PC 03-24-03CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 24, 2003
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Corr, Miller, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen
Staff present:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Aarfi Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Colin Jung, Senior
Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Glenn Goepfert, Public Works;
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney
SALUTETO THEFLAG
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 10, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting
Com. Saadati recommended the following:
Page 4: Second paragraph, third line: Delete: "become decayed, a decision could be made. "and
insert: "if the trees are decayed, a decision could be made to remove the trees."
Page 12: Mayors breakfast: Delete: "He said that teen issues" and "were topics of discussion"
and insert "The mayor discussed the teen conference"
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to approve the March 10, 2003 Planning Commission minutes
as amended
Com. Saadati
Passed 5 -0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, reported that he was a
member of the Concemed Citizens of Cupertino, www.icyberbista.com\ccc . He read the petition
into the record: "The growth and development of the City of Cupertino are controlled by a
General Plan which is updated approximately every ten years. In the past, the city officials have
repeatedly allowed exceptions to the General Plan to favor large development which damage the
quality of residential neighborhoods. Recently exceptions to the General Plan were made in order
to dominate the comer of DeAnza Boulevard and Stevens Creek with the very large Cypress Hotel
and Verona Apartments. The current General Plan is in the process of being updated with the new
General Plan scheduled to be completed this summer. However, the Cupertino City Council and
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 24, 2003
Planning commission are actively considering even more exceptions to the existing General Plan
before the new one is completed. If enacted, these exceptions would permit undesirable
development to be approved now instead of waiting until the public can give their input to the new
General Plan. Some particular examples, the Planning Commission will be considering tonight
approval for an exception to the General Plan to allow tall buildings and high density apartments in
the Town Center, Planning Commission to ask the City Council to amend the General Plan to
allow tall buildings and high density along the Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard to Highway
85. We are concerned about these developments that would adversely affect density, traffic
congestion, air quality and the impact on our neighborhood schools." He said that they would
present 600 signatures and speak on the Town Center item.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
M-2002-09; EA-2002-08
Matt Pietras/Sim Architects
Mercedes Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 342-22-044)
Modification to hillside exception (EXC-2001-07) to construct a 3,008 square foot residence on a
vacant lot on slopes greater than 30%
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of March 1 O. 2003
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a hillside exception to
construct a 3,008 square foot residence on a vacant lot on slopes greater than 30%, and a parking
exception to allow tandem open parking spaces. In September 2001, the Planning Commission
approved a hillside exception allowing a new residence on a vacant lot in the RHS zoning 21
zoning district. The approval also included a parking exception for tandem open parking spaces.
There is now a new owner who is asking for changes to the approved plans resulting in a modified
application. Staff recommends approval of the application. Planning Commission action is
considered final unless appealed.
Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the application as outlined in the staff report. He
noted that the general floor layout and house orientation, architectural forms of the previous
approved house have been retained in the new proposal, with the exception that the proposed
house will have a 550 square foot attached garage and additional 683 square feet of overall living
space.
Com. Corr referred to Figure 1 showing the area to be protected and questionedhow to guarantee
that the area would be protected, and if by accident it was disturbed, what action would be taken?
Mr. Chao said that a more detailed construction operation plan is required to be submitted before
issuance ora building permit covering the details of the protection measures. There is a condition
that requires that the construction area be fenced off with construction fencing which further
protects any activities in the red protected area. If violated, it would be a violation of the
conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 24, 2003
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that if there are violations, the use permit can be
revoked, or criminal prosecution, civil injunction, a multitude of remedies, but it would not put the
land back. Mr. Piasecki said that they could require a restoration of any encroachment. The intent
of the construction operations plan is to provide a foolproof barrier, and the plan will be reviewed
to ensure that it provides as many safeguards as are reasonable.
Relative to Mercedes Road, Com. Corr said that he recommended additional conditions relative to
the blockage of Mercedes Road, in that it is very narrow, and any construction equipment, portable
toilets, piles of dirt or other obstacles would pose a serious problem to the access to the Marianist
property where there are a number of elderly persons residing. He reiterated that emergency
vehicles' access to the property should not be impeded.
Com. Saadati asked how the color of the building blended in with the adjacent landscape and the
use of material; and how visible would the house be from further down the elevation. He also
suggested that trees be planted to block some of the buildings to prevent it from appearing too
massive. Mr. Chao submitted a color board, and said that the proposed colors are within the RHS
guidelines in terms of reflectivity value, and blend in with the surrounding environment. There are
no immediately single family homes across the street and there are no visible single family homes
down the hill. Mr. Chao said that from Mercedes Road, very little of the house would be visible
because of the existing vegetation, and there was also a requirement of planting two oak trees in
front. He pointed out that a condition in the permit requires that the reflectivity values of the
colors chosen be within the allowable hillside regulations or standards.
In response to Com. Wong's questions about parking, Mr. Chao said that there is currently no
onstreet parking on Mercedes Road, but Public Works has reviewed the applicant's proposed plan
of providing two onstreet parking spaces on the other side of Mercedes Road. He added that three
tandem spaces could be provided, and the applicant had shown two on the plans. For large
gatherings, Mr. Chao said that the regulations require six parking stalls for lots without onstreet
parking and the applicant does have six stalls. He clarified that the fire department requirement
was that the house have sprinklers for fire safety measures. The fire department does not have to
physically drive up the hill as the house is no more than 150 feet away from Mercedes Road.
Mr. Piasecki said it was a difficult lot and they felt the applicant did everything reasonable to
access the property, properly maintain as much of the site without any construction, maintained the
natural vegetation and still tried to provide "reasonable" use of the property. He said it was
possible and has been done although it is steep. The main concern is that the mountain lot is not
turned into an urban lot and results in highly landscaped and disturbed hillside areas. Everything
suggested in the conditions is attempting to work in that direction. He pointed out that the
ordinance uses the term "exception" which is a misnomer because it sounds like it is varying from
standards when in fact what the exception requires is a different procedure for design review. Mr.
Piasecki said the applicant must come to the Planning Commission if there is grading on slopes
greater than 30% or they move more than 2500 cubic yards of material. The term "exception" is
used when the term "design review" could just as well be used, and he said he did not want it to
appear that they were lessening their standards in this case.
In response to Com. Wong's question about soil erosion, Mr. Chao said that the project
geotechnical engineer and city geological consultant both have reviewed the project, and there is a
Planning Commission Minutes ~ March 24, 2003
set of conditions that deal with construction management practices specifying what the applicant
has to do to protect the soils from erosion and sliding.
Chair Chen said there was no doubt that it is a very geologically challenging lot and referred to
Page 5 of the report, where it states "supplemental geotechnical evaluation shall be performed as
needed." She questioned who makes the call; and who is in the position to make a call to require a
supplemental geotechnical report. She asked what the city's legal liability was in the event
anything goes wrong during the construction or after the house is built. Mr. Chao said that part of
the recommendation or condition from the city's consultant is that the project geologist should
inspect the site during different periods of the construction stage, and determine safety and erosion
issues. He said the paragraph refers to onsite inspection if it is deemed additional analysis needs to
be considered, a supplemental review be submitted or requested so that the project geologist hired
by the applicant would make that determination.
