PC 10-27-03CITY OF CUPERTiNO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 27, 2003 MONDAY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2003 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Chen; and the
following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner
Angela Chen
Taghi Saadati
Chuck Corr
Marly Miller
Gilbert Wong
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff present: Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Aarti Shrivastava
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the September 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting:
Vice Chair Saadati requested the following changes:
Page 8: Under "Vice Chair Saadati": change item (3) to read: Relative to privacy, the ordinance
addresses privacy; builders need to come with trees or shrubs that in about 2-3 years will meet the
requirement. What is the maximum size of trees in the past we have required to be planted?
Change item (4) to read: The side setbacks set by R1 are 10 and 5 and by the group proposal 10
and 10. Change the last word in item (5) to 10.
Page 25: Under "Vice Chair Saadati": change the 5 bulleted item to read: The front and back;
the back is 20 feet and the front is the one that needs consensus regarding privacy, said he agreed
with the verbiage that is in the proposal, and obscure glass and 6 foot high should satisfy the
concern of most of the people.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 27, 2003
Page 28: Under "Vice Chair Saadati": change the second and third sentences to read: The
proposal is similar to R1, perhaps a modified R1 with a different setback. Buildings should
conform to a certain standard which would result in a harmonious and attractive building, which is
what everyone wants.
Page 33: Under "Vice Chair Saadati": Change the second bulleted item to read: Front setback:
30 ft. is fine; second story setbacks are fine as shown...
Delete the word "so" from the third bulleted item.
Change the 11t~ bulleted item to read: Story poles: not certain it is absolutely necessary as long as
the rendering can be provided so people can see what is going to be built in order to give them a
good idea...
Motion:
Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Wong to approve September 22, 2003
Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0 )
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
Chairperson Chen noted receipt of several e-mail
messages regarding Linwood Acres issues, and on issues
regarding the Oaks Shopping Center which will be on the
next agenda.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Brian Kuo, 10540 Larry Way, Cupertino, CA:
· He and other homeowners collected engineering data
· Asked to present the data prior to discussion of the Linwood Acres item on the agenda
P.J. Yim, 10629 Randy Lane, Cupertino, CA:
· Crux of argument for specialized zoning in the Linwood Acres area is that there are unique
characteristics: wide front setbacks and wide side setbacks.
· Driving by Larry Way, he noticed that some houses are not wide--they are very narrow.
· Asked Mr. Nguyen to go with him to measure the setbacks.
· On page 2 of packet, information shows the combined setbacks that were measured one
weekend. Received e-mail from Peter Gilli who did measurements from blow-up of aerial
pictures. Stated that he feels the accuracy is diminished quite a bit by the proportions.
· Page 2 shows the minimum for side setback combined on Randy Lane is 17 feet, whereas on
Larry Way it is 10 feet. The first quartile means that 25% of the houses have combined
setbacks less than that amount. If you look at the median, it gives the impression that 10 - 10
seems to be the right number, because the median says that half the houses have bigger than
19.8, the other half is less than 19.8 combined.
· When data was sorted, 11 homes of 68 homes (comer houses were not measured intentionally,
because their regulations are a bit different), had a larger side whose side setback was less
than 10 feet.
· When information was ordered by smaller setbacks, 47 homes had side setbacks less than 10
feet.
· 47 out of 60 homes, excluding the comer lots, is 78% of the homes. If you include the comer
homes, it would be 69%. Either way, the majority of the homes have side setbacks less than
10 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 27, 2003
· The Commission made its decision based on the assertion that the neighborhood has really
wide setbacks and it has unique characteristics. Having such a wide diversity from the
minimum of 10 feet to the maximum of 36.5 feet in the side setbacks, there is a huge range of
side setbacks which should stop the argument of unique characteristics of the neighborhood.
That was the crux of the argument in trying to convince the City to have specialized zoning.
· The Commission should revisit the issues, based on solid numbers.
Thanh Nguyen:
· Spoke on the three requirements for privacy mitigation.
· Asked that the Commission reconsider its previous proposal for a 12' tree at 36" box in light
of cost and the difficulty in planting those trees.
· Presented pictures taken at Payless Nursery in San Jose. The cost for a 12' tree is $800 and it
would require the use of a crane and many people to move the tree into place. A 10' tree
would cost only $329.
· Was given information that an arborist had said that the larger tree might not grow faster.
Want to give shrubs as an alternative---when planted at 6' tall, it would reach 12' in one year.
A shrub planted at half the height of a tree, in one year would reach the same height as the tree
· Asked the Commission to reconsider the cost and practicality of planting trees and shrubs in
the area.
· Stated that they appreciate the efforts the Planning Commission put forward in making their
recommendations, but these are the final two items they would like to have reconsidered.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
U-2003-08
Judy Ma (Metro PCS)
Use permit to install a wireless telecommunications
facility consisting of a 50 foot slim-line pole and
equipment storage unit.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Property located at 20565 Valley Green Drive
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· This application is a request for a use permit to install a 50 foot slim-line pole and equipment
storage at an existing storage facility.
· Presented aerial photograph to show proposed location of the slim-line pole.
· Stated that the proposed site is almost 100% developed, and there is very little room. The
landscape margins are fairly narrow and most of the rest of the space is taken up by buildings
or by the driveway that loops around the buildings.
· Showed a section of the plan set which gave the elevations for the proposed facility. The
building itself is approximately 12 to 14 feet tall. The 50 foot tall slim-line pole is only 10
inches in diameter and the housing which covers the antennas is approximately 18 inches in
diameter.
· Explained that all of the equipment would be stored in one of the lockers; however there will
be an air conditioning unit which will be left outside.
· Said a visual analysis was completed of where the antenna would be visible. Areas of limited
visibility would be Highway 280 (limitation due to existing landscaping) and the apartment
complex on the far side of the public storage unit. The greatest visibility of the antenna would
be from De Anza bridge on Highway 280 and from the proposed Extended Stay America site,
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 27, 2003
which is across the driveway from the public storage facility. It would not be visible from De
Anza Blvd. and Valley Green Drive, because of the intervening trees and buildings and the
deep setbacks of the site.
· Stated that when they looked at the initial proposal, they considered both a tree pole and a
slim-line pole. Said staff prefers the slim-line pole because the tree pole would be nearly
three feet in width. Given the limited space, staff felt a tree pole would stand out at this
location, given the 50-foot height the applicant is interested in achieving. This would be
twenty feet taller than the surrounding landscaping, and staff felt the tree pole would appear
obtrusive because of the greater height.
· Presented a photo simulation showing the suggested planting by the applicant. Said staff
would recommend trees slightly taller than the 12 foot trees pictured by the applicant. Staff
would prefer trees 14 feet in height.
· Displayed photos simulating the visibility of the slim-line pole from various vantage points.
· Said that using the trees outlined in the plan, growth would take some time. The redwood
trees can grow from 3 to 5 feet in a year, according to our arborist. During that time,
landscaping to specifically screen the trees would be planted with the stipulation that the
landscaping could not be removed.
· Stated that staff recommends approval for the installation of the slim-line pole and the
landscaping, but asked for an amendment to condition number 4 presented in the staff report.
Change the language for the expiration so it is not limited to the wireless technology, but it
also includes camouflage technology. The amendment would be to review the state of the
wireless communications after a period of five years to include the wireless communications
as well as the camouflage technologies and determine if the visual impact of the personal
wireless facility can be reduced upon the permit renewal.
Com. Corn
· Stated that this application was referred to the Telecommunications Committee and asked if
any response had been received from the committee.
Mr. Jung:
· Said he had not heard from the committee, but preliminary comments from Ernest Tsui
showed his main concerns to be the height of the antenna and how fast the trees would grow
to obscure it.
· Said staff feels comfortable with the 50 foot height. Not only does the antenna need to be able
to cover the highways, but it also needs to be above the planned Extended Stay America hotel
building, which is planned at a height of 41 feet. The 50 foot antenna does not seem to be
overly tall, considering the heights of the potential surrounding building. The maximum
height that would be allowed is 55 feet, so the applicant is below the maximum.
Mr. Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Explained that the proposed Extended Stay America hotel project may not go forward, but
there will be some building there in the future.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Said there is an existing power pole in the area and asked if it is higher than the proposed
antenna.
Mr. Jung:
· Said that one of the initial proposals to the applicant was that they put their equipment in a
Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 27, 2003
public storage unit and trench to get to the power pole to provide services.
· He said that unfortunately, the power pole is located off the property in the Caltrans right-of-
way, and between that, there is a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage channel.
· The applicant would not only have to get permission from the Water District, but would also
have to get permission from Caltrans to get to the power pole.
· The pole is basically accessible only from the freeway, over the embankment. It would be a
very difficult proposition for them to provide services from the location of the power pole.
· It would be problematic to get permission from the Water District, because they would either
have to go over or under the drainage channel. The Water District is not amenable to those
types of modifications to their property.
Com. Miller:
· Stated that there is an approximately 11-foot landscape strip between the driveway and the
structure where two redwood trees are proposed to be planted.
· Asked if the trees would impact either the structure or the pavement in a negative way as they
grow larger.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the landscape strip is a very generous size and he does not foresee the trees having a
negative impact on the building. The strip is probably much larger than one would normally
find for a redwood tree. The trees could be positioned so they would not interfere with the
building by not planting them too close.
