PC 04-24-00CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 24, 2000
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevem, Chairperson Harris
Staff present:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michele Rodriguez, Planner
II; Peter Gilli, Planner I; Bert Viskovich, Director of Publ-ic Works;
Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Assistant City
Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 27, 2000 and.4pri110, 2000 regular Planning Commission meetings:
MOTION:;
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to approve the minutes of March 27 and April 10, 2000
meetings as amended with the correct spelling of Raymond Chong's name.
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
VOt_ITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted later in the meeting receipt of
correspondence received on behalf of 16 homeowners of the Brookdale Estates, relative to the
Fountainbleu Apartments item.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
7-U-00, 2-EXC-00, 10-EA-00
Rodney Bergrnan
10200 Miller Avenue
Use permit to construct new garages and carports, modify landscaping and convert non-living
space to nine new studios/apartments at an existing apafhuent complex (Fountainbleu).
Fence exception to locate an electronic security gate at Sorenson Avenue
Continued from .dpri110, 2000 meeting
Request continuance to May 8, 2000 meeting
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to continue Item 5 to the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 24, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
6-U-00, 2-GPA-99, 3-EXC-00, 9-EA-00
Cupertino City Center Land
Lot 1, Tract 7953, Corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Use permit to construct a 205 unit, 293,137 square foot multi-family residential building and 7,000
square foot of retail space on a vacant parcel (Stevens Creek Boulevard at City Center).
Various exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan which may include allowing an
apartment use, maximum height of building and side and rear setbacks.
General Plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet and to penetrate the I: 1 setback
ratio from Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Tentative City Council hearing date of May 8, 2000
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
5-U-00, 4-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99, 8-EA-00
Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group
Lot 6, Tract 7953, Cupertino City Center
Use permit to construct a new 217 room, 130,580 square foot hotel, restaurant and bar on a semi-
vacant parcel and operate 24 hours.
General Plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet.
Heart of the City specific plan exception to exceed the 40-foot height limit and allow hotel use.
Tentative City Council hearing date May 8, 2000
Staff presentation: The video presentation briefly reviewed Items 2 and 3, the applications for the
hotel development and the apartment complex at City Center, noting that both developments
would orient and relate to the Four Seasons Plaza to create an integrated project and vital center.
Item 2 is a request by Cupertino City Center Land for a use permit to construct a multi-family
residential building with retail space, providing for 205 residential units and 7,000 square feet of
retail space. Item 3 is a request by Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group for a use permit for a
217 room hotel on So. DeAnza Boulevard, with a full restaurant and bar. Details of each project
are outlined in the attached staff report.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, provided an overview of the format for
the presentation of both applications. He said he wou[{t_10rovide an overview of the General Plan
amendment and the Heart of the City exception, Michele Rodriguez would discuss the apartment
development, and Ciddy Wordell would discuss the hotel proposal. The applicant's presentation
will then be given, followed by questions from the Planning Commission, concluding with the
Planning Commission decide if there is consensus on the broad issues and/or specific issues.
Mr. Piasecki reviewed that the applications were for a project in the City Center, proposed by City
Center Land Limited, for 206 apartment units and Kimpton's proposal for a 217 room hotel. He
said the application consisted of 5 components: General Plan amendment, Heart of the City Plan,
use permits and the environmental assessment, and a staff function which takes place afterwards
should the first four be approved. In addition to proposing to build the apartments and hotel, as
part of the application, for Four Seasons corner will be reconstructed. The apartment developer
will also build approximately 7,000 square feet of retail under the residential podium facing the
Four Seasons comer, and the hotel developer will construct a one story full service restaurant,
Planning Commission Minutos 3 April 24, 2000
with a bar and meeting rooms. Parking will be shared with the adjacent office developments. The
General Plan amendment will allow building heights of between 91.5 to 105 feet for the hotel and
106 feet for the south' tower of the residential, and as stated 75 feet is permitted by the General
Plan. Under the General Plan amendment the hotel conforms to the I:1 'slope requirement; the
residential encroaches slightly approximately 20 feet into the 1:1 slope line. The General Plan
encourages the maximum number of dwelling units; the General plan allows up to 500 in the Heart
of the City; and housing is strongly encouraged along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Heart of the
City Specific Plan requests up to 106 feet; it allows references for commercial uses as stated in the
General Plan, which would be 75 feet for landmark buildings; otherwise 40 feet is the limit in the
Heart of the City Plan. In addition, they hope to switch the location of the hotel and the
apartments; the Commission is familiar with the idea that the hotel was to occur on the 1.8 acre
site fronting on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the other use' on what is now the hotel site was not
specified, presumably to be office. There is an environmental assessment, and the major impact
that staff focused on was the traffic.
Ms. Michele Rodriguez, Planner II, reviewed the apartment project, a 1.88 acre site, with a
proposed FAR of 3.67; located along Stevens Creek Blvd., accessible from Stevens Creek Blvd.
with the exception of the internal circulation within City Center; the total square footage of
300,1'37 square feet, with 7,000 sq. ft. for retail space facing the Four Seasons Plaza. She said the
Planning Commission's past concern with the application was the overall height of the buildings
and the encroachment into the 1:1 setback, for every one foot of building height, one foot of
setback from the curb line at Stevens Creek Blvd. Referring to the perspectives and the model
provided, she said what they determined is that in order to comply with the I:1 setback, one
dwelling u~nit would have to be removed, and the ceiling height of one of the units lowered. She
illustrated the relationship between the existing Sun Microsystems building and showed the
stepping that exists through the sheer design of the building shown. She noted that the varied roof
lines do a good job of creating the stepping transition. Relative to the 1:1, she said she felt they
could comply through some modifications, and the applicant would discuss it further. She
indicated that the model illustrates that if an entire floor or two floors were removed to reduce the
overall building height, the difference in overall building height would not be significant and does
not necessarily yield anything positive. Referring to the site plan, she reviewed the location of the
Four Seasons Plaza, the surface parking lot, the proposed 7,000 feet of retail, and the outdoor
seating area proposed for the retail users. She noted that the applicants agreed to a pedestrian
accessway, and a condition of approval sets forth the requirement that they come back not only
with the redesign of that centrally located pathway, but also the details on the building. She said
the majority of parking is available onsite, 2-1/2 floors~.o_f~ at-grade and below-grade parking; they
are required to provide additional 35 to 37 parking spaces on the surface parking lot on the
adjoining lot to the east, and a parking survey indicates that it will not be overly encumbered. Ms.
