Draft Minutes 10-09-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2007
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Lisa Giefer.
6:45 P.M.
TUESDAY
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Lisa Giefer
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the September 25,2007 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the September
25, 2007 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
· Chair Giefer noted written communications placed on the dais, including a communication
relative to expansion of the Wooden Horse Toy Store.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
R-2007-01, RM-2007-29
Tuan Cao (Ferng
Residence) 21410 Vai
A venue
Residential Design Review for a new, two-story 6,675
square foot residence. Minor Residential Permit to
construct front and rear second story Decks on a new
two-story 6,677 square foot residence. Continued from
August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
October 9,2007
Com. Kaneda recused himself from discussion of the application as the residence was two houses
from his residence.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new,
two-story 6,677 square-foot residence and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a front and
rear second story deck, as outlined in the staff report.
. At the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission considered
the application and directed applicant to revise the plans to reduce the visual impacts of the
proposed house and be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The six items for
the applicant to revise are outlined in the staff report and include removal of the second story
turret feature; pushing the house further back; plant additional trees for screening purposes;
consider lowering the entry feature height by one foot; and revising the front entry canopy
design to be more consistent with the adjacent homes; and provide planting plans for residents
and neighbors to see the mitigation measures relating to privacy impact. The applicant was
also asked to consider reducing the square footage of the house; however, the applicant made
no revisions to reduce the square footage of the house.
. Summarized the applicant's revised plans in response to the Commission's direction, as
detailed in the staff report.
· Staff suggests a condition be added that the oak tree on the property be preserved since it is a
protected tree.
· Neighbors are still concerned about the proposed balcony relative to its size and location. The
Commission is asked to evaluate the issue to determine if any additional changes are
warranted.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine whether the applicant has
addressed the Commission's directions; consider adding the condition relative to the
preservation of the oak tree; and approve either Option A or B relating to the front entry
design; and clarify if there are additional modifications required and incorporate them in the
conditions of approval.
Tuan Cao, applicant:
. Reviewed the revisions made to the proposed plans in response to the Commission's previous
directions, which are detailed in the staff report.
. He noted that Option A was preferred.
Chia-Lun Ferng, property owner:
. Said that they purchased a large lot in Cupertino to build a large home to accommodate their
needs. The design of the home takes into consideration the impacts to the neighboring homes,
while still serving their needs. She explained in detail the changes made in response to
neighbors' concerns and the Planning Commission's direction.
. She asked that a decision be rendered on the proposed application.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Ram Rajamani, neighbor:
. Opposed to the application.
. Said he is a neighbor to the back of the applicant's property.
. Illustrated photos showing various views of the applicant's property from his home, showing
the negative impacts on his privacy. He said he understood the owners have a right to build
what they want, but if it takes away his privacy it is an infringement on his quality of life.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
October 9,2007
Matany Rajamani, neighbor:
. Opposed to the application.
. Suggested that the proposed pine tree be replaced with an arbutus marina for the rear of the
property because of droppings of needles and pine cones; and also the pine trees have evasive
roots which spread into the pipes and will create a hardship on the property in the future.
· Another issue is the quality of life which is important to the people of Cupertino and how they
want to maintain the small community feel. There are block leader programs to foster the
neighbor unity, and people value relationships with their neighbors, not only in the small
neighborhoods but the larger ones as well. When the city passes things like this, it doesn't
necessarily adhere to what the Rl ordinance says, in terms of it having to conform to the
relative size and mass of the surrounding homes.
· The surrounding homes adjacent to this property are less than 2,500 square feet ranch homes
and this two story home is almost 7,000 square feet. The proposed balcony is too large; also a
range of French windows in the back is not energy efficient; the rear elevation of the house is
south facing and will take in a lot of heat.
Subash Gi, neighbor:
. Opposed to the application.
· Said the proposed home does not conform to any other house in the neighborhood; it is 2 or 3
times larger than any other.
· Relative to privacy impacts, the size of the proposed trees could be reduced; the huge balcony
could be reduced in size or eliminated; the large windows on the balcony could be reduced.
Brian Lanser, neighbor:
. Opposes application.
· Said the house is large and will negatively impact the rural feel of the Vai Avenue area.
· The setback is a critical factor which will allow our neighborhood to breathe and not suffocate
under the mass of the new home. I understand the need to respect people's rights, but the
neighbors have rights also, to protect the rural feel and the quality of life in the community.