· Said the applicant is amenable to limiting the number of trees so they do not obscure the
signage they have on the site.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the applicant had considered the Net Manage building as an alternate location.
Mr. Jung:
· Said he would defer that question to the applicant. The Net Manage building is a slightly
smaller building compared to the others around it. The roof of the Apple Computer building
is close to 60 feet. The Net Manage building is a three-story building, so it is probably
between 30-35 feet in height.
Com. Wong:
· Referring to page 1-5, Section 3 under conditional approval, asked Mr. Jung to explain the co-
location agreement.
Mr. Jung:
· Explained that the City does not have a standard agreement for co-location. We rely on
carriers to negotiate among themselves to decide what would be a reasonable rent for co-
locating another set of antennas on the pole itself. It is a market-based rent that staff does not
become involved in---it is best worked out among the carriers.
· Said that while it is often difficult to get carriers to form an agreement, they recognize
that it is in their best long-term interests to jointly use these resources to get these locations,
because it is very difficult for them to find suitable locations for their antennas.
Com. Wong:
· Asked if the City of Cupertino collects any taxes or fees for the communications poles in
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 27, 2003
terms of revenue generation.
Mr. Jung:
· Said there may be a small modicum of property tax realized from the increased assessed
valuation, but no-one has thought of a creative way to squeeze some extra revenue from it.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the pole would be located on private property, and the only instance where the
City might receive fees is for facilities located on public property, in which case the City
would lease the space just as the private property owner is doing.
Com. Wong:
· Questioned if there i.s any public property in Cupertino that could be leased to the
applicant.
Mr. Jung:
· Said there was no public property in this particular location. Metro PCS already has a lease
on a pole at the Corporation Center for which they are paying rent to the City.
Com. Wong:
· Asked Mr. Jung to re-read the last sentence of the proposed amendment to condition 4
regarding the expiration date, saying that in the future it would be appreciated if a hard copy
could be placed on the dais.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the last sentence replaces the last phrase in the condition 4: Review the state of wireless
communications and camouflage technologies to determine if the visual impact of the
personal wireless facility can be reduced.
· Said the original condition talked about reducing the height and size of the antennas and staff
did not want the Commission to be limited that way since there are other things that could
come into play five years from now.
Judy Ma, representative for Metro PCS
· Answered commissioner's question about why they did not propose to locate their facility on
the P.G.&E. power pole, saying that the lowest conductor line on the pole is pretty low, and
for safety reasons, they have to stay 10 feet away from P.G. & E. lines.
· If they went below the conductor lines, they would not be able to get the height needed to
achieve their coverage objective.
· In addition to the jurisdiction issues, she explained that there is very little space on the ground
for the location of equipment cabinets. As Mr. Jung discussed, if the equipment had be put in
public storage facilities, it would be necessary to cross the channel and it would be a very
difficult site to build and to maintain.
· In answer to the question regarding the Net Manage building, she said she had left a message
with the facilities manager, but did not hear back from him.
· Said they did exhaust all the other possibilities, such as talking to Apple Computer and
Cupertino Inn and she understands that they are already pretty full with occupants on their
rooftops.
· Stated that they are trying to improve coverage along 280 in addition to providing coverage
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 27, 2003
to residents north of Homestead, which is another reason for the requested height of the pole
and the location.
Said that in terms of co-location, Metro PCS is always open to working with carriers to
form agreements.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Saadati to approve application
U-2003-08. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Z-2003-02, TM-2003-02
U-2003-04, EXC-2003-06,
EA-2003-09
Jane Vaughan/
Menlo Equities
Rezoning of a 7.74 acre parcel from P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL)
to P(Planned Development)
Tentative map to subdivide a 7.74 acre parcel into two parcels:
4.47 and 3.2 acres, respectively
Use permit to construct a 107-unit condominium project and
6,450 square feet of new retail space
Exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed heights above
36 feet. Tentative City Council date: November 17, 2003
Property located at 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road
Aarti Shrivastava, Senior planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Stated that the project is a use permit to construct 107 residential units and retail space at the
northeast comer of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road at the Cupertino Financial Center.
· Said the project also includes a rezoning to change the current zone to allow residential uses, so it
would be changing from a P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL) to planned commercial office and residential.
· Also included in the application is a tentative map to subdivide the existing lot into two parcels and a
heart of the city exception to allow building heights up to 44 feet.
· Explained that the site plan shows the existing buildings at the bottom, left-hand comer and the new
buildings are shown on the fight hand side. One of the buildings shown is a small, 8-unit
retail/residential building and the other is a larger building that has 99 units.
· The project has retail facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, with an entry drive off Stevens Creek that
has been relocated a little to the west, and another that has been relocated a little to the north.
· The parking lots have been reconfigured and the entry drive has been enhanced with trees and
enhanced paving to make it more inviting to the retail, residential and office development.
· Provided a list of comments from the City Council/Planning Commission study session of
August 4th.
1) Liked the mix of uses and some of the project features
2) Asked for compatibility with the existing office
3) Expressed concems about height and density
4) Expressed concerns about buildings that were extending into the slope required by the
General Plan of 1.5 to 1 slope
5)Requested the addition of more open space
6)Requested that the retaining wall to the north be landscaped to reduce its mass
· Said the project has reduced the original proposed number of units by 13. The application
originally requested 120 units and it now requests 107.
· Heights have been lowered, especially in the front, where the buildings are now compatible
with the General Plan.
· Buildings no longer extend into the slope.
· There has been some increase in the open space. The applicant has tried to reconfigure and add
usability to the open space.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 27, 2003
· Explained the drawing showing the project from the Rose Bowl site, which is the eastern section
and shows a sloping dirt and landscaping bank. The project will fill in the sloped portion, creating a
tall wall at the northern end. The applicant is planning to break up the wall into two sections and
landscape that portion so the height will appear more visually attractive than if it were just a long, tall
concrete retaining wall. The height differential is approximately 10 feet, so there will be a two-foot
planted height, and then an 8-foot height with a decorative fence above that.
· Presented a quick breakdown:
1) Existing office of about 103,000 square feet
2) Building A will have 8 units and 2,500 square feet of retail
3) The heights for Building A are approximately 37.5 feet
4) Building B will have less retail and 99 units
5) The 3-story section of Building B will be 36 feet in height, with a tower element that will go up
to 44 feet
6) All of the elements meet the requirements for the exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan,
which allows sloped portions of roofs and some architectural elements to extend above the 36
feet. The towers are an architectural element and therefore meet that exception.
· Stated that the land use designation for this location is office/industrial/commercial/residential.
The project is compatible, because it proposes commercial and residential uses. It is also within the
allowed number of housing units in the current General Plan. Thirty-five units per acre is the
maximum allowed, and this project proposes thirty units to the acre.
· Said the maximum height allowed by the General Plan is 45 feet and the height of the tower, which
is the tallest part, is 44 feet.
· The project will require rezoning, but it will be compatible with the General Plan.
· Spoke about the 31 ash trees along the frontage of the site. The applicant proposes to remove 11 ash
trees by the entry drive and in front of the retail portion of Building B and retain these ash trees along
the rest of the frontage west of the entry drive. The city arborist reviewed the ash trees and made a
recommendation that the trees to the east be removed and the trees to the west be retained, since it is
difficult to install standard pavement in between the trees which is what the Heart of the City Plan
requires. Currently there is a monolithic sidewalk adjacent to the street
· Said the arborist also reported that this species of ash tree is more difficult on hardscape, so there
would be some lifting of pavement and that the species is more expensive to prune. There is already
evidence of limbs that have fallen and may be a safety issue.
· Arborist recommends that the existing ash trees be removed and replaced with the species Fraxinus
Americana. Variation is good, because if there is an insect or pest issue, it would not destroy all the
trees in one shot. This type of tree is easier on hardscape, so pavement would not be lifted.
· If the berm section were to be kept and the new walk put in, the arborist recommends that it be
floating over the grade and that they don't grade into it, because he does not want the trees and roots
to be impacted.
· Staff recommends that the recommendations be followed.
· There are 149 trees. The project proposes to remove 109 and retain 40 of the existing trees. None of
the trees are specimen trees and most of them are in the locations of the buildings and the parking lot
that will be reconfigured.
· A total of 319 trees are proposed to be planted, so there will be more trees than there were originally.
· Looking at the site, there is a large parking lot to the east of it. The parking lot extends beyond this
property line. There are some changes in the asphalt pavement which show where the property line
ends. The entire parking lot is not part of the property.
Com. Corr:
· Asked to whom the remaining portion of the parking lot belongs.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 27, 2003
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Answered that the remaining portion of the parking lot belongs to HP.
· Presented brief overview of project, showing existing building and proposed new buildings.
The new building with 8 units follows the fiat rooflines off the existing buildings, with one
portion attached. After that are the entry drive and the trees and the project transitions into
a more residential character with sloping roofs.
· Explained that the sloping roofs were necessary to ensure the building met the slope line
requirement for the General Plan.
· There will be retail along the entire frontage of the new building.
· The north elevation show how the building is broken into two parts with a
courtyard in between.