Ms. Murray said that the city could not be held liable. She said that everyone puts forth their best
effort and no one intentionally builds a house to slide down the hill. Everything is done to
investigate the use of the property to make sure that they follow all the rules; the city has certain
governmental immunities and does not have a legal liability; however, has a consciousness and
does the best to make the best use of a person's property without putting anybody at risk. She said
their greatest asset is to use the geologist to the fullest and make reasonable planning effort to build
a house that is going to be permanent. Relative to legal obligations, the city has immunities as far
as design, and permitting processes, and is free of obligation in those areas.
Com. Miller said he was concerned about grading in the rainy season, and suggested a condition
stating that the project be started outside of the rainy season.
Mr. Eugene Sim, Sim Architects, said it was his goal to have a good project for the family's dream
home, and felt he produced a design that works sensitively with the hill, provided better frontage,
more landscape, and as the conditions indicate, will be planting two new trees in that area.
Com. Corr referred to Com. Miller's comment about working on the project during the rainy
season. He asked when construction would be started if approval was received at this level. Mr.
Sim concurred that it was good practice to work on the project in the dry season, to avoid potential
mold problems from working in a wet season. He said it was their goal to at least start the major
grading and foundation pouring; and hopefully would have the drawings together to get the
building permit so that the project could begin this year. He said it they missed the dry season,
they would start the project next year. He was not able to give a definitive answer about the length
of time the construction would take.
Mr. Glenn Goepfert, Public Works, said they had the ability to restrict the grading activities to the
dry season and would do so especially for the rough grading. He noted that the dry season
normally is April 15 to October 15, and said from October to April special daily measures are
taken to protect the site. Because of the possibility of erosion, it will be studied carefully in the
final plans and addressed specifically. The original soils report indicated that there is a firm base
rock layer on which to found the structure; however it will call for a deeper foundation than
normal. He said he felt a good amount of care was taken in studying the site and the monitoring
measures including having the project's geotechnical engineers as well as the city's consultant,
take a look. In fact, in the disturbed areas and in the areas that are not to be disturbed, if there were
Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 24, 2003
to be some intrusion that would be something which would be subject to the oversight and he said
he felt that is a reasonable level of care
Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Dave Russell, 22790 Mercedes Road, submitted the attached memorandum regarding concerns
about the application for the proposed residence. He referred to the aerial photo of the location of
the proposed residence, and asked that the Planning Commission represent the interests of the
Marianists and be mindful that the Marianists have devoted their entire lives in service to the
community and should be granted consideration during construction. He said looking up from
Mercedes Road onto the piece of property, it is very steep, and from previous efforts to take soil
samples, and dig trenches and do some soil analysis, it is obvious that there have been slides on the
property as a result of the presence of some bobcats and digging the trenches. It is an active slide
area, and he cautioned the developer to understand that. He said that six boulders have come rained
down on his property, through the walls of his house and hit the deck and collapsed it. He
emphasized that it was a tricky area to build in and would like to see adequate protection taken.
He cited an instance of a house built in the area several years ago, where none of the vegetation
was preserved, and E1 Nino rains caused the land to slide, resulting in the house being destroyed,
then condemned and a filing of legal action. He expressed concern about the location of the oak
trees close to the driveway and said he was not certain how the driveway could be cut so deeply
into the hillside without destroying the roots of the oak trees. He said it was not his intent to halt
the project; he expected them to build and be a neighbor, buthe wanted to preserve the aesthetics
of the neighborhood which has been accurately referred to as a mountain community. Mr. Russell
said that Mercedes Road was a substandard road, less than two car lengths wide, and he felt a
construction project and subsequently a residence there would cause an increase in the amount of
traffic on that road. He questioned whether a plan existed to widen the road. He also asked that
there be a condition related to the construction on the property, including an active plan of dust
abatement; shielding the residents from Mercedes Road with four to six trees of sufficient size,
height and maturity each to be contained in a 25 gallon barrel. He recommended that the
construction only be permitted Monday through Friday, and not on weekends; a waste
management policy put in place and adhered to, including a trash can on the hill for the
construction workers. He said there was no mention of water runoff and drainage; and noted that
the driveways on Mercedes Road were very steep, and in the rainy winter season with the amount
of water coming down the hill, it resembled a river in a heavy rainstorm. He said that one of the
residents is a paraplegic and a bus had to reach her home to pick her up. He suggested that an
adequate proposal would be to drain under the ground, under the road and into Mercedes Creek for
drainage. He also noted that he felt onstreet parking was not feasible. He expressed concern about
the risk of blocking the road with construction vehicles and leaving the Marianist occupants in
harm's way in the event an ambulance had to reach them if the road was blocked. He asked that
offroad parking be considered.
Brother Robert Juenemann, Marianist, said they were concerned about the view from their deck
and the view from the lower rooms in the house. They reviewed the plan and spent time with the
architect and ascertained that the view is not negatively impacted. He noted that all restrictions
had been covered, and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project.
Chair Chen asked staff to address the issues, specifically the street widening issues, dust
abatement, construction restrictions, trash management during construction and water runoff.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 March ~4, 2003
Mr. Chao said in terms of soil stability, the applicant's geotechnical consultant reports include
recommendations to provide pier supported foundation and retaining walls for building and
extending piers to secure the southwest comer which does have some fill to it, and the reports have
taken those slopes and stability and the possibility of landslide into consideration. The foundation
designs posed by the applicant's engineer does account for that. In terms of the dust control and
the garbage management plan there are two conditions in the resolution; ConditionNo. 6, and also
Section 5, Condition 14. He said applicants are required to comply with best management
practices which deal with construction practices that abate dust control, and the measures are
handed out at the building department stage before they get their building plans. In terms of
screening the decks for privacy concerns, the applicant will be held to the R1 standards. Relative
to privacy protection planting, although it is not shown on the plans, a revised landscaping plan
will be required to show that the vision from the proposed decks along the north property line or
south property line will be screened with appropriate trees; and that would be reviewed by the
planning department prior to the issuance of the building permit. The project arborist provided the
city with a supplemental arborist report addressing the oak trees around the driveway and the
arborist did assure that those trees would survive the driveway construction. In terms of
construction hours and days allowed for construction, he said there were set times and days
allowed for construction hours.
Mr. Piasecki said that they could ask the applicant if they were agreeable to restriction that goes
beyond the construction period the city has, and if they are agreeable, there would not be a lot of
debate about it. He said there was also an issue about emergency access along Mercedes Road not
being impeded any time during construction, and suggested adding to Condition No. 10, page 1-14,
the words "the plan shall demonstrate that emergency access along Mercedes Road shall not be
impeded at any time during construction." He said to address the issue of not working in the rainy
season, it would be helpful to add a condition that indicates that in the construction operation plan
they shall demonstrate that not only will they not build in the rainy season, but they will
demonstrate that the sufficient grading retention essentially will be buttoned up and protected so
that when October 15 comes along, there won't be large scars or other issues that the rains could
some type of erosion.
Mr. Goepfert said that Public Works would require an erosion control plan be in place for daily
measures as a condition. Relative to the drainage concern, there is a condition that the runoff be
controlled, and not run over the erodable soil; any new impervious area be drained and then be
taken to the roadway, but also to existing conduits. He said it would also be addressed in the final
plans; and an erosion control plan could also be required.
Mr. Piasecki said it was suggested that four to six 24 inch box trees be planted to shield the
residential, which is beyond the privacy protection measures. He suggested that Mr. Sims address
the issues that go beyond the typical ordinance, the Monday thru Friday restriction for construction
as well as upsizing the trees to at least six 24 inch box trees.