Rodriguez said that the beautiful design of the building was a reason they were recommending
approval of the General Plan amendment.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated the perspective of the hotel, noting that the tower was
visible from one perspective, and pointed out that coming from So. DeAnza Blvd. from the
opposite direction, the towers could be seen, which shows the relationship between the proposed
hotel on the right and the existing towers. She illustrated the location of the Four Seasons plaza,
the proposed apartments, the existing office towers and Armadillo Willy's, the restaurant located
fronting out on the plaza; the entry way off DeAnza Blvd., and the main body of the hotel.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 24, 2000
Ms. Rodriguez pointed out that as part of the project, the parking supplied onsite is 142 parking
spaces, and as noted in the report, does not meet code requirements. A shared parking analysis
showed that in sharing the parking spaces with the office center next door, during peak times there
is adequate opportunity to share the spaces. She pointed out that they felt a parking management
study was needed because if they were to utilize their own building parking area for valet parking,
and if a customer came in and was having difficulty parking, they might be forced to use valet,
which would create a difficult situation if charging for it. She showed an additional perspective
of the building from across the street, illustrating the lower elements of the restaurant with one of
the restaurant entrances, also opening up onto the plaza on the north elevation. As discussed
earlier, it was important to the applicant to make a distinction between the restaurant and hotel, so
that the restaurant would have a distinct identity. Ms. Rodriguez reported that there have been
additional discussions and meetings with the applicant find also with the city's architectural
consultant about some of the issues, and the applicant will discuss how they are actively
responding to staWs and consultant's suggestions about ways to make the architecture more
interesting and acceptable.
Staff is not recommending approval of the proposal until some of the issues have been addressed;
such as building offsets which relate to the two tower elements not being set off enough from the
rest of the building; the inset of the windows and also some additional belt course details that
could help set off and break off some of the building expanse. Staff has discussed the possibility
of changing some of the materials, particularly the window treatment, using more substantial
materials to give it a higher quality feel. The treatment of the tower is a major issue because it is
so prominent and the idea is to make it distinctive. Staff feels more work is needed, and Larry
Cannon re;els that many of the changes are headed in the right direction, but still need more work.
Concerns about the color, and the entry to the hotel are issues that still need to be addressed, as
well as the water feature to the side. One of the other suggestions on balconies was that it be
extended around the building more to provide more interest; another recommendation is that they
provide some information on lighting, some soft uplighting, under the tower elements, under the
cornices for an interesting look. Relative to landscaping, it is suggested that additional
landscaping be provided on the parking structure fo soften the view not only from the street, but
also from people looking down into guest rooms. Retention of the trees on Armadillo Willy's
property and building the parking structure as close to the parking structure is also a concern. Staff
recommends that if the Planning Commission could Provide direction on some of the basic
decisions regarding the form, height and placement, they would be satisfied to act on the General
Plan amendment and the exception, to review any use permit operational issues regarding the
restaurant or the parking, and then continue the use per_mit to deal with some of the architectural
details.
Mr. John Moss, Pegasus Development, said that the presentation was a culmination of
approximately two years of planning with staff and a year working with the Kimpton Group. He
said the goal of the mixed use project is to provide a sense of place, vitality and a sense of
community that they feel is lacking currently at the Cupertino City Center. To date plans have
b6en discussed in three different study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council,
with several design review meetings with Planning staff as well. As a result of feedback received,
they have made several modifications to the drawings, and believe the project has benefited
significantly from that input.
Mr. Moss addressed the requests and issues. He said the physical model was provided, which
allows for review of the project architecturally in the context of the entire City Center with all the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 24, 2000
existing buildings shown on the model. There was also a request for a computer model simulation
and the architect will provide an overview of the computer model simulation. A comprehensive
traffic report was put together which concludes that there are no significant adverse impacts to
traffic as a result of this project. As requested at one of the City Council study sessions, Pegasus
Development has formally offered to have the project participate in the Teachers' Moving in for
Less Program. In addition to this project, they have also pledged all 710 of the existing apartment
units owned in the City of Cupertino to be included in the same program. A tour was provided for
the Planning Commission and City Council of similar projects of higher density in the Silicon
Valley. They also studied at length the issue of emergency vehicle access and have reviewed the
plan with the fire department, which was approved. Also as requested by the Planning
Commission in a study session, a fitness center originally located adjacent to the plaza was moved
to within the confines of the apmhnent building and converted the former fitness center space to
retail space. Also requested was parking at the Portico share for the apartment project, and
outdoor balconies requested by the City Council. There has also been discussion regarding
specific materials such as roof tiles, and ground floor exterior materials and there is a condition of
approval that gives the city the opportunity to review those details before moving forward with the
project. Bike racks have also been introduced to the project; and also due to significant popular
demand, the pitched roof elements to the project have been reintroduced to replace some of the
fiat roof areas. More pedestrian access to the site is encouraged, by way of crosswalk
improvements at intersection of DeAnza and Stevens Creek Blvd. which is a step toward a more
walkable Cupertino. Access has also been provided to apartment residents and hotel guests to the
existing pool at the existing City Center. Research revealed the use of the existing pool and
concluded that there is capacity for the hotel guests and apartment residents given the lack of
current de,and for those improvements or amenities at the site. He reported that they spent a lot
of time and carefully looked at the issue of building height and the architect will review it in detail.