· He said he would speak on behalf of some neighbors whose voices are not being heard. The
Wex's do not feel the home is appropriate for the neighborhood but belongs up in the hills on a
large lot; and the home is too close to the road even in the revised plans. Mrs. Chow said that
they believe the proposed home affected the country feel of the neighborhood and think it is
too close to the road.
· Although it was recommended to the applicant to reduce the square footage of the home, it
doesn't seem to be possible under the circumstances. He said he would like some specific
numbers put forth to push the house back so that it doesn't overwhelm the homes on the side
that are much smaller.
N. Mouty, Vai Avenue:
· Said it was important to take into consideration the neighbors' feelings and concerns. When
he built his home, he met with neighbors and took into consideration their suggestions and
concerns.
. He said it was important to preserve the quality of life in Cupertino, which is a small town
atmosphere.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said she felt removal of the turret from the top of the home, has improved the appearance of
the home; it look more like a two story home which is what the city is trying to allow the
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
October 9,2007
owner to build. The Planning Commission's recommendations from the last time made a big
impact on the home and its appearance is improving.
. Said she hoped that when the discussions are concluded, the result will be something the
neighbors are happy to have in their neighborhood and the owners will be glad to live in.
· Said she felt that the home would be a good asset to the neighborhood despite its large size.
. Urged preservation of the oak tree.
Marilyn Shennahorn, Vai A venue resident, written statement:
· Said 51 years ago she chose to live on Vai Avenue because she wanted to live in a country
neighborhood, with spacey lots, no curbs, no street lights, ranch style homes, many trees, and
rural mail delivery. Palatial mansions are not country. She said she appreciated the country
ambiance and will fight to keep it so.
Linda Gohl, Vai A venue:
. Opposes the application.
· Said she agreed with Ms. Shermahom' s comments. Said it feels like the approval of the house
is alienating the current residents; it is so large that it feels like it is inviting investors to come
in and swallow up any property or home that will be for sale and sell it to investors or build a
home and sell it.
· She said although it was a beautiful home, it does not fit in the Vai A venue neighborhood.
Govind SetIur, Vai Avenue:
· Said he agreed that the house size should be reduced. The plans do not show any attempts to
change the privacy impacts on the west side which will negatively impact his family's privacy.
John Stubblebine, resident:
. Opposes the application.
· Said 4,500 square foot home would be more fitting in the neighborhood which would
encompass all homes built or remodeled. He said the difference from the proposed size to the
suggested size is 2700 square feet which is larger than the average house on the street.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was a classic example between the property rights of the property owner and the
property rights of the neighbors. Relative to the size, the ordinance is prescriptive; if you have
a certain size lot, you are allowed to build up to 45% of that. For us to say that we will
arbitrarily change that number is not fair. On the other hand, as staff pointed out, there is a
process by which if the neighborhood wishes to limit themselves as a neighborhood, that you
can participate in that process, and if you have enough people in the neighborhood who want
to do that, you can do that and effectively have what many people are asking for. However,
that is not the present case. The application is before is with an existing ordinance that we
have to follow. In terms of the size, while I think it is a very large house, it is true that the lots
are very large and the ordinance permits building that amount of square footage there. Given
that I am hesitant to change or recommend changing the size, given that because I don't see
how to do that aside from being arbitrary, I don't know what the fair number would be; but a
better process would be if the neighbors really decided they really wanted this, is to come in
and approach the city and work with them and work with that process so that the next house
that comes up, there will not be this issue.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
October 9, 2007
· We do want to do whatever we can to make things as reasonable as possible in terms of still
making sure that people, their property rights to build are not being overly restricted; and the
neighbors are not being overly imposed on as well.
· Some issues have been addressed; they made the house more in keeping with the
neighborhood by removing the turret; adding some planting. He said he was not opposed to
moving the house back another five feet to satisfy the front neighbors. Relative to the rear
neighbors, given that everybody has to live in that neighborhood, the balcony may not be
appropriate. Said he also supported lowering the portico element by one foot and the living
room by one foot. Also agree with the neighbor in the back who wants a tree more in keeping
with not creating a lot of litter and do a better job of screening without the term forest. I would
support that and also support preserving the oak tree.