· Showing the east elevation, she gave information about Building B. It is a large building, so it is
broken up into three parts with entries into the courtyard. It has a residential character, with sloped
roofs and has articulation with balconies and turrets.
· Explained the west elevation which showed the courtyard between the two buildings.
· Stated that a condition requires review of the project design by the Design Review Committee
review various details. Staff also recommends that the buildings have a stone base and that
slate or slate-like material be used for the roofing, instead of the proposed metal roofing.
· Said that all of the colors and materials will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
· Discussed open space within the project:
1) Intemal Courtyards
a) Landscaped courtyard
b) One containing a swimming pool
c) Series of passive courtyards, which have landscaped areas and seating.
2) Plazas surrounding retail portions of site
3) Twenty-foot side yard, proposed to be landscaped with a path that could add to outdoor
seating.
4) Re-landscape the existing courtyard between the existing office buildings, to be used
by the office personnel and by the residents during and after office hours.
5) Series of lighting or visual connections that would provide people a way to follow
those connections into and out of the open spaces.
6) One area of parking lot to be closed after office hours and weekends to be used as
volleyball, basketball court, etc. Pavement would be in a different color and material
would be available to set up nets for active outdoor activity.
· Said that the project is projected to generate approximately 1176 daily trips, out of which 93
would be a.m. peak hour and 103 would be p.m. peak hour.
· Said there would not be a substantial change in intersection level of service. None will reduce
below Level D, which is the General Plan limit.
· Discussed parking, saying that the project utilizes a shared-parking concept. If individual uses were
broken out and the City's parking requirements were added, the project would require approximately
601 spaces. It provides 521 spaces, which is what the shared parking study recommends.
· 113 of those spaces would be located in the underground parking. The surface parking is about
208 spaces, and a total of 200 spaces would be available in the residential areas.
· Explained how the parking process would work, saying that during the daytime about 75
of the spaces in Building B would be available to general users, so the offices would be able
to get all 362 spaces that would be required of it during the daytime. Approximately 26 spaces
Planning Commission Minutes l0 October 27, 2003
(showed colored green on the plan) would be available for retail. Staff is recommending that these
spaces be marked for retail from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., so they would be easily accessible to retail
customers.
· There would be a balance of 134 spaces available for residential use during the day.
· After hours, the City requires 2 spaces for every unit and there would be 2 spaces for every
unit in the underground parking garage. Again there would also be the 26 available for the retail, and
a balance of approximately 295 for guests or other people wishing to park.
· Looking at the shared parking, during and after hours, it would be a very comfortable exchange of
the use of common space for one use or the other. Section 19.100 (of the Cupertino Municipal Code)
does allow approval ora shared parking plan if the entire project is managed by a single entity, if
there has been a detailed parking study and if it is in a planned development zone. This project
satisfies all of the requirements.
· Discussed site access on Wolfe Road: The project proposes to move the entry access approximately
90 feet north of its current location. That might reduce the amount of stacking available into the
Vallco mall, because additional stacking needs to be provided for the project traffic turning into the
site with the new location.
· Spoke with traffic consultant who recommends that the access to the site be moved a bit further to
the south, in order to ensure adequate stacking for the site and for Vallco.
· One condition of approval requires additional analysis and the Public Works Department is
aware of this requirement. Staff feels the project will probably have an access drive somewhere
between the two recommended locations.
· Discussed e-mails received regarding school impacts from the school districts. Approximately 54
are expected at the elementary and middle school levels and the school district has indicated that
that number of students could be accommodated comfortably at Sedgewick Elementary and the
new middle school that is being built. The Fremont Union School District expects 4 new students
from the project, so them are no significant impacts predicted for Cupertino High School.
· A noise analysis indicates that the French doors for the loft units should be replaced by double-
insulated doors and that all residential units within 250 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard should
have mechanical ventilation to ensure there is adequate circulation when the doors and windows are
closed.
· Approximately 15% (16 units) of affordable housing would be available through this project. Since
it is proposed to be a for-sale product, about 50% would be put aside for median/moderate income
levels.
· Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, the Rezoning, Tentative Map and Heart
of the City Exception.
Com. Wong:
· Asked about impact to Vallco Rosebowl property by installing the proposed retaining wall, and
Vallco's future plans for the Rosebowl site.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Said that, at this point, there has been talk about residential use, theaters, and a number of other
things, but there is nothing final yet. Staff assumes Vallco will use the area that has been dug into
possibly for underground parking, with something built at the level the street is on.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Added that the area that has been dug is actually too deep, depending on how many levels
of underground parking they may need. This is not uncommon where there is a property
owner adjacent to another one and where there is a slope that must be retained without infringing
Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 27, 2003
upon what can occur on the adjoining property, but it can be assumed that there will be one or
two levels of parking underground under a mixed-use building (potentially office and/or
residential) over retail.
Com. Wong:
· Referring to page 2-3, asked why the applicant wants to do a Tentative Map and divide the property.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that it was her belief that the applicant wants to separate the residential from the office.
Com. Wong:
· Expressed concern about the removal of the ash trees, saying that removing trees in Cupertino is not
the thing to do here.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Explained that the arborist went through the plans thoughtfully and some of his suggestions,
including replacing the trees with a different type bears merit. If all the trees are the same kind,
and they get hit by an insect or pest, all of the trees would come down. It is always a good idea
to add some variety. The trees look very similar, but would probably not be affected by the same
kind of pests.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Reiterated Ms. Shrivastava's earlier point that for the viability of the retail, we would like to enhance
the visibility into the stores and shops. The existing berm is quite high and would cause limited
visibility into the retail store fronts.
Com. Wong:
· Questioned the number of bedrooms in the complex and the number of parking stalls are proposed
per unit.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Said that at this point, there are at least two parking stalls per unit, referring back to the shared
parking arrangements.
· There are a total of 107 units proposed. Explaining how the parking would work after hours, she
stated that there are a total of 200 parking spaces in the underground parking garage. There would
be an additional 27 spaces available in adjacent areas, giving a total of 227 spaces. The applicant
needs to provide 214 spaces
Com. Wong:
· Asked if these are assigned parking spaces.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that the way it normally works is that each unit would have one assigned parking space
at the bottom levels and on the top level, the spots are available on a first-come, first-served
basis. Given that after hours, there would be approximately 300 surface parking spaces in addition
to the underground parking, staff does not expect parking to be a problem for residents trying to get
to underground parking.
Com. Wong:
Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 27, 2003
· Asked for a breakdown of the number of three-bedroom, two-bedroom and 1-bedroom units in the
total 107 units.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Answered that there will be about four 1-bedroom lofts, twenty-two will be three-bedroom units and
the rest will be two-bedroom units. They will all be for sale.
Com. Wong:
* Quoting from page 2-9 of the staff report regarding developer fees, asked how the school impact fees
for Fremont Union High School District are calculated.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that developers must pay impact fees at the rate of $.98 per square foot of new building.
Multiplying 148,000 square feet by $.98, the school district will get approximately $150,000 for
in impact fees for the projected 4 new students in the high school district.
· Explained that the fees are paid directly to the school districts, so it is not necessary to include
school impact fees as part of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Added that the high school will also get property tax enhancement. Because of the enhanced
value of the property, the district will get this as an on-going revenue. Staff does not have all
all of the definitive numbers yet. They are attempting to sit down with them to define the revenues,
as well as the operating and capital costs to accommodate the expected new students. In the event
that the numbers don't match, staff will suggest that in the future we have impact fees to
accommodate students. These units were are units that were anticipated in our cmTent General
Plan, which has been in effect initially since 1993 and was updated two years ago. The District
did not raise the impact fee issue, which staff would be glad to do if there is in fact an impact.
Just as we would ask a developer to provide funds for a right turn lane or whatever was needed if his
project impacted an intersection, if there are impacts on the school systems, we would want to find a
way to mitigate those impacts.
Com. Corr:
· Stated that through the developer fees, the Fremont Union High School District would get
funds to use for facilities. The City will not issue a building permit until the applicant comes in
with an affidavits from both districts saying the fees have been paid.
Com. Wong:
· Asked what the setback is on Stevens Creek Boulevard for the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Said that retail Building B appears closer to the street, and he questioned whether it fell within the
ordinance requirements.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that Building B is approximately 40 feet back. The Heart of the City requires it to be
35 feet. Trying to address comments from the City Council and Planning Commission that they
align the buildings, the applicant set it back further than the requirement.
Com. Wong:
· Asked if there will be sidewalk cafes in the project.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 27, 2003
Ms. Shrivastava:
One condition of approval is that the applicant provide details to the Design Review Committee
of the plaza areas of the project and how they will be treated. There will also be an enhancement
at the comer plaza that leads to the bridge that goes through to the office building. At this point,
they are showing special paving and an art feature. Staff feels this is almost a "gateway" entry into
the City beyond Vallco.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Commented that there are no signed leases yet, so there is no assurance that there will be sidewalk
cafes, but they have accommodated it with outdoor plaza space in front of the retail and staff has
heard from retail experts that about 70% of the new leases tend to go toward restaurants or caf~
spaces, because that is what is selling currently.
Com. Wong:
· Asked how this project will tie into the HP property and Vallco.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that it is expected that the landscaped side yard would tie in well with any development
that might occur at the HP site. The right to have reciprocal bike and pedestrian ingress and egress
easements from one site to the other has been preserved.