Com. Corr said he questioned the concept of the gate, and that typically they did not permit gates,
especially mechanical gates as they give the feeling or exclusion rather that inclusion. Mr. Sims
said that it was crucial to focus on the big project and discuss with staff a workable solution. He
said that it was not their intention to create a gated community. Relative to the hours of
construction, he said that the applicant's goal was to finish the grading as soon as possible and they
Planning Commission Minutes 7 March
were mindful of the neighbors. The sooner the machines are removed from the premises, less
stress will result from the presence of the big tractors. He said he was willing to discuss the issue
with staff, and felt it would be a win-win situation, considering the pros and cons of both
proposals. Relative to the trees, Mr. Sim pointed out that there was another property owner
between the applicant's property and Mr. Russell's property which would likely result in a buffer
between the two properties. He said he did not object to taking extraordinary measures as long as
they applied to other residents; and relative to the possibility of another neighbor providing a
buffer, he would like to keep the options open, but did not feel it should be part of the conditions at
this point. He said as an architect/designer, he was sensitive to the fact that Mr. Russell and the
other neighbors favored the pastoral, mountain-like setting. He said the 25 gallon trees were very
costly, and asked that fairness be applied in the event another pending project might happen and
the neighbor would be interested in the project also. He summarized that the two issues were
hours of operation, which he would like to have the opportunity to discuss more, and the tree issue
which he just addressed.
Mr. Piasecki said on the issues of the gate, Monday thru Friday construction and tree size, that if
the applicant preferred a continuance so that they could present their argument pro or con to the
Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission would then render a decision; staff was not
opposed to the option; otherwise they would concur with those conditions as staff did not see
benefit of the applicant discussing it further with staff as it was now at the Planning Commission
level for a decision.
Mr. Sims said that Monday through Friday was appropriate; however, but they would like to have
the opportunity to maximize the grading time and have the option to do some on Saturday. He said
they would abide by whatever decision was made about the grading and would like to articulate the
issue of the trees.
Chair Chen closed the public hearing.
Com. Miller said that the project is difficult and costly, and he felt the applicant has worked
cooperatively with staff and worked through the majority of the issues associated with going
forward on the project. He said it was important to be sensitive to the neighbors and for the most
part, most of the neighbors' issues had been addressed. He said the gate issue bordered on an issue
of private property fights, not a gated community and he did not feel it was an issue. Com. Miller
said he concurred with the applicant regarding the hours of operation, that the early part of the
project is when the hillside is most exposed and the time when there is a risk for things happening,
and it would be beneficial to conclude that phase of the project as quickly as possible, since
extending it could add to the issues and the risk. He said he was not sure why there would he an
issue with working on the interior of the house outside of Monday thru Friday on finishing work
and when they would not be disturbing the neighbors. He said he was sensitive to the neighbors'
concern that boulders not roll down the hill and he would expect that Public Works would have
appropriate measures in place to ensure that there is no risk of danger to the houses in the
surrounding area. On the issue of the extra trees, he said he was comfortable with the mitigation
measures that staff proposed.
Com. Saadati concurred with Com. Miller. He said relative to the construction Monday through
Friday, the city has an ordinance that allows most of the construction to go through Saturday,
except for no grading on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or evenings within 750 feet of a residential
Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 24, :2003
area. He added that construction should take place during the non-rainy season. Relative to the
duration of the project, he said it depended on the contractor. Com. Saadati said that he supported
the project.
Com. Con' said the issues with the exception of the blocking of Mercedes Road were covered, but
he felt the erosion control was part of the drainage issue and were different. Mr. Goepfert said that
Public Works normally asks that best practices plan be attached, but if special measures were
desired, it could be a part of the grading plan. Com Corr summarized that the dust abatement issue
was included; he agreed with the tree issue, noting that Mr. Russell had not said he needed the
trees to protect his own privacy, but was looking at the entire situation and a future resident may
do the same. Relative to the construction hours, he said he recommended abiding by the
ordinance. The waste management plan is included; the portable toilet issue is addressed and the
drainage is included. He said he did not hear support about his gate idea, and he explained that the
reason he raised the issue, was the steepness of that driveway and it would be a hand operated
manual gate, and he did not feel that people would stop and get out and climb up the driveway to
operate the gate and then drive up. He added that if the gate was built, it would likely end up being
left open all the time, which is the owner's choice.
Com. Wong said he concurred with fellow commissioners and supported the project. Construction
hours are covered in the ordinance; grading will not be permitted on Saturdays; other construction
can take place Monday through Saturday. He said that he concurred with Com. Miller that the gate
is on private property, and it is the choice of the applicant if they want the gate. He concurred that
it was a difficult project and he felt that the applicant worked closely with the staff to do a good job
to build the applicant's home in Cupertino.
Chair Chen said that the gate issue was a difficult decision, and she understood Com. Corr's point
of not constructing a gate, but also felt that the applicant had a right to create a private area for
their home. She said that she supported what the applicant chose to do. Relative to the hours of
construction, she said it was important not to disturb the current residents and the current grading
restrictions were Monday through Friday with no construction on Saturdays, Sunday or holidays.
Chair Chen said she supported Mr. Russell's suggestion since privacy is an issue and she agreed
that more trees should be planted. She said she hoped it could be included as a condition and be
supported by the applicant. She said she supported erosion control plans for safety issues, and said
that the additional erosion control should be added as a condition if supported by her colleagues.
MOTION:
Com. Corr moved to approve Application M-2002-09 and EA-2002-08 with the
addition to M-2002-09 of conditions related to no blocking of Mercedes Road and
an erosion control plan, and inclusion of a condition about building during the dry
season only.
Relative to the water runoff and drainage, Com. Wong asked if it was included already or needed
to be added. Mr. Goepfert said there was a condition to address that; and recalled that a previous
speaker had addressed directing it toward the roadway. The condition calls for that and directing it
to an existing storm drain system
SECOND: Com. Miller
Planning Commission Minutes 9 March ~, 200~
Mr. Piasecki suggested specific wording on grading outside of the rainy season; that no grading
shall commence prior to April 15 and that the grading plan shall demonstrate they can stabilize the
site and ensure there will no or minimal erosion prior to October 15th; it would then apply only to
the grading and stabilization. He said that the construction could go on throughout the year, but
the concern related to the grading, and it would be added to Condition No. 10. Com. Corr accepted
the changes. Mr. Piasecki said that the privacy issue to add more trees could be added to the
motion or second. Com. Miller accepted the grading change. Chair Chen suggested that more trees
to shield the residents be added to the tree protection and landscaping, Condition No. 2. Mr.
Piasecki said that as part of the construction operation plan, we would make sure they have a
program to keep construction vehicles out of or avoid any impedance of the road.
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Mr. Piasecki noted that the Planning Commission decision was final unless appealed within 14
calendar days.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
GPA-2002-04, SPA-2003-01, TM-2002-02, U-2002-06,
Z-2002-02, EA-2002-14
Dennis Meidinger/Bill Hagman
10320-10440 So. DeAnza Boulevard; 20360-20440
Town Center Lane
General Plan amendment to exceed the floor area ratio by 39,401 square feet of office space and
increase building heights to 56 feet (from 45 feet)
Amendment to Heart of the City Specific Plan to exceed the allowed building height from 45 feet
to 56 feet.
Tentative map to subdivide four existing parcels ranging from approximately 1.9 acres to seven
"building" parcels and one common lot ranging from approximately 0.1 acres to 3.7 acres.
