PC 03-22-05
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
March 22, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeIing of March 22, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City
Council Chambers, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
TaghiSaadaIi
Commissioners absent:
Commissioner:
Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
Senior Planner:
City Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Colin lung
Ciddy Wordell
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 8, Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Saadati requested the following changes:
Page 22, third bullet, end of first line of Com. Saadati's comments: Add the word "study"
following the word "more". Last bullet on same page: Delete the words "to control".
Motion:
Moved by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the
March 8, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
(Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Chen absent; Com. Giefer abstained).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
March 22, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
EXC-200S-01
Jimbo Schwalb
10655 Santa Lucia
Road
Appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a fence
exception for an electronic security gate for an exisIing
single family residence. Tentative City Council date:
Apri/19, 2005
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· ApplicaIion is an appeal of a DRC denial of a fence exception request to install electronic
motor controls on an existing, approved manual driveway gate.
· Explained that in 1999 the fence ordinance was amended to discourage the proliferaIion of
vehicular electronic security gates for properties in the City, to avoid being perceived as un-
neighborly, isolated communiIies.
· He reviewed the fence exception findings, and noted that CondiIions 1,2,3 and 6 do not apply
to the subject residenIial project.
o Finding 4: Is the development secluded? Staff contends that the site is not secluded and
the house is surrounded by similarly situated flag lots and other lots.
o Finding 5: Are there demonstrated security reasons for granIing the motorized gate? Staff
noted that crime incidents were reported by the applicant but they were for different
properties, not the applicant's.
· Other applicant's concerns were summarized:
o Emergency access: Staff noted that access during an emergency may be deterred if there is
a power failure.
o Applicant also expressed concern over safety of vehicle parking on the slope when
opening and closing the gate. Staff noted that there were flatter portions of the driveway at
the toe of the slope and top of the driveway, as well as the garage. The convenience of
opening and closing the gate is not one of the findings permitted to grant an excepIion to
fence ordinance to allow the motorized controls.
o The safety of children running into the street; and
o The convenience of the homeowner.
· The Planning Commission has the opIion of making one of two recommendations to the City
Council: to deny the appeal and uphold the DRC decision, or uphold the appeal and deny the
modified DRC decision.
Jimbo Schwalb, applicant:
· Requested that two minutes of his time be reserved to address the panel after a decision is
made.
· Expressed disappointment at how the matter was handled.
· Said when the permit application was made for the gate, he was told that once the gate had
been permitted, we could wait approximately 30 days and apply for a variance: there was no
indicaIion at that time there would be any discouragement.
· He said he appreciated that they had to enforce the rules, but felt the property was an
excessively sloped driveway, and there were residential burglaries committed within several
houses of the 10caIion.
· The owner of the property has spent over $10,000 to install the gate to protect the property.
· Noted inaccuracies of informaIion reported in the past relative to the applicaIion and
quesIioned why staff did not have the information about police reports in prior years.
· Asked why reports on burglaries in the neighborhood were not taken into account when the
ruling was made.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
March 22, 2005
· He noted that the gate is equipped with three days reserve of battery power, which would
negate the remarks about access during emergencies in a power outage.
· Said he felt it was unreasonable to expect the occupants of the residence to walk
approximately 150 feet from a flat surface of land to operate the gate, because of the grade of
the property, particularly in inclement weather and in the dark.
· He asked that it be taken into account that residential crime has increased recently in the
neighborhood.
· Queslioned the appearance to the general public and the citizens of the community if a
decision to rule against the appeal is made, signifying that aesthelics are more important than
the personal safety of the residents.
· He urged a fair hearing based on the evidence submitted.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Queslioned the owner of the home about date of purchase, and lime sequence of events
relalive to the applicalion.
· Relalive to Concerns about security, he asked why the owner of the home waited four years to
install a gate following neighborhood break-ins.
Sanjay Swamy, owner of the home:
· Said that the gate was installed in August 2004; at the lime of installalion, it was not known
that a permit was needed.
· Property was purchased in 1998, and the home was reconstructed.
· The owner of the home relocated and the tenants expressed concems about safety after
residing in the home for a year.