· Since there are no specific plans from the HP development, it is difficult to know exactly what will
be there. It is always the development that comes in later that has to try to fit into the existing
development.
Com. Wong:
· Stated that it seems the application meets the open space requirements, but asked if there is a way to
add more open space such as an open courtyard between the buildings.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that the applicant does meet the 150 square feet of common open space and 60 square feet of
private open space per unit required by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The private open space is
usually met by balconies.
· The developer will also be paying approximately $900,000 toward the development of parks. There
is a requirement in the General Plan Amendment for the HP property for a three-acre park east of
the site. With the bike and pedestrian connections from this project, it is hoped that there will be
connections to that park.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Asked if the renderings of the buildings depict the real colors.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· The renderings do depict the real colors. The material shown at the base is a rusticated stucco treat-
ment. Staff would rather see real stone as the base with stucco above that.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Questioned if there is a reason for all of the buildings being the same color.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that this is one of the reasons Design Review is being required. There needs to be more
Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 27, 2003
refinement on the colors and materials. If there are recommendations from the Commission,
they will be brought to the Design Review Committee.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Questioned the justification for staff's suggestion for slate roofing and the inquired about the cost.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that staff suggested "slate-type" materials. Some of the newer materials emulate slate, and
staff would be willing to look at them. Staff felt the metal proposed metal roof was not conducive
to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Since this is predominantly a residential building, staff wanted
to see a more high quality material for the roof.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Added that part of the intent of both the base in stone and the roof in slate or slate-like material
is to add more texture to the building. Standing metal seamed roofs can appear very flat without
the texture and depth that real stone materials or slate have.
· The Design Review Committee will compare the metal roof and the slate roof and determine which
is better suited.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Asked if there was a requirement for the traffic study to go as far as the De Anza intersection.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Staff wanted to include this intersection as an informational item only, because it is such a
highly impacted intersection. The traffic study shows that this project will not further impact the De
Anza Boulevard intersection.
Com. Miller:
· Stated that he is concerned about breaking up the open space into small courtyards among
fairly tall buildiCgs. Asked how useful the space is and how much air and light the spaces get.
· Asked if the open space areas would contain grass or would be asphalted over.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Explained that one of the larger courtyards has some grassy areas. One open space area is
the pool area and the other smaller areas are more passive and would contain potted planting
or in-ground planters, but not grassy areas.
· Stated that this is one of the reasons that the existing courtyard area be redone and that there
be visual cues to lead people into the area where there is a nice water feature in the middle.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the asphalt in the existing courtyard would be removed.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that the asphalt would not be removed, but the area would be re-landscaped with larger
trees.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Pointed out that the existing material is not asphalt--it is a concrete tile material. The idea in
the new areas is to get some textured patio tile type material. There will not be asphalt in those areas.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 October 27, 2003
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the applicant had considered combining all the separate courtyards into one larger
courtyard where something more substantial could be done.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Responded that they had looked at several options for the placement of open spaces. They did
not want to refigure the buildings, but looked at the space in between. Consideration was given to
having a green space in the center, but for traffic navigation purposes, it was determined that
planting trees three-deep in the parking areas would add the feeling of a green area.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the underground parking in the residential section will be gated.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that there will one space assigned to every unit, so if it were to be gated, it would
be gated up to that point. The upper level would be left open, so other people could access
it.
· The upper level would be open for guests or office people--unless they
could not find space in the surface parking area, it is not expected that they would park in the
underground area.
Chair Chen:
· Asked how the side setback is viewed.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that the side setback to the east is 20 feet, which is a requirement of the Heart
of the City Specific Plan.
Chair Chen:
· Said her question pertains to page 2-4, column 4 that the planned mixed-use may reduce
side setbacks between on-site buildings.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Stated that information pertains to the setbacks on the west. Just to the property line, the
setback is 5 feet, but there is more space between the buildings. It is somewhat of a technicality,
because the distance measured from the building to the property line is only 5 feet, but
because there will not be a structure or a wall on the property line there is actually more
space between the structures. That is why mixed-use developments that share sides are allowed to
reduce the setbacks.
Chair Chen:
· Questioned the meaning of a planned mixed~use reducing the side setbacks between on-site
buildings.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Explained that this is the situation she was explaining. When there are buildings on one
project site--even though there is a 5-foot side setback--because there is a larger separation
between the buildings, that is allowed. This project is in conformance with the requirements.
Planning Corrmaission Minutes 16 October 27, 2003
Chair Chen:
· Asked what type of retail is projected to be brought in to require the 26 parking stalls
designated for retail parking.
Ms. Shrivastava:
· Said she had used the City's parking requirement of 1 space for every 250 square feet of
retail. That came to about 26 spaces, and since that number fit so well into the area as you
enter, staffwanted to reserve it for retail parking. It is difficult to make shoppers who want
to pop in and buy something to have to search all over the site and in underground garages.
It is better to reserve parking right in front of or across from the retail.
Jane Vaughan, development partner with Menlo Equities:
· Stated that they had tried to revise the site plan and the design to meet the Planning Commission
suggestions from the August study session.
· Said that the Rosebowl area is so deep that it accommodates two levels of underground parking.
Looking at what is permitted by zoning on that site, more than likely only one level of underground
parking will be used, and the rest will be filled in.
· Will be meeting with HP representatives to make sure HP's plans facilitate this project.
· Said they need to get a construction zone to build the 107 units. The lender wants to split the
properties so there will be a different lender for each side. This lender is an office building
lender, not a construction liability lender for condominium for-sale units. Requesting a tentative
map to subdivide the property is for financial purposes.
· Said the school fees will be determined by the school districts. They will not be able to get
building permits for the project until they show they have paid the fees.
Jim Yee, Dahlin Group representative:
· Went over the site plan, reiterating some of the details Ms. Shrivastava had presented.
1. Maintaining existing 103,000 square feet of office space
2. Conforming to the General Plan
3. Providing 6, 400 square feet of retail space along Stevens Creek Blvd.
4. Adding 107 units of for-sale housing to the City's housing stock
5. Looking at the density of 30 units per acre
· Said they want to provide a variety of housing opportunities for potential residents by
providing one and two bedroom loft-type units, two bedroom townhouse units and two and three
bedroom flats.
· Some of the two bedroom units are a bit different-some are geared for families, with the bedrooms
together. Some are more of an extended-family type, with a bedroom suite on one side of the unit,
a living space in the center, and another bedroom suite on the far side of the unit.
· There will be 16 BMR units in the project.
· Providing site amenities for the residents and the community. Some of the uses are available for
residents of Cupertino, such as the activities area in the parking lot which can be used for basketball,
volleyball, etc., and which would be open to the public.
· Said they are trying to activate Stevens Creek Blvd. with retail and public spaces.
· Said they had made adjustments to the plans to make it compatible to the General Plan, such as
pushing one of the buildings back and redesigning another building to have a more residential scale.
This also provided townhouse style units, which were not in the plans before.
· Said they tried to get a smooth transition from the commercial to the residential scale.
· Stated that by breaking up the open space area into throe "pods", it provides opportunities for
Planning Commission Minutes 17 October 27, 2003
connecting access points, which were not in the original plans. Also, by having smaller courtyards,
rather than one large one, there are different spaces that can be used by different people at different
times. A large courtyard would be more restrictive.
Current plans show an active pool area, and a specific area that is for younger kids.
This gives a variety of uses in the breakdown of the courtyards.
Listed the sizes of the courtyards: one is approximately 70 feet by 60 feet and another is about 50
feet by 80 feet. The original plans did not propose a pool. The current plans show a pool in one
courtyard area. There is a lot of variety and scale to the open spaces.
Ms. Janet Hittle, representative of Gazardo:
· Said that they are trying to find a nice, vertical sculpture piece for the comer "gateway" element.
· There will be a plaza at the gateway where it crosses into the office building. It will be up-lit
for the sculpture piece and they are considering small lighting fixtures in the landscaping to create
interest at the comer.
· Said the same type of bench that will be used on the comer plaza will be used in the office plaza
that will be renovated. There will be movable tables and chairs and some potted plants that would
flank the benches on the plaza.
· Would like to replace the existing honey locust trees, which are mismatched in size, with something
more uniform that would create a nice, even canopy.
· Said that the sport court would be painted. There would be sleeves for volleyball/badminton equipment.
The basketball stanchions would be portable. They would be stored on-site and moved out for playtime.
· Explained that for the larger plaza, there would be a central fountain, a playhouse--depending upon how
many children are there, they did not necessarily want to have an active play facility. The playhouse would
be suitable for young children, but would also be nice for older people to view.
· The planter walls would have different heights of planting to give scale within the open spaces.
· Said the project proposes to add small fountains to the smaller courtyards.
· Stated that the pool area would provide space for lounge chairs, tables and chairs and possibly barbecues.
The idea is that this area would be accessible to the office people as well, so they could swim during their
breaks, lunch, etc.
· Said that they are considering adding a trellis feature in front of the retail space. There is a water feature
around the comer that would flank the tables.
· Showed on the site plan the vehicular circulation from Stevens Creek going through the site and also off of
Wolfe Road. Pointed out access to existing parking garage, and to the garages in Buildings A and B.