Use permit to demolish 16 existing office buildings totaling 123,695 square feet and construct
181,000 square feet of retail-commercial space 237 residential units and a .5 acre linear park.
Rezone 12.3 acres fro P to P (Planned Commercial, Office, Residential).
Tentative City Council date: May 5, 2003
Com. Wong excused himself from discussion of the application as his family owns property
adjacent to the Town Center.
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a mixed use
development consisting of office, residential and retail/commercial uses around a half-acre linear
park on the Town Center site, as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the item, and noted that the
recommendation was that the Planning Commission review and discuss the project, accept public
testimony but continue the item and take action on April 14th. She reviewed the information
contained in the staff report. She said that the action taken on April 14th would be a
recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Wordell said the City Council decision was the final
decision, which is legally the time period when a decision is made. Mr. Piasecki said that the
applicant could be asked if they would consider a continuance to April 28th to provide that
additional time and go beyond the review period.
Planning Commission Minutes l0 March 24, 2003
Chair Chen said that if they delayed recommendation to City Council to the 28th, it would still
make the City Council scheduled date of May 19th. In response to Chair Chen's question if there
was any reason for not delaying the recommendation to the City Council to April 28th, Mr.
Piasecki said that they have not done that all the time in the past, and if the applicant concurred, it
would be appropriate and provide time to go through the tentative map issue and benefit people in
terms of reviewing the environmental documents, but it is not required. He said it would be
beneficial if the applicant was agreeable.
Com. Miller said he was concerned about the numbers relating to the schools, and asked about the
distribution of one, two and three bedroom units. Ms. Shrivastava said that about 40% were two
bedroom units; 40% for three bedroom units. Com. Miller said that people would clamor to live in
Cupertino for the school and was an issue to be explored further, and get numbers from the school
district relative to the maximum number of children that Eaton could accommodate without having
to do substantial mitigation measures. Ms. Shrivastava said the numbers were the most recent
numbers from the school district and they evaluated some developments that had been built, such
as Oak Valley. Mr. Piasecki said that information out of the 2000 census would be helpful.
Ms. Shrivastava illustrated the circulation plan of the project, including the flow of one- way and
two-way traffic, and location of garage entrances. Relative to the growth of 24 inch box tree and
larger sizes, Ms. Shrivastava said there have been situations where arborists recommended 24 inch
box trees, in which case the change was able to be made. An attempt is made to use as large a tree
as possible to start with; which is something that can be reviewed with the arborist. If they
recommend smaller sizes for better growth, they would choose that. She illustrated the location of
the trees to be retained and those to be relocated. She said that the DRC reviews the signage plans
and if the Planning Commission wishes, it can go to the Planning Commission. Relative to the
sanitary requirements for the projects, Ms. Shrivastava reported that the Sanitary District had not
completed their study; they were to conduct a sewer study and provide information on what the
capacities are and what kind of improvements would be required; but the applicant will be working
with the Sanitary District to make sure they pay their portion of the improvements required as part
of the project.
Chair Chen referred to traffic mitigation and questioned if it was going to be part of the city capital
program when it is developed or would the city collect from the applicants. Ms. Shrivastava said
the traffic calming would be part of mitigation for the project; reviewed separately by the Planning
Commission and City Council, and the traffic calming for Pacifica would be part of a larger
discussion involving the neighborhood who is interested in options including the replacement of
the gate. For the purposes of Pacifica, the applicant will pay into a fund and the neighborhood and
the City Council would come up with the improvements for Pacifica.
Mr. Piasecki said the DeAnza/McClellan area needs to be studied as it is not operating efficiently;
it is a large intersection and seems to be feeding easffwest traffic into Pacifica which ends up
potentially going into the neighborhood, and there may be some things to do to impede that
intrusion that may be occmring now. He said the project is not contributing such a significant
degree that they would have to bear all the costs; hence they are looking for a contribution for that
intersection, which will not likely occur in the short term. The intersection also suffers from the
DeAnza College projected student load increase and they are addressing whether there is a better
way of treating that intersection, and the applicant would be expected to contribute. He said they
Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 24, :2003
have not been successful in getting DeAnza College to contribute. Mr. Piasecki said that it was
appropriate to include the traffic study as part of the General Plan process. Chair Chert said they
could discuss how they would make sure it happens.
Chair Chen asked for an explanation of parking management plan and how it is developed. Ms.
Shrivastava said that it is expected that the project will be developed in phases. Building G and the
cafeteria would be built first; either Building R1 or Building R2 will be built second; Building R1
will necessitate building of the park in addition to that and then Buildings F and H will be later
possibilities, with Building H being the last one. The parking management plan will stipulate that
if only Building G is being built, there will need to be adequate spaces on the site for Building G
since it is expected that there will not be underground garages at the time as they would be yet to
be built. There would be a review to ensure adequate parking on the site at all times throughout all
the phases.
Com. Corr said that originally there was to be underground parking which was to help with the
Civic Center project and the library, but the concept has been shelved. He questioned what affect
it would have on the Civic Center project and how is the parking balanced.
Ms. Shrivastava said that the Planning Commission reviewed the library and civic center projects
sometime in October of last year; we did a parking study for the civic center and before that we
didn't know how many spaces would be required as part of the civic center; the plan that Com.
Corr was talking about, where the project was supposed to provide a level of parking for the civic
center was done at a time when we really didn't know how big the library was going to be and
what kind of parking needs the civic center would require. With the approval of the library and
civic center plan, we have seen that the amount of parking available on the site along with the
addition of parking over here where the soccer field is, along with the onstreet parking available on
Rodriguez and the diagonal parking provided by this project, should be adequate for the purposes
of the civic center for its day to day working. For special events if more crowded, mostly after
hours or weekends, the applicant will be providing special event parking on his property. We
believe that is something that will work for the civic center.
Mr. Piasecki said that the previous plan had about 110,000 square feet more office and retail and
the expectation was that in exchange for providing that level of intensity, they would provide more
public benefits. Now that they downsized the plan, staff does not feel there is as direct a nexus;
and as pointed out, with the traffic calming plan on Rodriguez, they were now looking at more
onstreet parking on Rodriguez that they would be reconfiguring the street for, so there is actually
the opportunity for more onstreet happening and quite a bit less office and retail.
In response to Chair Chen's question about extension of use permits, Ms. Shrivastava said that one
one-year extension after the four year period could be granted, and that could possibly be changed
by the Planning Commission and City Council. She said at this point it was felt this it was a better
way of addressing the applicant's issue of wanting to take a longer time frame to build out the
project rather than granting a vesting tentative map.
Mr. Ed Storm, and Mr. Deke Hunter, applicants, showed a slide presentation illustrating the
proposed project, including the mixed uses, underground parking, landscaped areas, pedestrian and
vehicular access. He said in the beginning there was support for the project and he hoped it still
existed to make the area more of an active civic area and part of that was moving forward with
Planning Commission Minutes 12 March 94, 2003
mixed used, the retail, residential and some offices being re-established in a more orderly fashion.
He said they felt it creates opportunities and contributes to the identity of city hall and the new
library by creating a direct nexus to DeAnza Boulevard and providing activity day and night by
having the residences together with the office tenants.
