PC 03-29-99CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 To~e Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408)777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 29, 1999
CONFERENCE ROOM C
SALUTETO THEFLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Con', Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle
Staff present:
Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Raymond Chang, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Assistant
City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
None
PUBLIC HEARING
OLD BUSINESS
1. Annual General Plan Review
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, distributed the expanded outline for the meeting, and provided a
brief overview of the outline for the annual general plan review. She reviewed the implementation
progress, including the regional housing needs and the affordable housing program.
A discussion ensued regarding the affordable housing opportunities provided, wherein staff
answered questions. Mr. Cowan noted that the report being forwarded to City Council would
include the rehab units owned by non-profit organizations, as well as the 18 homes in the diocese
development.
Mr. Raymond Chong, City Traffic Engineer, distributed the attached revised traffic report, which
outlined the 1998 intersection level of service. In response to concerns expressed about the
accuracy of the level of service indicated because of the approved developments, Mr. Chong
provided an illustration of major intersections and on/off ramps and explained how the level of
service (LOS) was calculated. Discussion followed regarding the impacts of the approved
developments on traffic at the major intersections. Mr. Chong pointed out that Caltraus is
responsible for the metering lights on the fxeeway ramps and the city is responsible for the street
traffic lights. Com. Harris suggested that the intersection of Wolfe and Pruneridge be added to the
annual review of intersections or critical need. She pointed out that it was misleading to categorize
one of the worst intersections as a B LOS.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 29, 1999
Mr. Chong discussed the difference between the Congestion Management Program and an
intersection that does not have that designation. He said that in the county, Valley Transportation
Authority is mandated by the state to manage congestion in the valley; and Public Works and
Planning Department staff worked throughout the year on those which were the major roads to
look at principle medals and which are the major intersections that intersect. He said that Stevens
Creek and DeAnza Blvds. are both major arterials in the county designed as a CMP; highway 280
and route 85 are both CMP freeways and are considered major roadway facilities in the county.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the Cupertino Development Status as of December 31, 1998 (Table 1,
Exhibit A) which was included in the staff report, and illustrates the residential and non-residential
growth in Cupertino since 1990. Following a lengthy discussion, there was consensus to shift
allocations to increase the undesignated residential allocations to allow more maneuvering room.
Mr. Cowan explained that a goal he wanted to accomplish for the work program was the idea of
shifting the general plan in concept from the ten year annual review to the one year minor review to
the five year bump, which is a major shift. He said the Council agreed with the concept in joint
session with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cowan explained that there were three stages related to the land use type of process;
establishing policies, primarily with the general plan, discretionmy review pertaining to reviewing
individual developments related to zoning, use permits and maps, ~nd the building permit. He said
in t~xms of creating the general plan, the most complex part is the community preference goals
process, now called the visioning committee, wherein staff works with the community as a whole
to define the direction of the general plan. He said it is a very cumbersome process, one time
taking a year and 85 people, and a tremendous amount of money to accomplish, resulting in merely
educating those people, and not changing fundamental policy. He pointed out that a general plan is
mandated by the state. He said he planned to work with the Council and discuss types of citizen
input to be used in the general plan update, by way of Council and Commission heatings. Mr.
Cowan said that his recommendation to Council in terms of the five year bump was to look at the
charette process, hire a strong facilitator, and get input from the community, and discuss the
opportunities a community survey could provide with attitudes and information about land use and
housing, which would replace the goals and vision committees.
Com. Harris said that the benefit of a large general plan program is finding the future leaders of
Cupertino, bringhag them fonvard to meet and be part of a process, and resulting from that general
plan goals committee were many people who have since staffed commissions and nm for Council.
She said that although it is easier and probably more efficient and effective, it loses the enormous
groundswell of public support and activity level.
Chair Doyle said that leadership in Cupertino tends to be a training ground for people headed in
that direction, whereas the visioning and goals committee tends to pull people out of the
neighborhoods who feel the need to be involved ia their comm~xnity. Mr. Cowan said that when
done correctly, as was done with the charette for the Stevens Creek Grand Boulevard Plan, it was a
very exciting process and resulted in 40 or 50 people being involved. Com. Hams said that she
felt neighborhood meetings may be more effective, attracting 25 people at each, lather than the
charette, because the charette process is a brief process, pulling people together for only the two
days of the meetings.