· Said that they are creating strong connections from Stevens Creek onto the site and around it, so people can
walk through, around the pool area, off the podium and across the courtyard to connect to the existing
office space.
· There is connection from the retail up onto the podium and then up to the walk that goes all around the
perimeter.
· Pointed out on the drawing that putting the walkway on top of the existing berm would obscure view of the
retail area, and said that the retail is an important aspect of the project. Reviewed another portion of the
drawing that shows the proposed reduction of the existing berm and the planting of the new ash trees which
would allow a view of the retail activity in that area.
· Showed the proposed retaining wall, which would be a stepped retaining wall consisting of a two-foot high
lower wall and an eight-foot high upper wall with landscaping in between and a metal guard rail on top to
keep people from falling over the edge.
Jim Yee:
· Said that one of the main things they were trying to do is create an active environment with a vibrant
streetscape.
Planning Commission Minutes 18 October 27, 2003
· Explained that, relative to colors, technology has not mastered the ability to accurately reproduce color
when the drawings are reproduced. The color board shows the true colors. There are three distinctive color
palettes. The building which fronts on Stevens Creek is a slight green/gray color. Another building is
more of a beige color, so there is color variation--it just does not show up on the digital reproductions.
· The intent was to break down the building scale with a break between the buildings and color variations.
· Addressing the architectural styles, pointed out the existing two-story office and the loft units above the
retail and showed the transition to the residential scale with the townhouse units with the roof that ties back
from the bulk of the building.
· This project copies the diverse architectural styles along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
· Said the building mass is broken down with a very defined pedestrian access through the building and
through the plaza areas.
· Stated that one of the conditions of approval is the use of stone for the base. Explained that their intent is
to provide a stone base on the commercial areas where they front Stevens Creek and then go to more ora
rusticated stucco finish on the balance of the project.
· Said they would be willing to work with staff to get something acceptable for the roofing material.
· Said their goal is not to do an inexpensive project and the metal roofing they had proposed is actually fairly
expensive. Slate is even more expensive, so they will be looldng to find an acceptable slate-type material
for the roof.
· Showed on the plans how the residential buildings slope down to a two-story mass along Stevens Creek
Blvd. and pointed out the visibility of the active retail.
· Stated that there are not a lot of retail areas that have plazas in front of the buildings and this project would
provide opportunities for tenants such as bookstores or coffee shops or cafes.
· Said he hopes this project would be a nice addition to the City.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Asked what the pool capacity is and how they arrived at the size of the pool to serve the 107 units.
Ms. Hittle:
· Explained that the size of the pool was limited, because it is on a podium situation with a parking garage
below. The pool is approximately 20 feet by 40 feet---approximately 800 square feet. In situations like
this, they have found that a lot of people use the pool as a "dipping" pool. Rather than putting in a small or
large spa, this pool is something someone could theoretically swim back and forth in, but it also provides a
good place to just "hang out."
Com. Miller:
· Asked about the pricing of the units.
Ms. Vaughan:
· Said their marketing study indicated that they should sell from the low 400 thousands to the high 500
thousands, depending on the size of the unit. For a single bedroom unit, it would be in the low 400
thousands. The BMR unit would be $194,000 to be precise. Said they intend to be entry level for
Cupertino with their prices.
· The three-bedroom units would be in the high 500 thousands, the two-bedrooms would be anywhere from
$450,000 to $550,000, depending on size. These units vary a lot in size, even for a two-bedroom.
Com. Wong:
· Asked if there would be enough area to fit a small spa near the pool. Said he felt it would be a nice
amenity for the residents.
Planning Commission Minutes t9 October 27, 2003
Ms. Hittle:
· Said they had looked at that prospect, but the limited space would prohibit a spa.
Com. Corr:
· Said he feels it is really important to have both the townhomes and flats as presented in the floorplans. He
said that due to constraints of space, most of what is being built today is what he refers to as "stackers"--
with the garage under, with stairs up to the living area and then more to the dining area and cooking level
and then up to the bedroom level.
· Said he is concerned that as we move forward in adding housing in the City, the variety of housing that we
have isn't going to meet all of the needs. Seniors need flats. Said he was very pleased to see that the
applicant is building those in the project.
Ms. Vaughn:
· Addressing Com. Corr's comments, said that their marketing study indicated that most of the people who
would be likely to purchase these units would be either pre-children or post-children, so Com. Corr's
comment was very valid.
Com. Corr:
· Asked if"Cupertino Courtyard" is going to be the name of the project, since there is already a Courtyard in
Cupertino.
Ms. Vaughan:
· Said they were open for suggestions, but they wanted to keep the word "Cupertino" for marketing
purposes, because "Cupertino" has cachet in the marketplace.
· Said they will try to find another suitable name since "Courtyard" has already been used in Cupertino.
Mr. Yee:
· Said he wanted to make one additional statement concerning open space. The original plans that were
presented at the August study session showed about 20,000 square feet of open space. The current plans
a little over 30,000 square feet, so there is a big change provided in the amount of open space.
Chair Chen:
· Asked about the height of the buildings that front Stevens Creek Blvd. and asked the height of the
highest structure.
Mr. Yee:
· Pointed out the buildings closest to Stevens Creek which is about 26 feet in height. The building that is set
approximately 52 feet is about 36 or 37 feet in height. The tower elements are approximately 44 feet in
height. The residential buildings are about 36 feet in height.
Chair Chen:
· Asked if it is correct that the tower elements are in the middle of the property and not visible from the
street.
Mr. Yee:
· Responded that it is correct that the tower elements would not be visible from the street. The tower
elements are there to enhance and reinforce the pedestrian entry points into the courtyards.
Mr. Norm Hackford, 10346 Tomita Way, Cupertino
Planning Commission Minutes 20 October 27, 2003
· Said he was pleased to see the project intends to meet the General Plan.
· Said his only concern is that it is being split into two parcels.
· Addressed aspects of the project such as the office amenities, improved park, basketball court, shared
parking, etc., and said he hopes the properties will not be sold separately at some time in the future because
now they are tied together.
· Said he thinks that if the properties are separated one day, the five-foot easement should be made central
between the two properties.
· Does not want the office buildings to decide to expand someday and be able to take away from some of the
amenities that have been provided for the community.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it is accepted practice that one lender will take the office portion and one lender will take the
residential portion. All of the amenities will be integrated into a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
that will be placed on the property--including the ingress-egress for pedestrians and bicycles, the
allowance for the residents to use the office components in terms of the open space and for the office
tenants to be able to use some of the amenities in the residential portions. They are linked by virtue of the
CC & R's, and the common property is not a necessity to make sure that linkage occurs.
Mr. Yee:
· Said that one reason for the parcel split is that when there is a for-sale situation, there is a HOA
(Homeowners Association).
· The parcel split makes an easily definable line for the area that the HOA maintains for its dues.
· If this were a rental development, there would be one parcel for the entire project, but as a for-sale
development, it needs to be subdivided so there are two distinct entities where it can clearly be defined
what the costs are in terms of maintenance.
Mr. Robert Le'~y, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, Cupertino:
· Said he was encouraged when he heard one area was going to be for small children, but the picture showing
the attractions for the small children, it seemed to be a subset of Serra Park on Hollenbeck.
· The student figures for kindergarten through 8th grade show about 54 children. Asked how many children
are in the 0-5 years class. These children are not yet in school, and their mothers will want to take them out
and do something with them.
· Said that Memorial Park on a workday, during working hours, is jammed around the play equipment. The
rest of Memorial Park is practically empty at that time. The same is true of Linda Vista Park.
· Said he does not see the type of equipment that small children would use in the proposed plans.
· Asked how the developer plans to keep the children across the street from coming to use the swimming
pool in this project. Asked if it would be a locked facility with only tenants having keys. Would the high
school tenants be able to bring their friends home on noon hour?
· Said he did not see places for kids to play stick ball or stoop ball, or other activities for the small
kindergarten through 80' grade children.
· Said he is concerned about what is to be done with open space. Asked if it is an architectural feature that
makes the property look good when it is being sold, or if it is a place where people who live there can go to
be outdoors with their children and do things--such as sit under a tree and read a book.
· Asked if parents could let their children go to play in the courtyards and be able to keep an eye on them and
talk to them from their houses or flats, or if the play areas so isolated that no one can get to them.
· Said it seems that it has been forgotten that there are people liv/ng in these houses, and that the people have
children and that the children should have places to play.
Chair Chen:
Planning Commission Minutes 21 October 27, 2003
· Asked the applicants if they are planning to put any play equipment or mini-playground in the back area
where the playhouse is planned to be.
Ms. Vaughan:
· Said that the school district calculates the possibility of children based on the number of units in the
project.
· Said they had done a full market study based on location, design and profile of the buyer. This profile of
the buyer for this particular case is prior to having children and post having children.
· Said many of the buyers will probably be connected to Vallco or to the office park at the project, so the
developers are looking at amenities that could be used by children, but would still be attractive to adults
walking by if there are no children to use the facilities.
· Said that the pool flexes for very young children to adults. The pool must have a fully-fenced gate and it
must have secured access.
Com. Corr:
· Said he is pleased with the variety of housing in the project.