As requested by Planning staff, outdoor seating and dining area adjacent to the existing fountain
has been provided which is effectively an extension to the retail space as a means of creating
activity at this important location. The Fine Ar~s Commission and the Parks andRec Committee
have reviewed the project and have endorsed it from a conceptual design standpoint. Also as
requested, the Plaza is going to be enlivened with lighting, public arts seating and outdoor dining
to invite people to this particular area. Also at the environmental review meeting, there were
issues of tree planting and additional tree planting over at the existing parking lot and it will be
provided as a condition of approval. The FAR data requested project and' the entire city eenterwas
provided. He reported that they are planning on having a centrally located pedestrian connection
from the garage to the retail area; the architect will show conceptually where it is planned to go;
and will be done as a condition of approval. Lastly, ~.e_y focused on the details of trash bins and
have relocated those per the direction from one of the study sessions, to get them back further off
Stevens Creek and further away from the retail area. Mr. Moss said that he felt they had
successfully responded to all of the feedback received at the study sessions, and he felt the
development meets and exceeds all the goals of the city and community of Cupertino and will
result in a world class mixed used project.
Mr. Paul Lettire, Gazzardo & Associates, landscape architect, said that part of their goal was to
provide the meshing together of all three sites, including emphasizing the pedestrian connections
that partially exist in City Center, which are the horizontal walkway along the bottom of the
apartments, and the vertical behind the hotel adjacent to the office building. He illustrated where
the existing fountain was and said that they were providing a connection from DeAnza Bird
leading to the plaza area. He noted that the continuity of street trees remained and said it was
important that it continue around the entire site. A hedge planting under the trees will screen the
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 24, 2000
pavements and will provide a suitable relationship to the street. The other place that was important
as an edge relationship, is the retail edge and the restaurant edge, which are similar conditions. He
reported that there was a proposed 15 foot wide zone of pavement along that space and in front of
the restaurant; which can be paving to place pots, furnishings, tables, chairs, seatings, all related to
restaurant and retail uses. He said there was also 20 feet of required fire lane which has been
disguised. Mr. Lettire discussed the changes in the podium plan, the major change being the spa
moved to a central location, above street grade, with stair access, and surrounded by landscape
treatments.
Mr. C. Tang, of McLaren, Vasquez & Partners, presented an overview of the project. He stated
that they were a proponent of the Specific Plan established for the Heart of the City. He said the
Specific Plan refers to the linkages of commercial and residential development, pedestrian friendly
or oriented community planning to promote active outdoor space and outdoor activities in the
activity centers; having greater synergy between residential and commercial development; and are
visions to strive to meet. Referring to the site plan, he said it was evident that the intent was
already beginning to be established by the Specific Plan having a commercial development with
some mixed used already occurring, mostly by zone with residential as part of this development
with open spaces'being part of the overall organization of the master plan. He said the changes
would be reviewed.
Mr. Tang said that because the Four Seasons Plaza was the focal point for both the apartments and
the hotel, they respected the landscape improvements already in place and planned for the area;
and tried to minimize the amount of curb cut required in order to get into the project, both for the
retail side. as well as for the apartment side. Input from other agencies, .staff and the fire
department was considered for proposals on trash container locations, loading, etc. Efforts were
made to create an active and pedestrian friendly edge along the park, with outdoor seating areas,
and also a gateway between the two projects into the office complex and open space and
residential areas beyond. He reviewed the access areas to the residential and retail spaces. He
illustrated the current scheme, which was basically 3 stories of residential, termedlow rise type of
residential piece, and on the other side, an 8 story mid rise portion on top of retail on the park, then
a 2-1/2 level parking garage. In terms of the height, the relationship with the height between the
existing office building and the apartment project, there is actually a 17 to 28 foot differential
between the typical parapet condition vs. the apartment. He pointed out the spa in the middle of
the podium as the focal point of the community, and the shared courtyard between the Iow rise
apartment and the mid rise apartment on the other side.
Mr. R. Mackley, Perma Real Estate Group, said he was retained for brokering the tenants in the
project. He reported that the project is comprised of approximately 7,000 sq. ft. perpendicular to
Stevens Creek Blvd. and illustrated a variety of retail building signs, which included blade signs,
mural signs for the inside of the garage, facia signs, and kioske signs.
Mr. Jim Whelan, Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, said they were committed to the City of
Cupertino to create a high end, four star, high vitality, high service level, boutique oriented hotel
and restaurant; upscale in performance and service orientation, design, and articulation. He
showed various photos of hotels and restaurants which were handled by their company, which
illustrated the type of environment they wanted to create on the ground floor level of the proposed
project. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed Cupertino hotel and asked for feedback on the
overall project so that they could focus on the areas that the Planning Commission felt still needed
work.
Planning Commission Minutes ? April 24, 2000
Mr. Ginsler, Ginsler Architects, said that he would review the most recent changes made and
which would be incorporated in the near future. In terms of access, he pointed out the Calli Street
access down to the courtyard which is the main entrance into the complex, with the main lobby to
the north. He illustrated the other access for the restaurant and bar; the pedestrian access through
the main entrance, and access from the fountain area into the focal point of the living room of the
hotel. He illustrated the parking areas from 1-1/2 levels below grade to 1-1/2 levels above grade,
which consist of approximately 142 cars. He said the proposal for the guestroom wing was to
break it up into three elements, with a north tower, a south element and a field in the center. He
said that they agreed with staff that the colors were too dark in terms of what is on the base. He
said other issues to be addressed are the need for major planting elements; overhangs; window
sills; and installation of a railing around the top floor.
Mr. Ginsler reviewed issues discussed with staff; the changes to the tower planes for a stronger
rhythm of planer element on the overall massing of the guest wing; addition of railings across the
top floor of the guest unit; installation of awnings on the top floor as well as around the entire
building, introduction of a belt at the top of the third floor line; introduction of elongated windows
on the north elevation; come up with an icon significant for the hotel; mimic or repeat the slope
form with a raised roof element that is now over the restaurant area and bar, and also add pilasters
to the elements; and raising the height of the parapet and mass which houses the conference rooms
on another level.