Mr. Vinee Latonsi0, landscape architect, said that in developing the plan, they attempted to create a
community place for community gatherings, seated performances, fairs and markets, walking
under the oak trees, riding bike riding to work, walking to work, getting off the bus and going to a
pleasant public open space as opposed to an unpleasant public parking lot. He said the main
difference was moving the "ing" in parking and leaving the "park". He said it was their intention
to utilize the trees that were presently on site because they create an ambiance and connections of
different elements, and scale becomes an important issue and keeping the existing trees helps to
bring that scale down to human scale and comfort levels, where taller buildings won't appear taller
because of the interface with the trees. The idea was to create a pedestrian friendly place to go to.
Mr. Storm continued the slide presentation illustrating the proposed project. He said they were
sensitive to the neighbors' wishes within the confines of what they could economically do. He
requested the opportunity to come back after the public comment portion to clarify or answer
questions. In response to Com. Miller's question about for rent or for sale units, Mr. Storm
indicated that the units were rental units, averaging 900 square feet for a two bedroom unit. He
said that adding for sale units would change their economic edge, but they would address the issue
if the community and Planning Commission felt it would be a key factor in the acceptability of the
project. Com. Miller said he felt having for sale units was an opportunity to increase the housing in
Cupertino, and hopefully provide affordable housing for teachers and other public service
employees who work in Cupertino. He said he felt it would make the project a stronger one and
more desirable from some of the long term goals of the city. He questioned if consideration was
given to live/work units. Mr. Storm said that it was discussed, but was difficult to define what the
city wanted, a loft space or to have zoning to allow residents to work in their home.
Com. Miller questioned what design elements were used to address the latest concepts taking hold
of sustainable design and in the area of energy efficiency. Mr. Hunter explained that in the area of
sustainability and long term design, the residential buildings had more metal studs than wood
studs; use of heavy ash in the concrete, which is a recycled concrete enabling the use of greener
products; operable windows in the upper floors of the office buildings; eliminating asphalt and
using pavers which is a traffic calming device as well as recycles rainwater, permeating back into
the soil.
In response to Com. Saadati's question about the future of the comer property if the bank on the
comer moved or closed, Mr. Hunter said that architecturally it would be a simple transition, and
building-mass wise it would have to be appropriate in scale to the decisions coming out of the
process. He pointed out that they attempted to acquire the property but failed.
Chair Chen opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Dave Reopel, 10516 Whitney Way, Cupertino, said the issues include the present process and
the community process where people are working to get organized. He said some things got by a
lot of people, such as the high rises at Cypress, and the parking disaster from the apartment
building behind the Portal building. He said he felt there would not be adequate parking for the
Planning Commission Minutes I t March 24, 2003
buildings. He expressed frustration that nothing in the documents or notification to the public
mentioned anything about another traffic light on DeAnza Boulevard which would only slow down
traffic more on DeAnza Boulevard. The residents had a right to have input in the traffic light issue
as they would be driving up and down DeAnza Boulevard every day. He said he understood the
need for affordable housing for the teachers and service employees, but felt there should be more
owner occupied units available to the community, not transitory units in the complexes. Number
of cars for each unit was unrealistic and the school numbers are inaccurate, 600 to 700 more new
residents would result in more than 26 students.
Ms. Jennylea Sepulveda, 10285 Farallone Drive, Cupertino, said she was part of the group that had
petitions signed and informed residents what was happening. She said some of the questions asked
were: When was the last traffic study done? She expressed concern about the traffic on Rodriguez
and Pacifica, stating that traffic was being brought into the residents and not pulling it out of the
residential area, creating parking lots on Bollinger and Rodriguez. She noted that when her
children were in school some 17 years ago, it was difficult to cross DeAnza to take the children to
school. She said at one of the meetings she attended the residents were told of the importance of
the opinion of the residents; yet people have stated their opinions, attended meetings and they are
told to get involved more. She said the persons signing her petition were all concerned about
traffic and the over-population of the schools and what is happening in the city. She said the
reference was made earlier in the meeting to a 1,000 person concert, and said she would not want
to have such a crowd in her backyard because it is not what the people of Cupertino want. Ms.
Sepulveda said that the city was concerned about pleasing the family who wanted to build their
dream home and utilize the excellent school system; yet the residents that have lived in Cupertino
for more than 27 years and supported the schools are continually fighting for their rights.
Ms. Cecelia Attix, 10328 Brittany Court, Cupertino, said that two years ago when they attended
community meetings regarding the applicants proposed development of Town Center, deep
concerns were expressed at that time against the proposed height of the development. He said she
thought they had reached a reasonable compromise with the developer then; but the applicant is
now presenting a new architectural concept. The new concept while beautifully done, proposes a
four story building with a five story tower which would impact the surrounding neighborhoods to
the extent that views would be blocked, streets would be congested and the air would be affected.
She questioned why the original compromise was discarded; and said most responsible
communities are more concerned about the quality of life than cooperating with developers in their
desire to maximize their investment. She asked that the Planning Department consider the adverse
negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Any large building over two stories next to a
residential neighborhood would create many problems. The Pinn Brothers building at the comer
of Stevens Creek and Stevens Creek was limited to two stories; therefore why should an exception
be made in this case? She respectfully requested that they preserve the atmosphere as all the long
the residents have. She concluded by stating that she sincerely felt that the Planning Commission
wants what is best for Cupertino, and if a many story building is allowed as I am sure the
developer wants, to maximize his investment, the surrounding neighborhood will at the same time
have their property values decreased.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Dr., read into the record a message from the citizens of
Cupertino. "We the citizens of Cupertino, the majority of us feel we have lost control of our city;
the height, the high growth, high density, high rise developers to the detriment of the quality of life
of ourselves. Looking at the newer construction board from DeAnza Boulevard to Stevens Creek
Planning Commission Minutes 14 March 24, 2003
to Torre to Rodriguez has set up red flags lefl and right. That is why the bulk of us are concerned.
He said the following comments were directed at Mr. Storm and Mr. Hunter. "A year and a half
ago there were many meetings, four community meetings where citizens that felt very good at the
outcome of the meetings, felt the developers really cared about us; at that time we agreed two to
three stories; at that time we agreed to lower the density of the area; and when we came to last
Tuesday's meeting we were told three stories, but the rendering showed four stories and Deke
Hunter pointed out that if you looked at the outside of the building, there were three stories, but on
the other side there are four stories." He said the towers alone on the buildings reach 56 or 60
feet; not to mention the Building F or the one they were worried about; they don't match the other
buildings and don't belong on the complex. He said the 56 foot building was the reason for the
petition; there are too many exceptions; the rules are not being followed. Mr. Whitaker said he
also had concerns about the traffic control; adding a new library, civic center and new residences
over and above the offices in there. He said he did not want to see calming control on Paciflca and
Rodriguez. Out of 40+ homes visited, he said there was only one person interested in continuing
the development as it has been going. He urged them to return to what they discussed before with
three stories, keeping the rules of the road 45 feet.
Ms. Angie Chiappa, 10329 Brittany Ct, Cupertino, said she also went out and gathered petition
signatures also. She said she did small sections by Blaney and Stevens Creek and behind the
buildings there, Los Ondos, Brittany Court, and a section of Blaney between Stevens Creek and
Somerset. About 30% to 40% of the people were not there; there were 5 that agreed with the
concept of not overriding the General Plan but would not sign; 6 wanted to have the continuation
of density; and the remaining 55 signed the petition. The big buildings on Stevens Creek and
DeAnza seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back; they were strongly opposed to high
density, not the mixed concept use. She shared the following comments: Why are Buildings F and
H being built when there are relatively new office buildings in their space and a lower height; take
off a story of R1; for the section of the building away from the main courtyard with the front
section on Torre - lower the density of the number of units that are going in there. He
recommended that the center courts of the R1 and R2 buildings be more child friendly, with a
toddler playground and grass in the middle. He said that having a park surrounded by cars was not
appropriate. She suggested waiting the 30 days for the hearing.