· Said that over the years, people have said they did not want a lot of housing here---if we don't build it,
people won't have a place to go and won't come here.
· Compared it to a flood control saying that we know eventually a flood will come--and in the same way,
people will come to this valley and they will need places to live. Said that our choice is to ignore the
situation or we can plan ahead and design a variety of housing to accommodate future residents.
· Cautioned that the playhouse needs to be sturdy and secured to prevent damage and vandalism.
Com. Wong:
· Said he was hesitant about the project about first, but supports it now.
· Said he likes the variety of housing and the design of the buildings.
· Supports a slate or slate-type material for the roof, because Cupertino expects a quality building.
· Said this is a good project for "smart growth" in Cupertino, because Cupertino has encouraged mixed-use,
and we need the density to encourage light rail transit or high occupancy buses.
· Said the project will blend in well with the HP property and with Vallco.
· Stated that he still has a concern about parking, with one stall designated per unit and one open space. Said
he is not a fan of shared parking, but the layout looks pretty nice.
· Said there is a tradeoff on density---by having this much density, there may not be as much light and air,
but if the density is lower, the project will not have as many BMR units.
· Expressed concern about the cost of living--feels that even with the units at $200,000 for BMR, it is still
rather high.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he is pleased with the variety of units and the architecture.
· Said he pleased that the open space has been increased and the building have been moved back in response
to the study session comments.
· Said he supports the project and is looking forward to seeing it built.
Com. Miller:
· Said he likes the idea of the front courtyards and the possibility of having sidewalk cafes.
· Said the architecture is done nicely and provides good relief and variety.
· Supports slate material for the roof rather than metal.
Planning Commission Minutes 22 October 27, 2003
· Stated that he appreciates Mr. Levy's comments, and said he tried to address that issue earlier in terms of
having some larger spaces or combining some of the space in the smaller courtyards into a larger area for
children.
· Said that one of the reasons that Cupertino allows higher density is to bring the price of housing into a
more affordable range, so he is looking for projects that can bring the price down.
Chair Chen:
· Said she agrees with her colleagues comments concerning the project.
· Said she is especially pleased to see the pedestrian circulation plan that opened up the whole space.
· Said she feels it is a very excellent design and supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Wong to approve Z-2003-02,
U-2003-04, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06, EA-2003-09 (Vote 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS:
3. Confirmation of the Draft Ordinance approved by the Planning Commission on
September 22, 2003 for the Linwood Acres neighborhood rezoning. Continued from
Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2003
Mr. Gilli:
· Stated that this item is a continuance from the last meeting to confirm what he transcribed as
the Commission's decision on September 22.
· At the last meeting, there was agreement that the most appropriate zoning designation is
RI(A). That was a unanimous decision.
· There were 2 failed votes at the last meeting: One: to'confirm the draft ordinance document
representing what was decided on September 22. Two: a motion to re-open the discussion on
the Linwood Acres rezoning.
· Due to noticing error, this item could not go to the Council on October 20 and was continued.
· Explained that if the Commission decides to re-open the discussion, the earliest this item can
be heard before the Planning Commission is November 24. The City Council meeting is on
November 3, and Council will decide whether to act on the Commission's decision of
September 22 or wait until the Commission reconsiders its past decision.
· Since the Commission's September 22 decision, the two groups have been meeting to find a
middle ground. They have been unsuccessful in reaching agreement at this point, but he is
hopeful they will be able to reach a compromise before the item goes to Council on November
3.
· Mr. Gilli presented brief background information since it had been a full month since they had
talked about this issue.
· Staff's perception is that neighborhood has always opposed R1 zoning. In staff's opinion, the
neighborhood does not receive protections that R1 Ordinance established in 1999 regarding
two-story development.
· What is happening in this neighborhood is replay of R1 discussions between long-time
residents and newcomers.
· Two things allowed staff to get information about the neighborhood: (1) A survey, done at a
neighborhood meeting, represented 56 properties. Fifty-five percent of those who filled out
the survey supported the group proposal. Twenty-five percent (about half of that group)
supported a single-story overlay, which would limit all development to one-story. Thirty-five
Planning Commission Minutes 23 October 27, 2003
percent explicitly stated that they want R1 and ten percent were split. The survey allowed
people to comment on specific issues. It was narrated so people could understand the purpose
of each regulation. (2) A petition from the R1 group representing 64 properties showed a
split of 53% supporting the group proposal and 47% supporting the R1 group. This is closer
than the results of the survey and from staff point of view, that is a 50/50 split. The petitions
did not allow people to comment on specific issues. There is no record of how the petitions
were presented to people.
· Some people in the neighborhood study group (which formulated the group proposal) claim
that some of those who gathered signatures for R1 did not let people know what the survey
was about. Mr. Gilli has received two letters from residents who signed the R1 petition, but
did not know it was for R1.
· Mr. Gilli explained that these are staff observations and his personal judgment of what is
happening in the neighborhood.
· People who support the group proposal, oppose RI, but half of the people that support the
group proposal would support a single-story overlay. Those who support RI, oppose the
group proposal, but not all of them oppose a special zoning. Staff does not know where those
numbers lie. Unless another survey is done, staff will not have those numbers.
· Mr. Gilli said that, in his opinion, the two sides should be able to reach a compromise that
would be supported by the majority of the neighborhood.
· Mr. Gilli presented a table of the Planning Commission actions on September 22. The table
showed a breakdown of the group proposal and the Planning Commission recommendations.
· Planning Comrmssion recommendations had fewer regulations that would be unique and more
than matched RI, with 3 items that were compromised between both groups.
· The Planning commission actions of September 22 served as a wake-up call to both groups.
They are now talking and trying to reach a compromise.
· Mr. Gilli stated that he felt re-opening the discussion would not help the groups reach a
compromise.
Com. Miller:
· Asked for clarification of front setbacks: On a street that has sidewalks, from where to where
is the 20-foot setback measured?
Mr. Gilli:
· Explained that there is always a section of public right-of-way between the edge of the street
and the start of the property line. It doesn't always matter whether or not there is a sidewalk.
In the case of this neighborhood, it is about 11 feet from the edge of the curb to where the
front property line starts.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if this meant that in this neighborhood setbacks are 30 feet plus 11 feet to the street.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said that is correct.
Com. Wong
· Questioned Mr. Gilli about the people who stated they were confused about knowing they
were signing an R1 petition. Is this fact or did he hear it from someone?
Mr. Gilli
Planning Commission Minutes 24 October 27, 2003
· Said he received two letters from people who were not told they were signing an R1 petition.
Com. Wong:
· Said some of the presentation should have been given to the commissioners earlier, since is
difficult to make a decision in five minutes without time to look at the materials.
Mr. Gilli:
· Stated that the table is the same information that is in the draft ordinance. In the ordinance, it
is presented in word form, in the table it is in table form. The draft ordinance has been
available for at least a month.
Com. Wong
· Said this points out some of the things not discussed on September 22, and some of the things
that were missed.
· By reviewing this, he felt that they should go back and re-open the discussion to talk about
some of the major items that they may have overlooked.
Chair Chert:
· Stated that she had specifically asked Mr. Gilli to prepare this information so it could be
discussed at this meeting and a decision could be made about where to go from here.
Com. Corr
· Said that Mr. Gilli's thesis is that we developed a plan. There is the RI plan and the group
plan, and if we re-open discussion, Mr. Gilli thinks that we may hinder thc neighborhood's
ability to move ahead. Opposed to that, commissioners have heard that they missed the issues
of setbacks and trees. Questioned whether or not it would hinder what the community is
doing if the commissioners were to go back and discuss those issues and fine-tune their
proposal.
Mr. Gilli:
· Stated that, in his opinion, the two groups are trying to negotiate in good faith among
themselves and if they were brought back to the Planning Commission, they would stop trying
to reach a compromise and would try to convince the Commission one way or the other. This
is what happened before the Commission made a decision on September 22.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Advised the Commissioners that if they felt that some fundamental principle had been passed
over in the process, that should be the basis for a recommendation for reconsideration, not
whether or not the groups are going to negotiate with each other. If the Commissioners feel
that they need more time, that should be the recommendation.
Com. Miller:
· Asked about the cost of different height trees
communications.
as stated by Mr. Nguyen in oral
Mr. Piasecki:
· Stated that those prices sound about right. Explained that it is about double to up-size a tree
as much as they were describing.
Planning Commission Minutes 25 October 27, 2003
Com Wong:
· Said that in the beginning there was A-1 and A-1 single-story overlay group in R-1. Earlier
he did not hear an R-1 overlay. Questioned whether Mr. Gilli was just trying to give a
summary.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said that the group proposal people agreed that they would all agree to the group proposal,
rather than having a subset of the group trying to convince people to go with the one-story
overlay. Reiterated that he was just presenting data that shows that 25% of the properties
represented by people who filled out a survey wanted a one-story overlay.
Mr. Piasekci:
· That group did not choose to organize or seek speaking time to push the single-story overlay.
They folded their issues and concerns into the group proposal. However, there was a strong
sentiment that leaned that way.
Com. Wong:
· Regarding the survey, because the majority group was swayed toward one direction, the other
group didn't really have a say in the survey. Expressed concern that the survey was not
representative of the whole neighborhood.