Com. Kwok asked Mr. Tang to elaborate on the p.ros and cons of meeting or not granting
exception ~to the variance, relating to the 1:1 slope. Mr. Tang said that they wanted to see
articulation on the building, but emphasized that how it occurs is an important issue. He said the
proposal was for a more sophisticated way of transitioning a scale from a 4 story up to an 8 story
condition He said the cave lines were varied which added interest to the roofline. He pointed out
that the model was an accurate rendition, and it is clear at the point between the 3rd and4th story
vs.the mid-rise portion of the building. He said they were still working on the detail of the
elements, and in a project such as this, especially with long frontage along a street, it was
important to have a variety of eaves, where ifa straight cave line condition is created, the building
becomes uneventful.
Chair Harris said that she was not disagreeing about the eaves; however, originally they were told
that the project would be 'only 4 stories high along Stevens Creek Blvd., and then stepped back,
and in reality it has a higher element on Stevens Creek ....
Mr. Tang said that the Specific Plan proposed one way to go and they were proposing an
alternative approach while still respecting the setback condition and yet having a more gradual
transition from the 4 story to the higher massing. Com. Stevens said that it was a matter of
viewpoint, and that he was attempting to find a terrace going all the way from the street up both
sides of the building, and could not see it because of the 8 story structure. Mr. Tang pointed out
that the midrise portion of the project was a concrete structure and there were limitations in
economy of building a concrete structure that prevents them from literally doing a sheet back type
of setback addition.
Chair Harris reiterated that they were originally told they were going to be Iow rise apartments in
the front 4 stories and high rise in the back, yet in reality from the front, some are Iow rise and
some are significantly higher, particularly the units to the left.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 24, 2000
Mr. Moss noted that the plans were identical to those shared in the study session. He said the
intent was to show a stepping up and not just have it jump up from 4 to 8 stories, which was
consistent with what was presented. Responding to Chair Harris' question relative to why there
are 8 stories in the back instead of the building being a 4, 5 or 6 story project, Mr. Moss said that
the 8 stories were originally designed to be similar in height to the hotel as far as the overall height
was concerned; and also as far as the viability of the project at the inception. He reported that
there was a total of 2-1/2 levels of parking; 1-1/2 levels subterranean and once level almost fully
out of the gro. und at the front half of the site and almost at grade at the back of the site because of
the significant grade change in elevation from the front to the back, and the guest parking at the at-
grade lot as well. He pointed out since the parking is fully at subterranean level at one portion of
the site, even having the parking fully at subterranean, the 6verall height of the project would not
change because it is subterranean at one portion, and is at grade at the back half of the site. He
said the 59 feet was the 3 stories of apartments above the retail space, up to the top of the roof.
Mr. Tang said the ceiling heights in the retail space were 14 foot, and residential were 10 foot; and
the 59 foot height includes the tower elements on the comers.
The applicants answered questions about access, parking, and grading, Mr. Moss said that the
amphitheater and swim pool were available for hotel guests and apartment residents. He said the
Four Seasons Plaza was fully accessible to the public; the city has development rights and the
applicant will be maintaining the parcel. Ms. Rodriguez explained that the towers met city parking
requirements and had joint parking agreements. Com. Corr expressed concern about possible
further changes after approval of the project. Mr. Tang said that the only proposed change as part
of the cond~ ition of approval was the passageway between the retail parking to the retail frontage.
Chair Harris commented on the changes made in the relocation of the spa to the podium area,
noting that prior to the relocation of the spa, the podium area was an area in which to congregate,
an area to provide some sense of green, and the new placement of the spa in the center appeared to
take the whole podium and turn it into just an area around the spa. Mr. Lettire said that he did not
feel that was the case, but that they tried to create pleasant inviting seating areas, and there were
other seating areas available. He said he felt the area chosen was not a compromise.
Com. Kwok said that relative to the overall landscape plan, he had indicated at a previous meeting
that there was a sense of imbalance in terms of the landscape plan, and appeared to be very heavy
on the Stevens Creek side, with three rows of shrubs in one area and' two in another. He
questioned whether any consideration was given to cre__ating a sense 'of balance in the overall
landscape. Mr. Lettire responded that there were two different spaces being addressed. The
perimeter of Cupertino City Center is a significant edge that relates to the street and there are triple
rows of trees further down Stevens Creek. The space, the entry drive and the walkway are now
similar to other spaces in Cupertino City Center, and are all single rows of trees. It is a row of
trees on one side, and a row of trees that are not rendered, that exist on the other side of the street,
so they are lined, but are not two rows thick. There aren't any conditions in Cupertino City Center
with double rows of trees, and it is balanced'from that perspective. Relative to changing the trees,
Mr. Lettire said that consideration would be given to changing only the backdrop trees; the
foreground trees should remain pear trees. There is the potential that the spaces closer to the
building with opportunities for smaller scale trees can have some evergreen character; it would not
be a continuous row of trees.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 24, 2000
Com. Stevens asked what the mitigations for privacy were to take into account people in the
apartments looking up at the offices and vice versa, since the trees would only cover the area of
one floor. Mr. Lettire said that they were not planting trees to cover an area of 8 floors, and that
the privacy issue would be dealt with at the window level of the buildings.
Com. Doyle asked for clarification on the comment that mitigation was stepping back from the
street and superior design. Mr. Piasecki said he felt there was a fundamental concept in the
application that would need buy-in to accept the concept, and that is that the stepping is not taking
place from the street to this site and then to the existing Sun Microsystems buildings; it is now
going to take place on the residential portion within the residential project itself, stepping from the
4 story up to the 8 story; therefore, the stepped forms have been shifted if the logic is accepted that
is being presented here into the foreground buildings. The'same thing occurs with the hotel; the
hotel stepping will occur with future development on the Armadillo Willy's site to the hotel
building, and it is not necessarily going to be reliant on the hotel stepping to the Sun M icrosystems
building; one would have to be a great distance to see that step on that side of the site; therefore it
needs to be viewed from that standpoint. In terms of superior design, he said that on the
residential side there is a lot of variation going on in that building, which is a complex building
form. He said there was a condition of approval that the applicant has io return with demonstration
of superior materials and design.
Mr. Piasecki said that relative to superior design, specifically to the hotel, staff was not convinced
they were there yet, and are not suggesting that the Planning Commission take any action on the
specifics of that this evening. Staff suggests continuing the use permit on the hotel until at least
the next meeting giving the applicant a chance to develop the concepts discussed this evening.