Ms. Rusty Britt, 20850 Pepper Tree Lane, Cupertino, member of the Concerned Citizens of
Cupertino, submitted 71 signatures of Cupertino residents who agreed with the request that no
exceptions be made to the General Plan until the new one is complete. She said she and her
husband covered about 1/3 of the area they intended to canvas and all 71 residents were irate about
the development in Cupertino; nearly all of them angrily pointed out the over-development at the
corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard; none want the over-development to be repeated
at Town Center. She said she was concerned that when developers begin building there, density
and height exceptions will be made from an original agreement with the city. Once Messrs. Hunter
and Storm get their feet in the door they will further develop in order to make their profit as well as
pay penalties for exceeding the original plan. The Cupertino residents will have to live with the
over-crowding, limited parking and traffic congestion. The General Plan needs to reflect what
Cupertino residents want their city to become. She urged that in the meantime, they not grant any
exceptions to the General Plan until it is reviewed in June.
Mr. Ned Britt, 20850 Pepper Tree Lane, said they also created an online setup where people could
sign the petition online, and 61 signatures came up online over the weekend. He said he also
Planning Commission Minutes 15 March 24, 2003
walked around and noticed that people who have lived in the community and own homes have a
belief that over the years they have constantly had the need to guard against the actions of the city
government to degrade their neighborhoods. He said the people thanked them for being watchdogs
because they mistakenly thought the City Council would protect their community, but instead is
destroying it. Mr. Britt read some of the comments from the online: "I didn't like the way the
comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard were pushed through." "I do not want to live in a
downtown city with tall crowded buildings" ... "City Council- stop encouraging developers; we
can really live without their gifts; .... tell the Planning Department no more exceptions to the
General Plan;" "Covet our local retailers instead of creating more competition for them." "Start
listening to the voices of residents instead of those few you dance with and whisper in your ear
what you want to hear." Another resident wrote: "Please preserve our Cupertino community; we
moved here three years ago because we liked the small town feeling." "Maybe Silicon Valley
Manufacturing Group needs more housing; but we, the people of the community, do not." "The
surrounding towns benefit from the jobs in Cupertino, then drive home to a community that did not
sell out their own quality of life to developers in high tech." "Your grade for the city Center equals
F-; shame on you for selling us down the river and stop saying you know this community -- you do
not." "There are too many buildings and apartments in Cupertino" "we are upset that Cupertino is
being turned into unfeeling, ugly city blocks of cement;" "Note that the middle school redistricted
and requires early teens to cross busy Cupertino streets by bike and foot." "Speed limit reduction
is necessary to increase pedestrian safety; heavy business density along these same busy streets is
counter-productive to creating walk to school environment with the new school boundaries." "I
have lived in Cupertino for 33 years it is sad to see such a great city turn into a cluster of tall
buildings and congestions. These developments offer nothing to improve the quality of life in
Cupertino."
Mr. Norm Hackford, 10346 Tonita Way, Cupertino, said he had lived in Cupertino for 33 years
and moved from Southem California where he felt the growth was substantial and hopedthat the
growth in Cupertino would not be a problem. He said they were fortunate to have the surrounding
hills to help control the growth, but they also needed the City Council to help control the
development and provide an enjoyable environment. He said he though he was the only person
who felt that way, but when canvassing the neighborhood and in particular Garden Gate, they
collected 165 signatures. He said of 169 houses they went to, only four of them for whatever
reason decided that they did not agree with the petition. They weren't happy with the heights,
density; and they were affected by the schools. They weren't happy with what is happening in the
community and were surprised that he suggested they work to get more unfiltered input from what
the community and people feel. He said they need to follow the General Plan, put it in place, and
expect it to be followed; with the understanding that they will not be taking exceptions to the
General Plan. He said the plan should not have special opportunities for landmark buildings or
city entrances where suddenly they end up with a building much taller than expected. He
recommended taking the opportunity to get the community to see their leadership and gain their
trust by not making any exceptions to the current General Plan and no exceptions until the new
General Plan is in place. He presented a petition with 165 signature, said he would like the
opportunity to comment not only on the environmental report that is being done, but also take the
opportunity to comment on the actual plans see at the meeting.
Ms. Billie Cramb, La Roda Court, Cupertino, said that the website for the Concerned Citizens was
www.icybervista.com; and submitted a petition with 64 signatures. She said she was surprised that
people were so angry and were adamant that they do not want a four story building. People are
Planning Commission Minutes l t; March 24, 2003
worried about the schools; one woman talked about her daughter being in a lottery to get into a
school. She urged the Planning Commission and staff to look at the numbers for the schools. She
urged the city not to rush into a decision.
Ms. Joanne Tong, 22339 McClellan Road, said her main concern was the building height. The
General Plan for the city of Cupertino should state a building height limit of 35 feet, two story
buildings with no height amendments being allowed; also maintain the 30 to 35 feet setback for the
buildings. She recommended that there be no increase of building heights to the 56 feet being
proposed to the General Plan amendment; recommended that the amendment to the Heart of the
City specific Plan not allow a building height to 56 feet. She said she had signatures on the
petition and the statement above their signatures states that the concerned citizens of Cupertino
urgently call for the city government not to allow any special exceptions to the existing General
Plan until the new one is completed. She said to remember the city of Cupertino belongs to the
residents of Cupertino and not to the outside developers.
Mr. E. J. Conens, 10480 Pineville Ave., Cupertino, said he concluded that many of the people do
not understand the city of Cupertino, which is a small community some are trying to make into a
large San Francisco. He said he was quite surprised at people's opinions when he went to collect
signatures for the petition. Some asked what the city had done for them lately; questioned the lack
of progress by the Longs Drug Store; and asked why the city gave out a permit when there was a
parking problem. He said he was opposed to exceeding the General Plan limit for height and he
felt parking would be horrendous. He said the residents like the view and want Cupertino to stay
the way it is supposed to be.
Mr. Bob McKibbin, 20101 Las Ondas Ct., said he had empathy for the developers caught in the
middle. He said he passed out petitions also and found there is presently a lot of mistrust in the
community; much of it revolving around the development at DeAnza and Stevens Creek
Boulevards. He expressed concern that the development is going from the present development to
a four fold increase in the density of that area which concerns many people. Citizens distrust what
is presently occurring especially with amendments to the General Plan. Many comments were:
why do amendments now when the General Plan is going through a review? Why not wait until
that General Plan is approved by the City Council and then look at these developments? He said
looking at the present economy, there is no hurry to approve this; the recession is here; the high
vacancy of the apartments is present in the community, high vacancy of offices and retail is present
and there is no reason to push the development through. He said it would be several months down
the road before the General Plan is approved. He said another concern was the traffic situation;
there are a lot of people that wanted to see some kind of mitigation with regards to this process
funneling traffic away from the residential area and more toward DeAnza. A lot of people are
concerned that it is not part of this process and there is going to be a huge increase in traffic down
Pacifica and Rodriguez. He said he felt the amendments to the General Plan should be postponed
until the new General Plan is approved.
