idea, and bad for the application. He said the photo simulations were extraordinary because they give a street level perspective of tile building; tile mayor has used them at his state of the city address, and they have been used in several reports. Com. Auerbach said that he disagreed that it was too fast, developer-driven, and too dense. Ile said in fact it was driven by the Planning Commis~sion and has been more than a year in the making. Com. Auerbach said he felt they should move forward with due alacrity; but it will be seen as moving too fast; perception being reality, we should get more input. He said it was unlbrtunate that it has come to this, as they could be conducting other business. Com. Wong said it narrowed down to a small number of concerns. He said he agreed with Com. Chen regarding the traffic; and wanted to be cautious when developing in the city of Cupertino, that the level of service is not affected. Relative to the location, he agreed that a survey of what the community wants in a downtown and the location is needed. He said that Com. Auerbach's illustrations may be helpful in showing to the community, as there is the perception that density is being added although it is not. Ms. Shrivastava said the plan actually encourages building closer to the street and away from the neighbors. It takes the existing development possible on the site, collects it toward tile street and reduces it towards the back; staff felt it was a better way of framing the street as well as reducing heights where it would impact the neighbors while keeping development as currently allowed. The plan currently allows residential units in the area, whereas now you could build three story, two story is recommended. She said she would like to address in the neighborhood meetings that they are not adding density, but asking for a 10 foot increase and if they don't want the ten foot Planning Commission Minutes 27 November 12, 2002 increase, the result will be buildings closer to the street; no height increase and no density increase. Com. Wong said that if they could show the simulation shown and the residents like that, he was willing to go along with that. Relative to height, he said he felt the neighborhood meetings wot. Id address some of the issues. Relative to orange mesh vs. simulation, if retail is required to do simulations, why not have residential do simulations as well. Coin. Auerbach said that he proposed through the General Plan update, to require the story poles for residential and the simulations for business developments. Relative to the timing, Com. Wong said that because of the holiday season, he supported the decision of the Community Development Director for the timeframe suggested December/January for the survey; February for planning and March for the City Council. Relative to the process, he said that communication needed improving, and suggested adding a press release for the surveys. He said the quality of life is important for the community. He said his interpretation of the General Plan is that it does want growth, but responsible growth, and a lot of input from the citizens. Coin. Wong said he concurred with Com. Auerbacb about light rail that VTA does need some type of density, it could be at Heart of the City where high density already exists, or Vallco as it develops, Hewlett Packard property, or the Oaks, but he said the infrastructure bas to be there in order to bring it. If you build it, tbey will come. Ite said tbat he felt it was moving too fast, and more input from the community was needed. Com. Saadati said that at the community congress about a year or two ago, residents said they wanted a center of town and places to go and the town center was not suitable for them. There was also a concern about housing for the people who work in the city and housing for teachers; such that the proposed plan, although the need for more public notification does not have a major impact, actually softens the impact on the adjacent residential by bringing the buildings that are furtber back from the main street closer to the street and having a lower height, which is an improvement. Relative to level of service, population is going to grow. There is going to be some change; there has been mention that we need to plan and that is what we should do, plan the best we can; as far as the success of the plan, nobody can be sure in ten to twenty years it' it is going to be successful or not; we do the best based on the past record and based on the success of other communities and try to implement something that will hopefully work best. Also bring a lot of input from the community which will help to make this successful. Tbe proposed area is close to the library, city hall and center of town, and it could be suitable for the entire community to utilize and enjoy. The developers put their effort and money in places to be successful, and what makes them successful are the communities. He said he felt they were looking at the interest of tbe community, not the developers. Relative to the use of the orange mesh, Coin. Saadati said he felt the simulation or a model would be more appropriate. Com. Saadati said tbe process needs ample time and one month will not allow enough input from the Cupertino community; and there needs to be a better outreach program to try to reach as many in the community as possible and bring it back early next year. Relative to traffic, two or three proposals were received, one with two lanes and the decision was to go with three lanes because of the concern for level of service. He said that ways to increase the awareness of the public needed to be addressed. Chair Corr said they have been discussing the issue for longer than a year, and have heard l¥om previous community congresses about coining up with the downtown, and the previous Planning Commission Minutes 28 November 12, 2002 commissioners had some discussion, and