The applicant met with the city's architectural advisor and are making progress in many areas that
have yet to be demonstrated. He said that staff felt the objectives on the residential have been met.
Com. Kwok referred to the environmental checklist relative to the sewer and water quality and
questioned if the Cupertino Sanitary District had been contacted to see if there is adequate
capacity to carry the sewage generated as a result of the hotel and apartment project.
Ms. Rodriguez said they had met on several occasions with the Cupertino Sanitary District and the
situation is that at this particular intersection with these two proposed projects, it exceeds the
master plan limit for this particular intersection; and it was stated thatonly through a study can
they conclude that in fact it exceeds the maximum capacity of the lines in the field, and it is
mitigatable by the increase in the line size. The resulLwill be that a study will be conducted,
concluding what needs to be done, and the physi'cal improvements will occur in the field prior to,
and in conjunction with, the construction of one or both of the projects. Prior to occupancy, the
improvements will be completed.
Mr. Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works, said that the capacity of the sanitary plant and the
main line were sufficient to carry all of the General Plan; stating that it is just a line on Stevens
Creek Blvd., and studies will take place to see if they can reroute that through some of the
residential area that may be under capacity, and if that occurs Cupertino may not have to add a
parallel line. If another capacity cannot be found where they can divert the sewer, there is the
potential that another line would have to be added on Stevens Creek Blvd. He said that once up in
the Pruneridge and Wolfe area, capacity was plentiful. He said it would be completed within 30
days. It was noted that there were conditions on the applicant to deal with the sewage issue.
Planning Commission Minutes 1o April 24, 2000
Com. Stevens addressed the issue of the change in location between the original proposed hotel
and apartments and questioned if public works had addressed the traffic issue for the future.
Mr. Viskovich said the studies indicated with the current proposal the traffic does work and meets
the standards. He said the hotel and apartments are of the same character, and represent more
housing, leaving in the morning, and returning in the evening, as opposed to the office space
which attracts traffic in the morning and leaves in the evening. The difference is the trip
generation factor, there are going to be u-tums either way, and a comparison has not been made
since the proposal does work and meets the General Plan standards.
Chair Harris questioned what makes each of the two buildings a landmark. Mr. Piasecki said the
foreground buildings are becoming foreground landmark buildings and the other ones are
background landmark buildings; they are not going to be as prominent as they are today. They will
be background buildings, you will still see the stepped forms from the side, the tower elements.
He said what designates them as landmark buildings is the fact that they are on the Four Seasons
Plaza and will interact with the Plaza, the background buildings won't. They are mixed use
essentially with the commercial and residential, and will stand out first and foremost in everyone's
mind, and without them you may not have the level of activity anticipated on that corner.
Chair Harris said that the consultants advised that caution be exercised when planning future
development to step the buildings, because once they lost the opportunity, it would not return. If
the foreground is filled with landmark tall buildings, there won't be another opportunity unless
Stevens Creek Blvd. is sunk underground. Mr. Piasecki said that as stated earlier, the Planning
Commissigners need to feel comfortable that stepping is occurring on the residential, it will occur
in the future, with future development on Armadillo Willy's. He said a lot of hotels don't
typically have the restaurant element sitting out in the front fagade, or front portion of the hotel
creating an interesting drop off plaza space for the hotel. He reiterated that they were headed in
the right direction relative to the stepping elements, and they clearly needed the amendments to the
General Plan to make the plan work.
Chair Harris asked staff to clarify the conformity issue under the proposed hotel column relative to
setbacks. Ms. Wordell explained that the front of the hotel off So. DeAnza Blvd. conforms to the
Heart of the City Plan; the easement and setback are conforming; the other setbacks are required
to be 20 feet and do not conform. She said it was the nature of the hotel that it needs toenvelope
that space. She said that staff did not have concerns about the property line setbacks or near
property line setbacks, except for the one interfering~ith the trees next to Armadillo Willy's.
Ms. Wordell said that the restaurant patio on the north side has a20 foot setback, and on the south
side, and east side, zero; on the parking structure one foot; the entry part and restaurant part is full
setback from the property-line. She said that staff was not certain if one foot setback was
sufficient. Chair Harris suggested that the issue of one foot and zero feet be discussed further
when the application returns. Mr. Piasecki stated the need to focus on the issue and whether or not
the Planning Commission accepted the basic form, so that they could move onto other details,
such as is there enough setback.
The applicant was questioned about how much parking of the hotel is above grade and how much
is below, and number of stories. He reported that underneath the tower of the building there is one
surface level parking directly at grade and there is one level 0f parking directly above that,
9-1/2 to 10 feet. Adjacent to the tower of the hotel between the Armadillo Willy's lot and the
face of the hotel is a 3 level parking structure; one level half below grade, one level half above
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 24, 2000
grade, the top level is 1-1/2 stories above; roughly 15 feet from where the tires would touch the
parking strips. He said there would be a screening wall, some trellis activity, and some plantings
on the top level of the parking since there was no ceiling. He acknowledged that there was only a
one foot setback up against Armadillo Willy's parking lot and said they could work with the
property owner to do some suitable landscaping. He said the other area of zero foot setback is a 40
foot wide right of way interior circulation. He said some of the early studies were looking at
excavating the entire site, trying to get as much parking underneath; but one issue was access and
how to get people in, but then go below grade at the same level.
The applicant said that if the parking was all below grade, the design would be completely
different than what was presented and because of the many different factors, there may possibly
be some shortening of the building height, but most likely n6t the entire 15 feet. Ms. Wordell said
that it was 4-1/2 feet below and 14 feet above, plus the third level is an open parking.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
The issues for discussion were summarized: determine if the placement and height is acceptable,
including sethaek issues, the height issue, addition of mass and form and design; restaurant and
bar hours; parking; give general direction; let them know if they are on the right track; let them
know if the Planning Commission feels it is appropriate; does it need tweaking or a major
overhaul.