Com. Wong:
· Agreed that the RI ordinance was very prescriptive; there were many suggestions at the last
meeting; there are more things that can be done such as lowering the portico and changing the
trees. He said he agreed about the removal of the rear balcony.
· Said he agreed with Com. Miller; it should be a process that if the Vai neighborhood believes
that size is a concern, they can petition the City Council and go through a process to work
together with the neighborhood. It is a long, difficult process, and hard to reach agreement,
but it can be done.
. Agrees with preserving the oak tree.
. Comfortable with changing the tree to pitasporum or arbutus marina tree type.
Chair Giefer:
· Said she agreed with everything said by fellow commissioners; it is an unusually large home
for the area; it is an eclectic neighborhood with a number of different architectural styles and
sized homes predominantly of single story pattern.
· Said he did not support moving the house back; if the balcony is removed there is no need to
set the house further back. Said she was hesitant although she agreed with everything she
heard regarding lowering the entry feature; the house could be set back more and the balcony
could be removed which would eliminate many of the privacy planting issues; the rear could
be screened with either a pitasporum tree type or the arbutus marina and the oak tree should be
saved.
. Said although they are good neighborhood fixes that will make it more appropriate for the
neighborhood, she could not support the application because she cannot make the finding that
it does fit in with the neighborhood.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application
R-2007-01 and RM-2007-29 with the following changes: preserve the oak tree;
choose Option A; the living room and entry way to be lowered by one foot;
eliminate balcony; trees in the back either the pitasporum tree type or arbutus
marina, to be worked out between applicant and staff; evaluate the ash tree;
redesign the front portico. (Vote: 2-1-0, Chair Giefer No).
Decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 days.
Chair Giefer declared a recess. Following the recess, Com. Kaneda returned to the dais.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
October 9,2007
NEW BUSINESS
2. Report on North Val1co Master Plan - Phase 2. Tentative City Council date:
November 5, 2007.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Said the study committee was convened to proactively address development issues in the area
ahead of development proposals. She introduced Debbie Stauffer who chaired the committee,
with 19 committee members.
Debbie Stauffer, Committee Chair:
· Introduced committee members, and asked Com. Miller to explain purpose of the study.
Com. Miller:
· From the Planning Commission standpoint, they felt it would be helpful if the city took some
key areas in town and looked at them in more detail and put some General Plans in place so
that when developers came in they had a more specific idea of what would make sense and
what didn't make sense.
· They also felt it would be appropriate when developers come in they are talking about just one
piece of property and they have control over that property but they have no control over
neighboring properties or the area in general. While they can do an excellent job in planning a
specific property, they cannot do very much in terms of how those properties fit into the larger
hole in the region and how they interlink and what the connections are and how the region
works. At the time we were thinking the best area to focus on would be South Vall co, but at
that time there were plans already in place, so we thought South Vallco was a done deal and it
turns out not to be and we should look at that again.
· The next area that I thought might make sense would be North Valko, it looked like it was
right for redevelopment and about three months after I proposed the idea Apple came in and
bought 50 acres. It was right for redevelopment and I think this process should hopefully help
the Council get a better understanding of what makes sense there as Apple moves forward with
their plans and helps us all work together to have a better city as a result of this planning
process.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Said the study area is based on the General Plan; North Valko is one of the special center
areas. The boundaries of the study conform to our General Plan definition of a special center.
Looking at the area more closely you can see some of the major land use blocks, the 96 acre
Hewlett Packard site, the Apple Computer properties of about 64 acres because they have also
purchased some additional properties across the street since the map was made and some of
the surrounding uses, Cupertino Village, 2 apartment complexes, hotels and other office
industrial properties.
· The consultant identified areas that are vulnerable to change and they are a hierarchy for them
because some of the properties were being considered for change at the time the study
commenced.
. A large part of the project was some background materials from consultant Michael Friedman
who concentrated significantly on what the 21 51 century workplace would be like. The basic
question he was posing is how do we use the land that houses the primary drivers of our
economy in the light of research into the needs of the contemporary workplace. This set the
stage for his materials as well as the discussion from the study committee. Some of his
conclusions were that the new workplace would provide engaging settings for face-to-face
contact, provide a vital center and have nearby uses that have public spaces and activity.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
October 9,2007
Some additional concepts that he has would be to have development patterns that support
walking and bicycling.