Com. Miller:
· Stated that he saw the petition from the R1 group with 33 signatures. Questioned Mr. Gilli on
how he arrived at the 53% for the group proposal.
Mr. Gilli:
· Explained that there were people on the R1 proposal who say they were not informed that they
were signing an R1 petition, and they asked to remove their names.
Com. Miller:
· Said that was not the question he had asked. Questioned again how Mr. Gilli arrived at 53%
of the group.
Mr. Gilli:
· Stated that he had taken the total of people who had signed the group proposal petition and the
R1 petition and looked at properties that were represented. That totaled 64. Four properties
are not represented. Fifty-three percent of the 64 properties were on one side, forty-seven
percent were on the other side.
Com. Miller:
· Clarified that this is not 53/47 of the total number of properties, this is 53/47 of the total
number of people who participated in a petition.
Chair Chen:
· Asked to go back to the slide showing the survey results. Of the 56 property owners that
participated, 55% supported the group proposal and 35% did not.
· Originally thought this was a solid number that showed that the group proposal was supported
by a majority. At that time she had not seen the petition. After seeing the petition she was
surprised by the amount of people who are opposed to the group proposal.
Planning Commission Minutes 26 October 27, 2003
With so much more information coming in, they have a much better picture of who is on each
side and there is no consensus. Now it is time for the Commission to come up with a proposal
which would address the larger Cupertino district issue, but not just this small community's
issues.
Stated that is why she backed out from the request to re-do the survey, and she would like for
the Commission to take a look at the group proposal and the R1 proposal and to make the final
decisions on what zoning district would best fit into the Cupertino area, and not just this small
area, as to who wants what.
Outlined the process for discussion of this item:
1. Original intent of this item is to go back to the September 22 recommendation and
confirm that it is what we wanted to do back on September 22. Asked Mr. Gilli to
prepare a summary list of what was agreed upon.
2. If there are questions, input or corrections regarding the ordinance which is drafted
based on the September 22 recommendation, they need to come up for discussion.
3. Will hear the commissioners' input on the new information that was presented to them.
This might change the decision that was made on September.
4. Will confirm that everything is correct as presented regarding the September 22
recommendation, then entertain comments about the new information and decisions
that were made to change the September 22 recommendation.
5. Determine where we go from here, whether we bring the item back for continuation
and reopen it for re-notification and re-public hearing or we finalize the
recommendation from September 22.
Chair Chen:
· Asked if Commissioners would rather go over the summary list item by item and have each
commissioner state his position on each item or to go over the entire package at one time.
Corn Corr:
· Said he did not feel they needed to go over the package "with a fine-toothed" comb.
· Said the main question is whether or not the things written here are representative of what the
Commissioners said on September 22.
· Stated that the next question is whether or not we are happy with our decision. It was late at
night, and we went through and said the groups could not make up their minds, so we'll draft
something. We went through and quickly did something. They had almost year to do it, we
did it in minutes.
· Said that the issue came back to us at the last meeting to ask whether or not this is what we
agreed to. There were four commissioners present. Marty brought up the issue that there are
some things that were put in the recommendation that should not be there.
· Said he remembered the issue of the setbacks being brought up at the last meeting, but not the
issue of the trees.
· The question remains: Is that document representative of what we had done the previous
meeting? He said they felt that the document is representative of what they recommended, but
that they also felt the document needs some "tweaking" and so were not able to come to an
agreement.
· Stated that they wanted to bring the issue back when all five of the commissioners are present
to determine whether they should take another look at the document and perhaps make some
changes.
· Said this led to confusion in the community, because they assumed changes would be made at
that meeting. That is not what was on the agenda. Like tonight, it is not posted on the agenda
Planning Commission Minutes 27 October 27, 2003
to actually do the changes tonight. It will be to determine whether or not we will bring it
back for changing.
· Explained that his notion is that what is on the document is what they said that night, but that
there are two pieces that he would be interested in looking at if the issue is re-opened--the
setbacks and the trees.
· Stated that if all the Commissioners agree that they want to look at those two issues or some
other issues, then it should be brought back for another look. Otherwise, he stated that the
document is what was said on September 22, and they should validate it. If he were to be
here, he would vote to bring it back to talk about it, because there are some valid issues.
· Said that in the meantime he would hope that the community would continue to discuss the
issues and would settle the matter and the Commission wouldn't have to do it at all.
Chair Chen:
· Said they all confirm that the document is what they talked about on September 22 and the
ordinance does reflect what is on the summary list.
· Said they would move into discussion of the specific elements that the Commissioners have
expressed concerns about, based on the new information. If the decision is made that the
document needs to be changed, it will be brought back before the Planning Commission for
re-notification and the whole process.
Com. Miller
· Said that when they did the process, he was laboring under the two assumptions that have
proven to be incorrect. The first assumption was that there was a consensus of the
neighborhood. They all agree tonight that there is no consensus. The second assumption was
that the uniqueness of this neighborhood is the setbacks. He said it is not clear to him that this
is true.
· He said that his concern is that they added more confusion rather than clarity with their
recommendation. There was the group proposal and the R1 proposal, and then they added a
new proposal which they had only spent two hours in the late evening putting together.
· Stated that if they sent this to Council, Council would rightly have questions about what they
were doing and why they were doing it. He did not feel he could defend the actions taken on
September 22.
· Said one positive aspect is that all the members of the community are now working to reach a
compromise or a consensus.
· Said it is appropriate to re-notice the hearing and allow the neighborhood to go back and see if
they can get to a consensus, because the job would then be easier.
· Said the other issue he had with their actions was that they did not allow the neighbors to
comment on it. They did something that was different than either side wanted and is not sure
they created something that anyone wanted.
· Said there is a real advantage in reconsidering and allowing the neighbors to talk about the
issues some more understanding the new situation that they need to compromise. He is hard
pressed to force 50% of a neighborhood to accept a more restrictive zoning ordinance than
everyone else in Cupertino is entitled to when only 50% of the neighborhood wants it and the
other 50% doesn't. If they cannot reach a consensus the Commission has the harder choice of
deciding to leave it as A1 or to go to R1 which is what everyone else is.
· Said he is hesitant to impose their view of what is distinctive or not distinctive when they are
finding it difficult to find out what is distinctive about the neighborhood.
Chair Chen:
Planning Commission Minutes 28 October 27, 2003
· Said she thought the disagreement on the two proposals was obvious at the September 22
meeting. She was not under any impression that the proposal was supported by a majority.
That is what resulted in a third proposal, which she feels is a middle ground for the two
proposals and hopes that it can be acceptable to both parties.
· Asked Com. Miller if he felt that if there is a re-noticing and a re-public hearing, it will result
in a very different outcome.
Com. Miller:
· Said that looking at other applications where there were two sides, both sides were
encouraged to cooperate and talk about it, and it was found that there was movement toward a
middle ground. He cited the Town Center project and said that when the two opposing forces
realized they were not going to get their way, they got together and created a compromise.
· Said he hoped this would happen in this case.
Chair Chen:
· Asked if this same outcome could be achieved by the Council public hearing and the Council
presentations.
Com. Miller:
· Agreed that the outcome could be achieved by the Council, but said part of the Commission's
job is to get it as far as they can at this level, and to make it clearer and easier for the Council.
He said he is not opposed to spending whatever time it takes to do that.
Chair Chen:
· Asked Com. Miller if his suggestion is to vote for re-notification and to restart the public
hearing process.
Com. Miller
· Said that to reconsider would give the public the opportunity to comment on what we did,
which is important because it was done without getting public input or comments on whether
we created something that was better or worse. Said he is not sure either side likes what was
done.
· Having a public hearing to take feedback is important and gives the two sides the opportunity
to sit down further and try to reach a compromise.
Chair Chen:
· Asked if, at the end of another public hearing, the groups cannot reach consensus and it is
ready to move on to Council, would the Commission make a third recommendation or just go
forward with no proposal and let Council decide which side it will take?
· Said she does not see a real benefit for re-opening the issue for public hearing.
Com. Corr:
· Said he sees a benefit of re-opening it because it would give the opportunity for public input
and also send a signal to community that they are working on a compromise and that they
need to keep working on it. If they could not reach a compromise, the Commission would be
prepared to present its proposal to the City Council.
Com. Wong:
· Stated that he concurred with Commissioners Miller and Corr that it would be nice to let the
Planning Corrmaission Minutes 29 October 27, 2003
public reaffirm that this is what they want. Then they could send it to Council with both
sides coming together and approving it, rather than facing another long process at the Council
level.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Said that e-mails had been received on both sides of the issue--some like it the way it is and
want it to go forward to the Council and some want it to change. He said that by sending it on
to the City Council, it gives the community an opportunity to work together. If they want to
make final refinements, the Council can make that decision.
Chair Chen:
· Stated that she agreed with Com. Saadati and that, based on the information received from the
community of Linwood Acres in the form of e-mails and phone calls, more people
encouraged the Planning Commission to forward its proposal to City Council rather than to
re-open the discussion.
· Said that even if the Commission made the suggestion to re-open the hearing, it is still in a
position to review the zoning to see if it fits into Cupertino.
· Stated that another part of the Commissioners' job is to see what the community really wants
and to make decisions about whether or not the zoning fits into the larger Cupertino City.