Ms. Sally Larson, 10220 Danube Drive, Cupertino, said she was concerned about traffic calming;
and asked if it meant putting speed bumps on Rodriguez. She said it would be a major concern as
it causes the traffic to slow down, creates more engine and brake noise, adds gas fumes, and in
general doesn't help anything. She said that she was concerned that her view would be obstructed
by a 60 foot tower; and was concerned about the addition of a traffic light. She expressed concern
also with the over 150 million square feet of current vacant office space in Silicon Valley, and
Planning Commission Minutes 1'/ March 24, 2003
questioned what makes this development different and why they would think the occupants are
going to be in this area when there is so much vacancy elsewhere for several years. Another
concern is after years of the residents of Cupertino not being able to support Vallco Fashion Park,
they cannot seem to support restaurants in the city, or a bookstore in the city. What type of retail is
going to be so inviting that none could survive previously. One thing that has kept living in
Cupertino somewhat bearable is that most of the offices were closed and quiet from Friday night to
Sunday night. Cupertino has been a quiet community on the weekend, but that will be changed
with the new development and will also be impacted soon with the larger library and later the
infusion of families moving into the area. She urged the Planning Commission to adhere to the
current General Plan and to wait for the vote on the upcoming Plan and listen to the hundreds of
people who are signing the petitions.
Ms. Sarah Feit, 1181 Yorkshire Ct., Cupertino, said she was a member of the Housing Commission
and discussed the jobs/housing ratio of 2:1 in Cupertino. She said a way to fix the problem is to
increase the housing supply which she would like to see happen. She said they need to provide
housing for teachers and public service employees. She said that although people are retiring,
many people are moving out of the area where it is more affordable. She said they would not be
able to enjoy the quality of education that they have before; which directly relates back to housing
values because that is why people move to Cupertino. She said she supported the project to
provide more affordable housing to teachers and public service employees.
Mr. James Haferd, Torte Avenue, polled his community of Cupertino Classics and received a total
of 18 signatures from the 24 homes in the area. From those who did participate in the process it
was unanimous as far as the position that the homeowners took. He read the following issues from
the statement:
"Since completion in 1997, the Cupertino Classics neighborhood has been a very visible example
of new urban development in the center of Cupertino. The single family homes define a transition
from the high density apartment buildings added to the core of the city center to the low density
single family homes throughout the surrounding city blocks. The delineation point for the
transition has been well established with all surrounding developments well defined, with long
standing zoning, successful development and stable property ownership. Until introduced to the
above proposed changes to the civic park town center plans, Cupertino Classics residents have felt
a part of both city center and the single family residential areas of Cupertino. Cupertino Classics
residents feel an obligation to fellow residents of Cupertino and to the city planners to speak out in
opposition to the proposed Town Center excesses and zoning changes to avoid being isolated as a
lone low density development in the master plan and to maintain the transition to low density that
the city planners achieved when Cupertino Classics was created seven years ago. Today, visitors
to Cupertino city center see single family homes with porches and back yards that are fronted by
parks and park benches as they approach the civic square on Torte Avenue. The high rise
apartments clustered at city center are buffered from the surrounding residential streets with
attractive open spaces. Cupertino Classics homeowners are proud stakeholders and the creation of
a positive first impression for those who approach the library, city hall or stroll through city center.
Thanks to the foresight of prior city planners, visitors get a taste of the true Cupertino lifestyle, an
impression of community and of efficient use of shared space. The Cupertino Classics
development achieves a delicate balance, quality of life with limited space while staying within the
bounds of existing zoning, floor area ratios and building height limitations. By approving the
Cupertino Classics development, our elected officials established a new precedent for residential
Planning Commission Minutes l g March 24, 2003
density surrounding civic square and just beyond the multi-story office space in city center. There
is no reason to abandon this precedent now. Existing zoning does not permit additional residences
in Town Center portion of the master plan. The two proposed three story plus residential
complexes do not follow the established precedent of residential density on Torre Avenue; again
there is no buffer in this from Torre Avenue in the plan, and I heard that it is actually preferable to
city planners at this point to place buildings directly up against residential streets with less
constraints than what would be on DeAnza. The proposed open space is far less than the amount
of open space per residential unit in other parts of the master plan and the half acre open space is
little more than a swollen median strip in the center of the development rather than usable park
space on the visible perimeter of the Town Center development. Cupertino City Center master
plan whi:h is not shown at all this evening, which includes our development, and this development
is an exemplary mixed use development with office retail and residential adding residential units
within Town Center compromises the plan existing residential density is already higher than in any
other area in Cupertino." He urged denial of the application and request the applicant to resubmit
plans which match with existing zoning and limits."
Ms. Malka Nagel, 10180 Camino Vista, Cupertino, said that she also collected petition signatures,
and there were more than 50 concerned people. She said the group of Concerned Citizens of
Cupertino collected petitions so that the Planning Commission and City Council would know that
it not only concerns the people that live around Town Center, but also the entire community. She
said her area around Monta Vista and the Foothill area, don't live near Town Center but are
impacted as they drive down Stevens Creek, use the library, and for the same reasons others have
mentioned, they are concerned with the traffic, school impact and density. She said she was not
sure that the apartment development would address the housing issue of teachers and service
people, and said that teachers want to buy property, not rent apartments. She agreed with previous
speakers that the issue of affordable housing had to be addressed. Ms. Nagel questioned the rush
to get the project approved when the developers did not plan to build any office space for possibly
four to five years; and said with the high vacancy rate in the county, it would behoove the
applicant to wait and have the General Plan approved before doing any work on the project.
Chair Chen closed the public hearing and declared a short recess at 10:25 p.m. The meeting was
called back to order.
Chair Chen thanked the community for their input.
Mr. Hunter said while the core part of their land planning and the mixed use nature of their project
received positive support, clearly the issue of height was prominent and they tried to balance some
of the housing issues with such things as the tuck under. He said they would return in two weeks
and address the issues brought up and continue to prove there are ways to make such an important
project work for everyone. He clarified that the process began three years ago, and was not
something new and something that needed to wait. He said he felt some of the issues were that
some residents were offended at some of the other General Plan violations and the applicants have
become the focus of that ire. He reiterated that he was a resident of the city, had his office in the
city and had children. He concluded by saying that he felt confident that staff and the Planning
Commission would be impressed with their ability to make improvements to reflect the
community' s wishes.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 24, 2003
Chair Chen said she felt it was a good design, but there were concerns from the neighbors and the
citizens that needed to be addressed. She proposed that the item be continued to April 28th. Mr.
Hunter said that he would prefer not to extend it to April 28th, but return in two weeks. Chair
Chen said the reason for the proposal to continue to April 28 is that the public input collection
process doesn't finish until April 26th
Com. Corr said that he concurred with continuing the application to April 28th; as the community
was constantly questioning why the city was rushing projects through. He said that Mr. Hunter
made a good point, that the project did not start yesterday, but had been around for a long time, but
was now in the public eye. He said there are state funding issues; everyone is mad at the state
because of what has happened there; a war going on; confusion of what is happening in the school
district with their reorganization of their grade levels; a middle school, and how students are going
to have to go to different places. People see it as one large issue to deal with and it needs to have
time to settle.