Debbie Stauffer:
· The committee has a series of community outreaches, which was a core part of the process.
There were three community workshops, postcard mailings were sent to all property owners in
the city, the workshops were taped and posted on the website.
· The City Council appointed 20 persons to the committee, a list of names is on Page 33 of the
report. The committee whose role was to serve as advisors to the project, met four times. The
committee reviewed and commented on the first draft of the principles in July, and a draft was
amended with final feedback to include those principles. With regard to the recommendations
of the study committee, everything is about building community and the process reflected that
in involving people at different levels. There was discussion about a variety of issues as staff
mentioned about what is a 21 st century workplace, and claiming how valuable it is to have
Apple and Hewlett Packard be cornerstones of what that will be for the city and continue to be.
· There was discussion about a district center and what kind of interaction buzz is wanted in that
center; what kind of a public realm if any to exist there, and how to really create a district in an
area where it has just been a creature of zoning; what is really possible in that environment;
how can we attract the most sought after employees in that 21 st century workplace and how
does that affect the greater community as a whole.
· She briefly reviewed the committee's 11 recommendations. Detailed recommendations are
described in the report.
1. "Win-Win" partnership planning
2. Workplace Core
3. Convenient Services
4. Settings for Interaction
5. Walkability/Connectivity
6. District Identity & Visibility
7. Sustainability
8. Efficient Land Utilization
9. Protection of Adjacent Neighborhoods
10. Minimization of Traffic Impacts
11. Consideration of Housing
· Summarized that the process enabled them to establish some community principles prior to
when the development comes in and discussion began about creating a vital workplace district
and the potential for a full range of opportunities in that area. She said they were hopeful that
the Commission would recommend acceptance of the principles to the City Council.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the report.
Chair Giefer opened the meeting for public comment.
Hon. Mark Brodsky:
· Said it was wonderful to be in favor of green buildings, green appliances; think how much
better it is to build green buildings. The MTC, ABAG, VTB, 2030 and all the state plans show
California will be flooded with millions more people; millions of people all bringing cars
many of which will run right through our neighborhood. Our geography of nowhere is based
upon the car that those who know about these things, call for smart growth, infill strategy,
urbanism and determine that we need walkable pedestrian friendly downtowns. This is the
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
October 9, 2007
only way to go green. The question is "why not start here?" why not start in Cupertino;
Cupertino needs a new downtown and we have plenty of space where it will do the most good.
Air space, right for development that does not look over neighborhood fences and provides the
platform for a new heart of Cupertino.
· Apple will soon build over one million more square feet and between them and Hewlett
Packard over 10,000 employees will commute here with cars. Make it comfortable and
convenient to get them out of their cars, walk to the retailer across the freeway that Cupertino
needs to succeed. Plan to bridge that distance like others have with a covered and developed
grand span and remove thousands of car trips from the city streets each day.
· Locate senior housing, the Vallco Hotel, and the new magnet schools where kids can ride
bikes and people can walk where the community can take pride. That span will be the three
way base transit hub where fast moving shuttles with a regional reach can provide a real
alternative to driving alone. The mayors of this valley voted unanimously for this and there is
no better transit plan coming from the county; we must design it ourselves. The original
Valko showed the way with its bridge over Wolfe Road. More walk there than will ever be
walking over the freeway and it was built without tax money.
· Apple and Hewlett Packard need all the space in North Valko for their business to succeed;
honor their wishes. Put together a plan to connect their workers with the Cupertino business
services with a grandly developed freeway that becomes an icon for Silicon Valley. Once
Cupertino has a site specific plan, developers from around the world will come calling; they
know the city, the zip code. Cupertino has value; save it from being overrun with cars!
· He formally requested that the Planning Commission include a referral action to the City
Council to consider creating a site specific plan for the entire Valko area, as a basis of making
the new Cupertino the hub of the leading green city in America.
Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident:
· Thanked fellow residents who participated as part of the study group for the North Valko
study. He said he participated as a resident at some of the community outreach meetings and
was pleased to see that the meetings were well attended.