went out and saw some of the things, the urban nation, the genesis of things, and asked where can we create something. Over a period of time we have come up with some ideas, shared and talked about them and that shows the leadership that this commission has taken with the staff to get this going, and sometimes it takes tile community a while longer to get with the program and understand what it is we are talking about. He said it was important to get the message out to people to come down to City Hall and talk abont how the plans are going for creating what you as a city have been asking for. He said he concurred that more time was needed to reach the community. Mr. Piasecki suggested removing the application from the calendar. Mr. Piasecki said to put the misnomer on the record, the City Council acts as a Board of Directors, tile Planning Commission makes recommendations to them, the City Council initiates, and the Planning Department does not go forth until the Council gives the word to go forward and it goes back to a study session. The Council's buy-in is necessary before staff can go ont and talk to the community and hold the hearings. He said he was not opposed to slowing the process, and when the developer comes through with the project, that it continued to be reviewed, contingent on the provisions of the plan. The applicant may have to come through and redo it if the plan does not get approved, but he will understand those risks. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Saadati moved to remove Application GPA-2002-05 and SPA-2002-01 from the calendar Com. Wong Relative to Com. Wong's suggestion about a press release to the community, Mr. Piasecki said that he would investigate what it would take to send something to each household in the community. Relative to location of the downtown village, Mr. Piasecki said that it was not a downtown village any longer, and that they should be doing these kind of streetscapes itl the commercial areas regardless of their location, and let the community decide what the downtown is and what the regional center is. Com. Chen clarified for future outreach they would continue to develop this location into a streetscape, with all the impacts and comments addressed. Com. Anerbach said it was his understanding that plans are to improve the streetscape regardless of whether people could call it a downtown or not; and if desired, improve other areas such as the Hewlett Packard plans or civic center. Com. Chen said she was still interested in looking at the different locations that have the potential to be developed into a streetscape, and all the potential impacts and possible mitigations to reduce the impact. Mr. Piasecki said that the format that may be used on Vallco or along Stevens Creek next to Hewlett Packard might be different, but will definitely be a walkable model; the buildings will come closer to the street since more street framing is needed, although the answer is not known which model would specifically fit those other areas; it will likely not continue on with the models followed in the past where we want to have this kind of walkability. Mr. Piasecki said the important thing is there are two central commercial areas, Vallco/whatever is around it, and Crossroads, and everything possible will be done to make them two exciting commercial areas and let tile market define what role those particular areas take on; hopefully the economy rebounds. Planning Commission Minutes 29 November 12, 2002 Com. Auerbach said it was worthwhile to say that if a Hewlett Packard plan comes forward, it is held up to these kinds of standards or the kind of mini Santana Row standards already in existence; it is what is enunciated in this document and you can use this document to say, when you come through with a plan, it should have these elements on a different scale appropriate to that area, and the same with the redevelopment of Vallco. Mr. Piasecki said that a choice was not made between Vallco and the Crossroads when they were originally developed, and they were not making a choice now. One site is not necessarily the hot spot and the other not; it is not an either/or situation, both can be done. VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03, EA-2002-15 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single-fatnily residential development in the RI zoning district. Tentative City Council date: December 2, 2002 Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, briefly reviewed the application tbr revision to the R1 ordinance and related ordinances and single family residential design guidelines. He reviewed the modification guidelines as outlined in the staff report. The application will be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for discussion and action. Mr. Piasecki invited the commissioners to meet with staff o OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that the committee is scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. Wednesday. Housing Committee: Com. Chen reported that the committee will meet on Thursday. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Auerbach reported on his attendance at the meeting earlier in the day. He reported that Telecom had a public access forum; and on December 6 will hold the Cupertino Outstanding Producer Award, at which time a $10,000 grant will be awarded, and invited interested parties to attend. The Arts Commission has grants for mostly performance groups; the Cherry Blossom Festival organization is underway; Teen Commission report; report on public art on lawn display; the library will be closed for one month for packing and moving to the temporary library, and will reopen after a month. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that the study session with the City Council and Parks and Recreation is scheduled November 18 at 4:30 p.m. - DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None