Com. Miller said he understood that there was the feeling that more time was needed; however, the
applicant was not suggesting that they not take the time. He said the applicant has shown the
willingness to come back with some alternatives or some potential solution to some of the issues
raised for the Planning Commission to consider in the interim. It would also allow time to meet
some the residents. He said if it would help the process, he was not opposed to it. Perhaps the
scope could be narrowed to some of the key issues and the applicant may have specific ideas about
addressir,g the issues. Com. Miller said he was not opposed to a continuance for two weeks, with
the idea that a decision likely would not be made until April 28th.
Com. Saadati said he was not certain that two weeks was sufficient time to address the issues,
since architecturally it takes a long time to go back and evaluate the heights, the towers and try to
balance it. He said he had 30 years of experience in the field and two weeks was not a lot of time.
Perhaps it would be better to go to the 28th and be able to make some decision at that time, which
would allow more time for public input and to gather more information regarding the schools and
capacity and comparison to other units, and hopefully address some of the ownership on the
homes. Com. Saadati said he supported continuing the application to April 28th because he felt it
would work best for everyone.
Mr. Piasecki summarized that it would take more time to do redrawing as Com. Saadati indicated;
with the three story office building there would have to be 10 feet taken out of it to conform to the
45 foot limit, and restudy the tower elements on the other buildings, and also take three feet out of
them. He said the work to be done included going back to the school districts to verify their
numbers, and do some cross checking with the census data to try to confirm or not confirm that
information. He pointed out that with the amount of work to be done, the four weekperiod would
be utilized productively; and if the applicant wished to, it would be beneficial to meet with the
neighbors more. By the 28th of April the public would have enough time to review the
environmental data, and the Planning Commission would have more information and be in a
position potentially to make a decision at that point. Relative to the traffic issue, the numbers have
to be revisited and better inform the public.
In response to Ms. Shrivastava's request for direction from the Planning Commission, Com. Corr
said that in general they heard the same comments about the Crossroads project as this project,
questioning why they were changing the limitations under the old General Plan when the new
Planning Commission M~nutes 2§ March 24, 2003
General Plan was not yet adopted. If you are going to say build something 30 feet, build it 30 feet;
don't say 30 feet and then apply for an exception to build anything you want. He said Mr. Piasecki
made some good points when he defined the problem with the term "exception." Com. Corr said
he was at a loss to give more direction other than to say more housing is needed. Something has to
be done about the jobs/housing imbalance and he felt they could find ways to accomplish that
without going beyond the General Plan and building anything the developers want. The
developers are trying to reflect what the community wants also. He said there was talk about the
jobs/housing balance being there and the need for more housing in town, but as mentioned earlier,
they cannot support the retail. Supporting retail is having people living there; they go hand in hand.
Mr. Piasecki summarized that there were issues relating to traffic, heights and density, etc. and
staff was being asked to return on April 28th with information that will attempt to address those
issued and the applicant could present his response to the issues, hopefully resulting in a more
complete package of information.
Com. Miller added that he lived near Town Center, but more than 500 feet away, and when he
moved to Cupertino in 1980 there were just orchards, and a grain mill at the comer of DeAnza and
Stevens Creek Boulevards. He said he had seen many changes over the last 23 years; change is the
nature of Silicon Valley; it is a good community and has been a good community but there are
some challenges that need to be addressed. A key issue is the affordable housing issue. Cupertino
has a BMR program that addresses housing for the lowest income classes in the community, but
the service people have not been addressed. He said it was such an important issue, since one of
the reasons he and others have moved to Cupertino was for the school system. He said the fact
that housing has become so unaffordable in town, seriously threatens the quality of education that
many came to Cupertino in the first place. He said living in a community involved tradeoffs. He
said he did not want the schools to be overrun by students they cannot handle. Assuming that the
issues could be solved and the applicants can at least in his mind address the affordability issue for
some of the city's service people, he said he was inclined to look at a project that he was willing to
give a little in order to gain something more important such as affordable housing for the people in
the community. Relative to guidance, he said he visited the project and looked from different
angles, at what views were obstructed and what were not obstructed, and said he did not have a
preference about the towers; but said the height is not out of character with what is there and it
does not appear to block blocks views from the residential areas. He said he understood that
people might have an objection to height, but he did not feel strongly about an objection to height
for height sake. Height because of higher density that goes with it, is an issue that manifests itself
and traffic problems, and are serious issues that need to be addressed. If they cannot be addressed,
perhaps the project should not go forward. He said if they could be addressed, he felt he was
willing to make a tradeoff to get something more.
Chair Chen summarized the issues: traffic, heights, schools, request to delay the process and sale
vs. rental of the units. He said he felt it was not any specific issue that was a concern, it is the
impact of density and growth that concerns the community as a whole. Staff is heading in the right
direction to have the applicant work with staff to address the traffic, height, and school issues
which is an overall impact of the density and growth.
MOTION:
Com. Corr moved to continue Application GPA-2002-04,
SPA-2003-01, TM-2002-02, U-2002-06, Z-2002-02, EA-2002-14
to the April 28th Planning Commission meeting
Planning Commission M~nutes 21 March 24, 2003
SECOND: Com. Saadati
ABSENT: Com. Wong
VOTE: Passed
4-0-0
Mr. Piasecki summarized that at the last City Council meeting, since much of the input heard
tonight was directed at the General Plan and the process for the General Plan update; in response to
an oral request, the Mayor asked about the community meeting originally scheduled for mid-April
and staff indicated because of schedule conflicts, the meeting was canceled. In response to the last
two study sessions on the General Plan, staff heard from City Council and Planning Commission
that there are potential issues with the existing General Plan that need to be looked at in the
General Plan update more comprehensively. Consequently on April 7th staff will come back to the
City Council and suggest that a more elaborate public input process is needed.
Mr. Piasecki said projects already in the pipeline that conform to the current General Plan can
proceed ahead because they do conform. Projects such as the subject project where they need
increases in height either must wait or must ask for their own General Plan amendment as they are
doing in this case to increase the height. That is how they are addressed and they have become
spotlighted and in effect under the current plan if they are requesting amendments to that plan.
One of the challenges is for the applicant to reevaluate this project to determine how much if any
they need to exceed General Plan heights as they currently exist. The other part of this plan that
they needed was the allocation of slightly under 40,000 square feet of additional office space. He
said the concept was that it would come from allocations already existing in the General Plan
somewhere else and that they would not add another 40,000 square feet onto the current General
Plan. He said in the interim period between now and April 28th, they could perhaps definitively
identify where that square footage would come from so there would not be more square footage
being added to the current plan.
Com. Wong returned to the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
.4ssignments to Commissions:
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAiN:
VOTE:
Chair Chen moved to appoint Com. Miller to represent the
Planning Commission on the Housing Commission.
Com. Wong
Com. Miller
Passed 4-0-1
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Corn Corr reported that the committee went on a field trip;
and discussed upcoming projects at the committee meeting.
Housing Commission: Chair Chen reported on the recent meeting that she and Com. Miller
attended. Topics included Cupertino's increase in population; grant funds; and affordable housing
program for teachers.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting: There was no meeting held the previous month.
Planning Commission Minutes 22 March 24, 2003
OTHER: Com. Corr said he supported the concept of having the schools report on their numbers;
especially from a staff member in the student assignment office to share their actual yields.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported
on upcoming meetings; and the San Diego Planners Institute in March.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the next regular Planning
Commission meeting, at 6:45 p.m. on April 14, 2003.
Respectfully Submitted,
ElizabetlgEllis
Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: April 14, 2003