Com. Stevens said he felt the building was too high; the tower above the living room would be
better placed on the south side, so that there is some similarity between the building behind and
the hotel iff front; he said he felt the top part of the hotel (the highest point) should be at the other
end to have a slant toward Stevens Creek Blvd. He said his comments relative to height also
applied to the other structure. Com. Stevens said the form was very thin, and should have more
character, instead of having a long thin type of hotel, arrive at the same amount of mass by coming
out over the parking structure. The bar hours and restaurant is something that can be discussed
later; standard hours are not applicable at this point in time unless it is proposed to be other than
standard in Cupertino. He said that if the Director of Public Works was content with the traffic
pattern, it was not an issue; however, he was concerned about a possible deficit.
Ms. Wordell responded that the parking study was based on actual availability of spaces and on
real situations relative to extra spaces being available. She said as a result of a previous parking
study with another building, the building owner had to ~a~ke up for any parking that was lost by a
surface lot at that time.
Chair Harris said that when the application returns, it should include the study on parking,
including how many employees they are considering, how many people they are anticipating in
the conference center on a given day in full use; numbers for the hotel and bar; and how many
coming and going morning and afternoon which is a different use of the hotel use; and also some
estimate on the retail and on the apartments.
Ms. Wordell said that in talking with the traffic consultant, the hotel demand was based on a
model ora standard source for that particular use. She said she was not certain if it was preferred
that they look at their particular hotel and do demands based on that, or just know the assumptions
that the traffic study used. Chair Harris said the hotel developer had experience and would have
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 24, 2000
real estimates rather than a model, since the model would vary whether itbe urban or suburban in
terms of traffic.
Com. Corr said that he was comfortable with the building placement, and was pleased to hear that
not all were happy with the fagade and design, as he was concerned with it. He said he liked the
path the new design was taking, and was confident that they could be able to address some of the
concerns discussed. He said the placement of the hotel was appropriate; he concurred that the
hours could be addressed later; and as long as the mitigations are available for the parking, he had
no objections.
Com. Kwok said that in general he was in support of staff's recommendation in terms of form,
mass, bulk, and density. He expressed concern with the btiilding height, and recommended that
the applicant work with staff on reducing the height. He said if the parking was more depressed it
could reduce the height another 10 feet.
Com. Doyle said that the buildings were too high; he said he felt the Heart of the City guidelines
were fair in that they called for 1:1 setback. He said the 2:1 ratio could be used to go up to the 75
foot level; and if they were made landmarks, could go up to the 2:1 ratio at that level, with
submerged parking. He said 10% to 20% shared spaces were acceptable; however, he did not feel
it was reasonable to expect half of the people to go elsewhere to park. He said the apartments had
a good design, but needed more work to blend into the surrounding buildings. The hotel appeared
to be a vertical box and work was needed to break it up significantly and bring the height down.
He said he felt there should be a compelling argument to giving them an entire street for the
property, which was unusual.
Chair Harris said she was pleased to have a quality hotel for the area. She said the buildings were
too high; she suggested that the parking be submerged even if it required a redesign. She said she
was not opposed to the idea of changing the form from a vertical box to tearing it upward and
bringing' it forward over the parking. She said she was aware that the concept was to have an
easily serviceable corridor, but said that it is a suburban area, and may call for a different design
than a vertical box. She said she was appreciative of the applicant's efforts, and would like them
to have the number of rooms they were counting on; however, it may be a question of removing a
floor or two because of the height. She said it was a matter of economics, and a question of
balancing the developer's hope to maximize the development potential, and balancing that against
the aesthetic needs of the community. She said she was excited about the proposed hotel, and that
it would be of benefit to the community to have a conference hotel and a quality restaurant. She
said the window trim was suitable; the restaurant and bar should have specific hours, and staff
would make a recommendation other than a24 hour operation. She requested that a parking study
be completed so that she would have a better feeling about the parking issue; she expressed
concern about the one foot setback, but if it was adjacent a common area it was not such a major
concern. She noted that there was a lot of common area in this development, as it was designed
to have common area, and she felt the setbacks should be relaxed.
Chair Harris summarized that at least four members felt the building was too high; she said she did
not agree with Com. Stevens about moving the main feature from the Stevens Creek Blvd. and
DeAnza intersection, as it is the prominent intersection and should have a tower element.
Mr. Piasecki said that it would be helpful to have the applicant know whether he is going back to
redesign to try to eliminate 10 feet which may be doable given the plan they have being asked to
Planning Commission Minutes ~3 April 24, 2000
take off one to two floors. Chair Harris said that the height was too high, and the applicant was
left with the design responsibility as there were numerous options. She said the equivalent of two
stories (20 to 30 feet) could be removed; submerge the building into the ground; change the
architecture or give up rooms.
Com. Kwok said he felt the project would be a very good project for the community. He said he
understood the concern about the quality of the building and also the appearance of the project,
but economics need to be taken into consideration in terms of the project. He said that if the
direction is for a 40 foot height limit, he did not feel the project would move forward, because the
hotel has to have ample rooms for the development to move forward in this project. He said he
would not compromise the Heart of the City, but felt that economics was the driving force for the
developer to come forward with the project. He suggested reducing the height by 10 feet.
Com. Stevens said that he was not in favor of putting a number; but preferred the 1: I setback,
with the possibility of going to 2:1. Com. Doyle said he preferred 40 feet in the 1:1 plane, and 2: I
up to 75 feet, to produce a stair step back.
Chair Harris said she felt that there was support for the hotel, and not opposed to the number of
rooms, but concerned about how and where it is placed.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE: ;
Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 5-U-99, 2-GPA-99, 4-EXC-00,
8-EA-00 to the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
Application Nos:
Applicant:
Location:
16~U-98, 43-EA-98
Adzich Properties
10216 Pasadena Avenue
Use permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-family detached residences on
a net 12,480 square foot lot.
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2000
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 to the
May 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris declared a recess from 9:50 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 2
Discussion of Application 6-U-00, 2-GPA-99, 3-EXC-00, 9-EA-00
Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the same fundamental issues related to the apartment project, namely
height, mass, bulk, and mass. Details include the architecture, landscape plan, and parking.