· He said at the lime, he was not aware of the neighborhood burglary in 2002.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input; as there was no one who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Jung:
· Relali ve to the applicant's earlier comment that he was not aware further approval was needed
for a motorized gate, he referred to Exhibit C, the copy of the building permit plan for the gate,
which indicated an applicalion could be made for a gate across a driveway, but an applicalion
for a fence exceplion would be required for a motorized gate. He said that he dealt with Mr.
Schwalb on the issue at the lime.
· Reiterated at the lime of the gate applicalion, he nolified the applicant that the motorizing of
the gate was a separate permit, approvable by an exception to have the motorized controls for
the gate.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked for clarificalion on why there was a dislinclion between a manually operated gate and a
motorized gate.
· He said he felt they needed to address the gates in a different manner; the gates should not be
allowed whether motorized or manual.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
· We talked about that at the lime of the ordinance and the General Plan amendment were
adopted and the idea is that cilizens are going to be likely to want an electronic gate, that is
where the market is going to be; so we wanted to address the frequency of those needs more
than the frequency if somebody wanted a manual gate, because it just wasn't going to happen
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
March 22, 2005
very often, because it is inconvenient to have a manual gate. But there would be more demand
for an electronic gate and that is what we wanted to address.
· The difference was that electronic gates would tend to proliferate.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he concurred with Com. Saadali, and failed to see the clear logic; if the objeclive is to not
have a gated community, to allow some gates and not other gates. I am having trouble with
that one.
Ms. Wordell:
· If the interest were in what is behind it, and if you wanted to add manual, you could; I would
go in that direclion if that is your concern.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The concern is consistency;
· The other question has to do with the documented breakin in 2000; staff said decision makers
have not used a breakin in the neighbor next door as justificalion for doing a gate.
· Could you elaborate on that.
Mr. Jung:
· In all situalions where we have had an application for an electronic gate, the standard has been,
have there been any crime problems with that particular property, so that particular address
was checked with the Sheriff s office and there were no reported incidents and we did not go
outside that boundary, because where do you draw the line?
· But that has not been the standard of review; has there been any reports of burglary, theft,
vandalism or trespass with this particular property: and that standard of review has not been,
we did not go beyond the property boundaries.
Vice Chair Miller:
· That is an unwritten standard, it is a subjeclive standard at this point.
Mr. Jung:
· It is an unwritten one and you could say it is an interpretalion of the words because the words
say, are there any demonstrated security reasons?
Vice Chair Miller:
· Logically from my own standpoint, if my neighbor's house is broken into, I would be worried
that my house would be broken into.
· The other point I am struggling with is, for one reason or another, the burglary occurred in
2000, the applicant did not apply for a gate permit unlil four years later, and wasn't aware that
a burglary took place.
Chair Wong:
· In the Ordinance 16.28.045, I agree that we allow security gates for mixed use underground
parking, but then in RI neighborhoods we don't, and we are not being consistent. I believe
that this ordinance might need to be reviewed and see that if the community wishes to have a
motorized gate for security reasons. We may need to readdress that issue and perhaps do it
through a minute order.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
March 22, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· First reaction, is that there would be a difference between the need for a gate in a submerged
parking lot, there is a lot more dark inaccessible, inactive areas in a large parking lot like that;
so I don't know that I would draw that parallel.
Chair Wong:
· Safety is safety; if it is an apartment or an underground garage or the neighborhood, I still
would like to get more community input; it would be a separate issue from this applicalion;
this is not the only electronic security gate that went through DRC and it was denied based on
our ordinance; we have to work within our ordinance.
· The other thing I see is, is this dwelling secluded or rural, and what defines this as being
secluded; since you can't see this house from the street, can we say that this is secluded,
because I see that in my mind as one reason to see this as a secluded area.
Ms. Wordell:
· I believe one of the points in the staff report was that it is visible from the street.
Chair Wong:
· Page 1-6, barely see the house from the driveway to the left, and when I drove by it, I didn't
want to trespass, it is a rural road and there are some security gates, maybe illegal.