Com. Corr:
· Asked Chair Chen if her recommendation is to send the document to City Council as it was
done, which would send a message to the community to reach a consensus which would then
be brought forward at the Council level. Also, the proposal could be changed at the Council
level in terms of the trees and setbacks.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Added that another option would be for the Commission to pass a minute action and forward
it to Council next week indicating that the two primary issues of contention seem to be
sideyard setbacks and the size of privacy planting. In the event that there is a lot of
controversy, or if the Council had difficulty deciding the issues, they could refer it back to the
Planning Commission to resolve those remaining issues. This would allow the item to move
forward with the red flag that there are remaining outside issues.
Com. Miller:
·Said he felt this option is "passing the buck". He said he would like to do the job and then
move on.
Com. Wong:
· Asked Com. Corr if he would be open to re-opening the discussion if it were limited just to the
particular items of concern.
Com. Corr:
· Said that based upon the discussion from the last meeting and from some of the mail that has
been received, there was concern about the setbacks--that because the neighborhood is so
different, the setbacks need to be different. He said he concurred with Com. Miller's
statement that there is not as much difference as they had thought, so this may not be an issue.
His primary interest would be the trees. He questioned why the Commission should force a
12-foot tree on this neighborhood, when it does not force a 12-foot tree on anybody else. He
Planning Commission Minutes 30 October 27, 2003
stated that he would be amenable to following the R1 ordinance requirements for tree height.
Other than that point, he was satisfied with what the Commission did.
Com. Wong:
· Stated that the one item he would want to bring back to the public hearing is the second-story
regulation. He said he felt the Comn'nssion never delved into this issue.
Chair Chen:
· Said she was hearing a consensus to bring certain items back for discussion, refine the
proposal, and then move forward.
· Asked if this was satisfactory to all the Commissioners.
Com. Corr:
· Said he had no problem sending the document on to City Council, knowing that Council could
refer it back to Commission, saying that the 12-foot tree requirement is out of line and
Commission should knock it back to the R1 requirements and pass it through.
Mr. Gilli:
· Added a suggestion that the Commission could continue this item to November 10, with the
direction to the community that Commission wants the groups to come to a compromise and
present it at the meeting.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Said he did not feel there could be a guarantee that a compromise could reached, and
said there would be a change in the Commission with Com. Corr leaving.
Chair Chen:
· Suggested that Commission pass the draft ordinance to City Council, and at the same time
give direction to the community to come to agreement. Stated that there is also no guarantee
that the City Council will vote for the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Gilli:
· Stated that the Commission had the option to include in its minute order that it is the
Commission's wish that they use Commission's recommendation as a starting point and come
up with a compromise. If they did so, Commission would probably support it. Not wanting
to have the process delayed, Commission is allowing it to go forward to Council.
Chair Chen:
· Said a scary thought is that Council may come up with a fourth recommendation, which would
really confuse the community. She stated that she would suggest that Commission move
forward and that the community groups come to an agreement.
Com. Wong:
· Asked Mr. Gilli when this would go to City Council if it did come back before the Planning
Commission on November 10.
Mr. Gilli:
· Explained that it is already scheduled for November 3, so if Commission continued the item
or decided to set another hearing, then Council would have to decide whether to accept what
Planning Commission Minutes 31 October 27, 2003
Comrrflssion did on September 22 or to wait until Comnfission has a chance to reach closure.
If the Council decided to wait, it could be brought back to them on November 17.
Com. Wong:
· Asked if the emergency ordinance would expire on January 31, 2004.
Mr. Gilli:
· Explained the timeline, saying the last day for the first reading of the ordinance would be
December 15. There are two Council meetings in November, the 3~d and the 17th, and two
Council meetings in December. The meeting of December 1st is the transfer of the new
Council person and Mayor Chang, and they will not schedule an action item at this meeting.
If the neighborhood came back to Commission on November 10, there would be two Council
meetings where it could be heard. One would be November 17, at which Mayor Chang would
be present. One would be on December 15, at which Mayor Chang would not be present.
· Said the optimistic viewpoint is that, if the community groups do agree, and the Commission
gives its blessing to the agreement, it would make it easier for them to make a decision on the
first night.
· Added that when the interim ordinance expires, the neighborhood would revert to Al. He
said it would be possible for someone to immediately file for something under A1 that the
neighborhood may or may not like. Said it is also possible that there could be resolution that
is after the expiration, but before anything is filed. Added that this is only a guess.
Chair Chen:
· Stated that her impression is that A1 is not supported by anyone in this area, and that A1 is
something they do not want to go back to.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said it is safe to say that 80 to 90 percent of the neighborhood agree that A1 is not right for
them.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong to reconsider draft ordinance
and set another date for public hearing. (Vote 2-3-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Saadati, second by Com. Corr to send draft ordinance
to City Council. (Vote: 3-2-0)
Mr. Gilli noted that, for the purpose of clarification, it might be beneficial for the Commission to
make an action on whether this document is the its official recommendation, unless they felt that
was clearly implied in the last motion.
Mr. Piasecki said he did not think it was clearly implied and that it would be good to have a
separate action on whether this reflects the Commission's September 22 action.
Chair Chen agreed that there should be a separate action. She stated that the title on page 3-2 was
changed from P(A1) to Rl-a and that this is the consensus of the Commission. She asked if this
was different from the original September 22 proposal.
Mr. Gilli said that the change was a clarification that was made at the October 13 meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 32 October 27, 2003
Chair Chen asked to amend page 3-4, Section 6, Item E, #2, by adding the words "of the
Cupertino Municipal Code" after ...based on Section 19.28.060 B(3).
On page 3-5, Item I, #3, the last sentence, Chair Chen asked to change the word "prohibit" to the
word "avoid".
Motion:
Motion by Com. Corr, second by Vice Chair Sadaati to affirm that the draft
ordinance is the Commission's recommendation from September 22 and to
incorporate the wording changes suggested by Chair Chert.
Motion withdrawn.
Com. Wong and Com. Miller did not feel comfortable voting to confirm that draft ordinance is
what they wanted to recommend, since they both voted to re-open the item for discussion.
Mr. Piasecki said they wanted to make sure the ordinance reflected what the Commission said. He
assured the Commissioners that a set of draft minutes would be presented to the Council before
the November 3 meeting so the Commissioners' positions would not be misunderstood in any
fashion. This would let the Council know that some of the commissioners wanted to hear more
public comment and felt that they had moved too quickly in drafting the ordinance and that the
draft ordinance does not reflect their intent.
Eileen explained that a vote on the motion to confirm the draft ordinance was not necessary, so
Com. Corr withdrew the motion.
Mr. Piasecki assured Chair Chen that the wording changes she recommended would be
incorporated into the document sent to City Council.
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
· Com. Corr reported that there have been no meetings.
Housing Commission
· Com. Miller reported that there have been no meetings.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting: No report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Piasecki said it is nice to see that Oakville Grocers is planning to come to Cupertino and
that the vacant Wherehouse building will be reoccupied by Starbucks, T-Mobile and Panda
Express. He stated that the City Council has authorized the Planning Commission to look at
the R1 ordinance and has specified where. He asked the Commissioners if they would want
to begin the discussions at the meeting of November 24 or postpone the consideration of the
R1 ordinance until January 26 to avoid conflict with the holiday season. Staff is ready to
bring the item to the Commissioners at the date of their choosing. The Commission decided
to delay the item until the January 26 Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 33 October 27, 2003
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS:
· Mr. Piasecki pointed out that there was a presentation from the Cupertino Union School
District and the presentation was made at the October 20 meeting, so there is some
information on student generation numbers from new development.
OTHER:
· Com. Wong reported that he and Com. Saadati went on a BART tour on October ! 7th with the
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group to see infill sites in Hayward, Oakland and Berkeley. He
said he has materials to present and encouraged Commissioners to go on next scheduled tour.
Vice Chair Saadati said the tour was very well-organized and very informative.
· Chair Chert asked about an e-mail sent by Cddy Wordell regarding the General Plan Task
Force. Mrs. Wordell explained that in about a month, a joint study session will be set with the
City Council and the Planning Commission to review the Task Force recommendations and
determine which o£ the those would actually change the draft that goes out for public hearing.
· Com. Wong strongly encouraged a joint study session to study the General Plan.
· Mr. Piasecki stated that there was a technical difficulty with joint study sessions in that, in the
event they were not able to get a quorum of the Planning Commission, they would not be able
to start the meeting. He explained that this may be a City Council study session to which the
Commissioners are invited. Commissioners would not formally have a meeting, but would be
invited to add input.
· Mr. Piasecki reminded everyone that this was Com. Corr's last meeting. Chair Chen expressed
the Commission's thanks to Com. Corr for his leadership, experience and history he brought
to the Commission.
· Com. Corr expressed his enjoyment at serving the City of Cupertino over the years and wished
staff luck in the future.
· Mr. Piasecki said that from staff's perspective, it has been a pleasure working with Com. Corr
and that Com. Con' is a real gentleman who always has the best interest of the community at
heart.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on
November 10, 2003 at 6:45 p.m.
Nancy C. C~sek, Actin¢~cr~a;y
APPROVED BY: /s/ Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
ATTEST: /s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development