Ms. Rodriguez clarified that the reduction of one dwelling unit and the lowering of a ceiling in
another unit was necessary in order to meet the setback on Stevens Creek. Mr. Tang said that
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 24, 2000
initially it was felt that it would involve a reduction of 4 units, but options were being addressed.
Chair Harris added the issue of landscaping the apartments on Stevens Creek with evergreen trees
so that when the pear trees are deciduous there is still some foundation planting. She suggested
moving the spa as she felt the podium area was compromised as a public space since the spa
location was moved. Added to the list of issues were height, setbacks, bulk, mass, color, and roof
tile.
Relative to the active areas supporting the units, Mr. Tang said that the project had a unique
feature of the corner plaza, which is meant to be an active space. The secondary active space
would be the courtyard atop the podium on top of the garage which is a more passive, quieter,
contemplative open space. He said that the pool was open to the apartment residents as well. He
said the fitness center was adjacent to the leasing office; th~ podium spa which may be relocated
per suggestion; and a proposed spa inside the health club. Mr. Tang said that with the exception
of the landscape planter around the edge of the garage, there was no wall around the project. He
answered questions regarding the landscaping, and moving van loading area for the units. He
reviewed the color board for the stucco area of the buildings, accent colors for the trellises, and
accent color for trims.
Mr. Let-fire and Mr. Tang answered questions regarding the landscape plan for the podium area
and the signage and graphics. Mr. Tang said that the signage and graphics designs were not yet
finalized. Ms. Rodriguez said that she would like a higher degree of material; relative to
landscaping, she said that they have approved conceptual landscape plans in the past and looked at
a more refined state even at the building permit stage and not even come back before the Planning
Commissign on a refined landscape, but do feel that the signage and other details are important to
look at.
Chair Harris said questioned the correct format to have the Design Review Committee work on the
proposal. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the wording be inserted that the Design Review Committee
is to review the proposal with a recommendation made to the full Planning Commission.
Chair Harris addressed the BMR units, stating that the number of units to be provided are
generally specified. Ms. Rodriguez said that 21 BMR units can be specified. Chair Harris
referred to the bathroom requirement in Condition 12, and said that the requirement should be for
a unisex bathroom or 2 bathrooms.
Chair Harris also commented that the performanc~t._r~equirement should be firmed up and
questioned the security camera operation.
Com. Kwok asked staffto clarify loft parking, identifying 113 spaces in the first level, and offsite
parking of 30 stalls. Ms. Rodriguez stated that it was on the surface parking lot directly east of the
parcel and along Stevens Creek Blvd.,and met the minimum requirements of 483. The applicant
clarified that the parking was primarily guest parking that would be used at grade existing lot,
which is a minimal amount of the overall parking. He said they met the city's requirement of 2.0
overall, and 1.7 below the buildings; the remaining parking which is guest parking is going to be
used on the grade lot, therefore it isn't anticipated that there will be an overflow of parking onto
the street.
The applicant said that access to the apartments was through the garage in the basement level, and
from Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said the retail parking was through the garage and the non
Planning Commission Minutes ~5 April 24, 2000
residents would have to access the garage and return to the Stevens Creek entry into the shops.
Residents could access the shopping area through a gate.
Chair Harris commented on the language to the exception, contained on Page 25 of staff report for
3-EXC-00, and said that she felt it was absurd to make a finding that it is the least modification to
accomplish reasonable use, as it appeared to be a gross overstatement. She questioned if they
were required to make a finding or could the finding be removed. Ms. Rodriguez responded that it
was a required finding by the resolution for the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Chair Harris said
that she preferred the word "appropriate" rather than "ideal" as the language would set precedence
for the future.
The issues relative to the apartment proposal were summarized: height, bulk, mass; landscaping
on SC Blvd. with evergreens; spa and podium area; setbacks including 1:1; color, roof tile;
apartment project; overall project - number of units; and parking.
Com. Doyle said that relative to height, bulk and mass, the first 40 feet should be 1:1, and run as
high as 75 feet, but make it a 2:1 setback, make sure the 75 feet includes, the top of the service
parapets. It should try to come into conformance with the Heart of the City requirements;
landscaping with evergreens on Stevens Creek; spa location is acceptable as is; setbacks including
1:1 addressed earlier; building color and roof tile per staff recommendation. Mr. Piasecki
commented that the architectural advisor was comfortable with the color palette being presented,
and staff suggested that a clay roof material be used. He said he liked the apartment project, it had
good articulation; work is needed on a few things; submerging it; the parking is important; get rid
of the wall if possible; move the loading dock and unloading to out in front of the building;
upgrade first floor building materials so it looks better than stucco and limestone. He said if the
parking was dropped, there might be opportunities to get rid of that boundary around it
Chair Harris clarified submerged parking, stating that the building would be lowered for
submerged parking.
Com. Kwok said that he was not opposed to the submerged parking; eliminate the encroachment
1:1; lower the height, however, he said he would not dictate 75 foot height, but would prefer it to
be below 100 feet. He said he was concerned about the density and would prefer to retain the
density; evergreens for the landscaping was suitable; leave spa as is; color per staff
recommendation; remove loading dock. He said he concurred with Com. Doyle on the other
issues ....
Com. Corr said the height, bulk and mass were appropriate; evergreen landscaping is suitable;
leave spa as is; comply with 1:1 setback even if it meant losing one unit; staff recommendation on
color of tile is suitable. He said he was in favor of the project; however, he did not feel they
should remove the loading dock since it just a space that becomes a loading dock when the truck is
there. He said the lower wall and planter were appropriate, but he was not in favor of a massive
wall that gives the feeling of walking against a large building in San Francisco. He said he agreed
with the upgrade materials, and submerged parking only to adjust the height.