Planning ComnUssion Minutes 3 March 29, 1999
Mr. Cowan reviewed Stage II, the discrefionmy review process and answered questions. He said at
the stage II level, general plan pohcy level decisions are made, and he maintained that the general
plan is involved based on what occurs at the meetings.
Chair Doyle said he viewed it differently; that the general plan looks at vast mounts of
information with some visions, goals, to start the program out; they are refined to what are the
impacts of implementing those s~xategies; the tactics are provided with a cohesive backing, meeting
all the requlxements. In most cases, the plannmg Commission interprets what the general plan
says, and occasionally a situation exists where the general plans does not reflect the views of the
community, and four times per year, general plan changes can be made. The general plan provides
the sWacture, background, understanding and the cohesive package that allows the Planning
Commission to take action, and know that as long as they remain within those boundaries, the
infrastructure of the organization or the city will stand together; the schools won't deteriorate
significantly; the fire problems w ' '
on t get worse; and there will not be more traffic congestion, etc.
Mr. Cowan reviewed the proposed general plan review, Figure 3, as outlined in the staff report.
Com. Harris suggested adding neighborhood town meetings to the 5 year public input step. She
said that if a new plan is set, it needs to be very specific and there needs to be a statement as to
what is going to be accomplished in the five year plan; specifying what kinds of things are going to
be done in the annual update.
Referring to the Housing Element section of the General Plan, Com. Harris expressed concern
about specific areas that still needed to be addressed and recommended to the Planning
Commission as to whether they should be removed or pursued. Ms. Wordell pointed out that it
possibly could be handled in the five year plan, beginning in the year 2000. Com. Hanis
reiterated that it needed to be in writing as part of the general plan review to handle those projects
not scheduled in the last general plan and either take them out or put them in the work plan. She
said that more needed to be added to the undesignated category, and reported to the Council as a
general plan change.
Chair Doyle said that as part of the proposal to the City Council, it should include long term, with
a review of the allocations; for short term there needs to be a general plan amendment
implemented, and see if the Council agrees with that strategy. Com. Harris referred to the
undesignated residential of 48 units on the chart and suggested that it be corrected to show 15 with
one more pending.
Ms. Wordell referred to the 1999 draft work program and discussed areas that required finxher
comment.
Chair Doyle reported that the planning horizon should be in the 10 or 20 year range, with the ideal
planning range of 20 years, with a packaged plan for 10 years, and strategies for the next 5 years.
Relative to creating a redevelopment project area at Vallco Fashion Park, Mr. Cowan said that the
catalyst for that would be the willingness of the owner to proceed. He said that a consultant has
labeled the area as a blighted area_
Com. Harris requested a copy of the list of the City Council ideas fi.om their January 22 meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 29, 1999
Discussion continued wherein the remaining projects on the 1999 work program were reviewed.
Relative to the list of Draft 1999-2000 Goals, Mr. Cowan said that Nos. 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22
and 26 related to his work program.
Relative to the role the city can take to encourage retail, and improve obsolete shopping centers,
Mr. Cowan said that it was more of a economic development strategy to encourage the
improvement of the centers. Ms. Wordell noted that the sign issue was related to the proliferation
of temporary signs, which she indicated was an enforcement issue. There was a brief discussion
about the indusla'ial/residential mixed use review, wherein it was suggested that it remain on the list
as a general plan issue. Ms. Wordell said that the policy manual was an internal document.
Relative to height/setback ratios for the city, Com. Harris said that if there were any corridors in
the city that are commercial or office, they should have a plan for height and setback, but only for
corridors. There was consensus to leave ratios/setbacks on the work program. Ms. Wordell
explained that Inspiration Heights was related to the Don' property, and the suggestion was made to
master plan the entire area Mr. Cowan said that there was enough development potential for a
total of five as indicated in the general plan. He said there was no need to spend more funds as the
Dorr application supercedes the project.
Com. Harris emphasized the need for townhouse units in the city.
Com. Harris requested that biographies of contractors be included in the stalTreport packet when a
contractor comes before the Planning Commission.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m. on April 12, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary~
Approved as presente& April 12, 1999