· Expressed concern that $100,000 was spent resulting in a rhetorical study where most people
knew what the problems were going in, that there were some property owners who had a stake
there, and have their own vision for that area. We should wait to see what they want to do, in
the form of them offering or coming to the Planning Commission and City Council with an
actual design concept. At that point, it is not the community's dime that is being spent, it will
be the property owners who will be wanting a certain project there. Said that rhetorical studies
do not do a lot for the community; it was heard that it could be 50 years out that we could be
debating. I don't think we need to spend $100,000 to do that. Before the study was proposed,
the Planning Commission brought in a lot of the commercial/industrial property owners and
asked them what they thought should be done with the commercial/industrial property; they
talked, they were honest and told you exactly what you wanted to know if you asked them the
right question. There are lots of opportunities to do that which cost the public nothing and we
should invest in that, rather than spend $100,000 to tell them what they already know, that it is
the property owners themselves who will decide what is going to happen there with guidance
from the community.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. One of the important features of the study is that it has brought to the city's recognition the
importance of North Valko. The area was for a long time one of the edges of the
neighborhood and city. One of the goals of the study was to try to find out what should
happen in North Valko; North/South Valko Shopping Center is a very pivotal area in the city
and the last few years have shown the intensity of changes in that area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
October 9, 2007
. Said she has always felt that North Vallco was the tech park and the city understands the
importance of North Vallco; and she hoped that it can be retained as an industrial and tech
center. Tech park lands are irreplaceable; they are a part of our city that we need to have good
commerce and to lose them to housing is a road we don't want to go down.
· Said she was pleased the report shows there was a discussion about housing and it should be
taken that there was no opinion; and the report should be respected that way.
Barry Chang, resident:
· Asked about the extent of involvement of Apple and Hewlett Packard.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Said that there were two representatives, one from Apple and one from Hewlett Packard who
came to all or most of the community meetings, and also attended most of the study committee
meetings. They played an active role in the study.
Com. Miller:
· Said that one-on-one meetings were also scheduled with them and an offer to sit down with
both of the companies to discuss what their plans were. Hewlett Packard availed themselves
of the opportunity, but not Apple who said they weren't ready to talk until they had a better
idea of what they wanted to do with their campus.
Chair Giefer closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Com. Miller:
· Expressed appreciation to Debbie Stauffer for the excellent presentation and her participation
in the study committee and meetings.
· Said that the point of the study was twofold; one to get the community together on a serious
endeavor to plan a larger area of town rather than how things had been developed in the past,
where a developer comes in on a specific site and discussion takes place.
· One of the speakers said we are going to wait until a developer tells us what he wants to do
and then we will go ahead and do it. That way has not worked in the past and I believe that
individual has been active in creating a referendum that opposed some of the decisions that
were made with that process. This is a larger process; it is a planning process.
· Other cities have been successful in doing this; the closest one is Mountain View who
followed the same process when they developed their downtown area. They planned it in
advance, they did something similar with consultants to work with the community and study
group and planned out what they wanted in the downtown area; and they took it to another
level that Cupertino has not taken it to; so that when developers came in, the developers had a
clear idea of what the city wanted and what they would accept and not accept. That makes
things work better; the developer said "this is great, we know what we can do and what we
cannot do; we are not going to waste our time and money trying to design something and then
convince the city that we want to do it and then worry about whether the residents are unhappy
and that we go to referendum on it". All that was decided in advance, so the process for
application was streamlined so things get done better and it is done to a plan that the city
agreed to, that the Council at the time with the support of the residents, all agreed to. That is
what we are trying to do in Cupertino. When we conceived this on the Planning Commission
when we were working through the General Plan, we were looking for a better way to do
things. Maybe this hasn't reached the ultimate objective, but it made a start on that objective
and one would hope that when Apple comes in when they have a better idea of what they
want, we have already started the Council thinking of what key concepts are important and
what things they want to look into further when Apple does come in.
Cupertino Planning Commission
IO
October 9,2007
. Explained that $100,000 was spent for a consultant with professional experience, in terms of
the right way to develop an area such as this. The process has been successful in other cities,
and the expense was well justified.
Com. Wong:
. Thanked Debbie Stauffer and the committee members. Said the plan that was suggested today
could work in North Valko area, but also in South Valko area, in the Crossroads, but they are
a set of ideas that can be used for the city.
· Said he had reservations on some parts of the vision and was concerned about the importance
of tech parks in the North Valko area. He said that the Chamber and some of the
neighborhood groups said they should protect the tech parks. Said he was concerned about
putting any type of housing in the industrial area. This is just an idea of putting housing on the
side; I was on the minority side on the General Plan area and it is being suggested again.