Com. Stevens said he concurred with Com. Doyle regarding the height, 40 + 75, 2:1 is the same
thing and would be appropriate but he would like it to correlate with the hotel to be the same;
evergreens appropriate; spa location is suitable where it is, but the applicant should decide the
most appropriate location for it; setbacks of 1:1 comply and on that because the tower buildings
Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 24, 2000
have a step function on both arms. He said he viewed the tower stepping function as being a
characteristic of Cupertino's downtown when it happens, and because everything else has that
stepping function he preferred to see 1:1 on both of the high rises. He said he felt the tile color
should be gray, but would agree with staff recommendation. Com. Stevens said he liked the
concept of the apartment project; the loading dock should be a requirement; the wall as a planer is
an excellent idea, however color may be needed to break up the massiveness of the wall. He said
he concurred with upgrading the materials; he was opposed to the height for the parking and
suggested pushing it further into the ground for the mass if needed.
Chair Harris said she liked the project and felt the applicant took great pains to make it attractive
and effective. She said that the colors were suitable; the height too high; and evergreens were
appropriate. She said she would be willing to forfeit one imit to get the 1:1 ratio, and felt they
should submerge the parking and lower the height in the back. She said that she was overruled on
her suggestion to move the location of the spa; would like to see the parking submerged twofloors
which is a compromise of one floor. She said she felt the parking was 2 stories too high but
because there is a need for the apartments, it was a tradeoff. She suggested that relative to height,
bulk and mass, No. 2, it state "reduce the height". She said she was not in favor of the high part
on Stevens Creek Blvd., and would really like to see a development that is 59 feet across the front
and not have anything higher. She said she was in favor of the 1:1 comply; and did not like the
high part on the left hand side. She suggested mitigating the loading area, which meant there
would not be trucks on Stevens Creek Blvd. Unloading or moving vans; therefore it needs to be
either screened with landscaped areas high enough to cover a moving van or a delivery truck or it
needs to be placed elsewhere. She said she did not care what mitigation was used, but felt that
Stevens Creek Blvd. should not look like a loading area. Chair Harris said that the 3 foot high
planters wire appropriate, and she favored upgraded materials for the ground floor. She said that
the directions to the applicant on height should note that several members have said 1:1 and 2:1;
with a height range of 75 to 100 feet. She said that she would also like to see stepping.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 6-U-00, 2-GPA-99, 3-EXC-00,
and 9~EA-00 to the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
2-ASA-98(M)
Grosvenor International
6 Results Way
Referral to Planning Commission of a Director's minor modification to add windows to the first
and second floors of an existing building and to convert 8,194 square feet of amenity space to
office space in building nine.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Planner I, noted corrections to the staff report, in that buildings
3 and 4 had been converted from manufacturing to office, which had architectural site approvals
that dealt with adding windows to the second story. He said that there would be windows added to
three sides of the building. He noted that a section of the second floor was being converted from
amenity space to office space resulting in an addition of a dormer type element with the windows.
He outlined the background of the item as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Gilli distributed a
Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 24, 2000
handout, outlining the breakdown of amenity space throughout the campus. He noted that the
amenity space for the buildings total 36,000 square feet. The proposal relates to building 9, the
project taking 5,000 square feet of the cafeteria floor and convert to office; convert the fitness
center and lunchroom on the second floor to office and the majority of the crawl space area to
office use. The crawl space is a low ceiling area that with the addition of the dormers becomes
usable space. Staff has no concerns about the reduction in amenity space since it is being drawn
from the development potential for the site. Following this application, there will be remaining
potential for about 29,000 square feet; staff determines that any future additions or conversions
will prompt a master plan. Issues to be addressed are traffic, circulation, the appropriate uses and
parking. Staff recommends endorsement of the director's decision to approve the minor
modification.
Chair Harris noted that the definition of amenity space had been revised since the application was
originally approved, and noted that it was not typical to count a patio balcony in the FAR and call
it amenity space, She said it was actually an addition rather than the conversion of an amenity
even though it was previously called amenity. Chair Harris clarified that it should establisha
precedence for the future to call patios and balconies amenity space, or crawl space be called
amenity space, since normally they are not included in the FAR.
Mr. Gilli said that based on the approval in 1998 it was included in the amenity space calculations
Ms. Wordell clarified that the Planning Commission made a recommendation to change the
definition; however, the City Council did not take any action on the recommendation, and staff
attempted ~to bring it back as part of the development intensity manual, which was stalled as well.
It remains in a state of flux.
In response to Chair Harris' question where the 33% FAR came from, Mr. Gilli said that it was
drawn from the General Plan and also from the 2-ASA-98 file in the conditions of approval.
Relative to the question about the parking requirement for manufacturing, page 4-3; it was shown
that some of the building was office space which requires 250 feet to a parking space and part of
the building is manufacturing space that requires 450 feet. He said based on the applicant's
information and on past approvals, the manufacturing use is a type with low intensity employees.
Mr. Alan Shimora, applicant, said that the addition of the windows was to provide more light into
the space and create additional space because of the odd configuration of the building. He said
that building 9 was no longer occupied by Honeyw~l_[ and would be occupied by a startup
company, although Honeywell would maintain control of the cafeteria. Mr. Shimora clarified that
the last two buildings converted were high bay space buildings where windows were added at the
second floor. He said at that time there was discussion whether or not if there was to be additional
floor area created, which was a concern of the Planning Commission. He said the building was
always set up to be a two story building.
Planning Commission Minutes lg April 24, 2000
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to approve Application 2-ASA-98(M)
Com. Kwok
Chair Harris
Passed 4-1-0
Chair Harris noted for the record that she did not have a full understanding of what the first and
second floor areas were and she was concerned about that; not that she was opposed to the
conversion of space, but concerned about the total floor area ratio. She asked staffto research the
original approval and provide the sizes to her.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING coMMIssION:
Chair Harris reported on a study published on the regional housing needs and asked that the
Planning Commissioners read the study which contains ABAG's list of Cupertino's share. Mr.
Piasecki said that ABAG was reviewing the formula and Cupertino's numbers may go up because
of the review, and the numbers may approach 3,000 instead 0£2,400 or 2,500.
Mr. Piasecki reported that the electronic gate on Balboa Road was appealed by Councilmember
Burnett and would go to the City Council because of his concern with public visibility.
REPORT~OF ~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjoumed at 12:05 a.m. on April 25, 2000, to the regular
Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on May 8, 2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabe lis
Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: May 8, 2000