. He suggested opening up major thoroughfares to have connectivity for major tech park areas.
He did not advocate putting in housing, but suggested adding some retail, coffee shops, and
services along major thoroughfares for connectivity between employees; and also bring more
sales tax dollars to the city of Cupertino.
. Said the expenditure of $100,000 was a difficult decision that the City Council made, and he
did not feel it should be debated at this level. The goal tonight is to determine if the plan is a
viable, workable plan. The consultant presented a good plan and perhaps it will be in a future
budget to be applied.
Steve Piasecki:
. The principles are universal principles of good design. Michael Friedman, an award winning
urban designer was hired, and he introduced in conjunction with North Valko some common
sense good urban design principles that are interchangeable with many other areas in town.
. Said that a North DeAnza Boulevard Plan was developed ahead of the current Apple campus;
and is similar to the concepts being discussed. A collection of various property owners
brought it together.
. Relative to the possibility of bringing light rail into Cupertino, he said it was not wrong to say
how important it is to explore ways to bring transit services to Cupertino as a site. It is a
sustainability concept and is common sense and they should be working on it. It is in the
General Plan.
Com. Kaneda:
. Expressed concern that although it showed good principles, it was slightly generic. There are
rapid changes happening and thought should be given to urban design and how generation X
works and what the workplace is going to be over the next 2, 3, 5, and IO and 20 years.
. He suggested forwarding a message to City Council to consider that, and if needed, bring
consultants in and challenge them to not think not only about what is today's good solid
principles for urban design, but also try to get a step ahead and push to keep Cupertino on the
cutting edge of what the next good thing is going to be.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that the premise of the consultant's work was for them to be on the cutting edge; the
committee and some of the public were uncomfortable with that, which is why the report has
more of the generic principles instead of the cutting edge principles. He did a lot of research
and tried to advocate it strongly, feeling that is how Cupertino would stay competitive over the
next 20 to 50 years.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
October 9,2007
Com. Kaneda:
· Expressed concern that sometimes you look toward fairly short sighted goals and end up
shooting yourself in the foot, which is a message for the Council to at least consider.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Said that Planning Commission comments are forwarded to the City Council, and if the
Planning Commission wishes to make that a recommendation from the entire Planning
Commission, it can be done as well. She said that Com. Kaneda's suggestion could be passed
on or the Planning Commission can choose to make it a Planning Commission suggestion.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said some of the concepts were III the earlier administrative draft and are part of the
consultant's record.
Chair Giefer:
· Thanked everyone involved for taking part in the task force, especially since it involves a lot
of one's personal time.
. Said it was important for the Planning Commission to have a long term vision and a plan for
the future. That may be what caused part of the problem in the South Vallco area when Toll
Brothers came in; since there was no vision for that area; the decision ended up being recalled
since there hadn't been a study and there hadn't been an envisioning process there. Any time
the public can be pulled together and reach consensus although it may not be perfect in
everyone's viewpoint, it will help in the long term as they move forward and further develop.
· She said that looking back at her work experience, she enjoyed working in downtown San Jose
more than Hewlett Packard, because having an active space helps employees during their busy
day.
. We need to push Apple forward as they come in because they will be the first big site that
comes to us. As the city, we have a vision and I hope our citizens have a vision and when
Apple comes in, this document shares some concepts that might challenge the ideas that they
move forward with. When they come to us, we will have the public hearing process if there
are things that are outside their entitlements with the land, the public will be informed and
hopefully we will have a really great project that will come forth in Cupertino with lots of
transit, and all the other surfaces we want to see activated in that area. I agree that what is
cutting edge today, may seem somewhat generic in 20 years; and if Hewlett Packard ever
decides to redevelop, what is in this document will be old fashioned then.
. Said she was comfortable passing the study onto the City Council and would also like to add
her voice to Com. Kaneda's comments that design is relative to the time we are in, and we
need to continue to add information to this document as we move out into the decades.
Com. Miller:
. Expressed appreCIatIon to the committee members; the city acknowledges how valuable
everyone's time is and the city is always appreciative of the volunteers to help the city move
forward.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, that the recommendations be
forwarded to the City Council with the added suggestions from Planning
Commissioners. (Vote: 4-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None