· Other concern is the children; we have to work within the ordinance and those are the two
things that we can do.
Vice Chair Miller:
· There is juslificalion for a safety issue, but it is not part of the ordinance.
· When this ordinance was done, was safety considered, or is safety part of the definilion of
security?
· Being on a slope, there is some potenlial of it being a Concern in inclement weather; and
children are present, and you have a car parked on a slope. There is potenlially a safety issue.
Ms. Wordell:
· Probably goes back to one of the issues of whether you can operate something manually or
electronically, or whether you can get out and open a gate or not.
· Perhaps relocate it in a more convenient location.
Vice Chair Miller:
· What is the motivation behind the wording in the ordinance as to security being considered,
but not safety. I am asking if it was an oversight or was it deliberate.
Ms. Wordell:
· It was geared more toward security, the type that was brought up tonight.
· No recolleclion of talking about general safety.
Com. Saadati:
· I have a difficult time separating an electronic gate from a manual gate. We need to look at this
as a separate item and get more community input.
· If you are trying to avoid a gated community, we shouldn't allow any gates. This gate was
permitted as a manual gate and a motor was added, so I don't think there was a whole lot of
change there, except it was not permitted.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
March 22, 2005
· I have difficulty in denying the appeal; if the issue was not allowing the gate, I would have
gone along with that; there is no other neighbor in the area with a gate.
Com. Giefer:
· Based on the information presented and also at the DRC the two areas applicable in this
particular case, is the development secluded and is there a demonstrated security issue at this
specific property.
· I don't find it to be secluded; it is a residential neighborhood although it is a flag lot; the house
is visible from the street, not a large portion, but a portion of it, and the homeowner shared that
he wasn't aware that the neighbor's house have been burglarized during the timeframe that he
was there.
· The main reason for installing the gate originally, is his current tenants were annoyed by
solicitors as opposed to their concern for their safety.
· My finding is that there is not a security issue on the property; therefore I would deny the
appeal.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The ordinance needs to be reviewed, both from the issue of manual vs. motorized and where
gates are allowed and where they aren't.
· It should also be reviewed from the standpoint of including issues of safety.
· If we do that, then as was suggested, the applicant would be approved; the question is, do we
do an exception tonight or do we wait to review the ordinance and make those changes. I am
inclined to allow the exception to go through in this case; because I think you can make the
argument that if in fact there was a burglary there and the owner acted upon that issue when it
became cognizant to him, that it was a legitimate concern and the burglary was only a couple
of houses away, which is close enough in my view to consider that there was an issue there,
which was legitimately addressed by a gate.
Chair Wong:
· I also have trouble with this application. I agree with Com. Saadati about his concern that we
need to review the ordinance one more time, and I believe there is some uncertainty regarding
R I neighborhoods vs. mixed use development.
· I still believe that this development is secluded and the other thing is that I believe the
applicant did demonstrate security reasons, burglary, that the electronic gate should be put in.
· I can also see where staff is concerned that back then they were concerned about not having
gated communities in Cupertino; and I think everything should be judged case by case.
· We also have to be reasonable, and this will be a recommendation to City Council; so this is
not the end of the road; the City Council will make the final decision.
· Suggested sending a minute order to the City Council and have it reviewed, especially
16.28.045 Vehicular Electronic Security Gates and have staff research the history about that
and see if you are successful in your case, that you will come back and have other folks talk
about the pros and cons of security gates, because it can be controversial in our community.
· Supports the motorized gate.
Motion:
Moved by Com. Saadati, second by Chair Wong, to uphold the appeal and
modify the DRC decision. (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Miller, Com. Saadati and
Chair Wong Yes; Com. Giefer No; Com. Chen Absent.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
March 22, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Suggested because they were trying to get the work program on the schedule, that it might be
more efficient to include it in the recommendation of the work program to the City Council so
they don't have to consider it as a separate item.
2.
EXC-200S-06
Jae Chung, 20300
Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Sign exception to allow a neon border on a monument sign.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Mr. Jung:
· Reviewed the background of the application for a sign exception to allow an exposed neon
border on an existing monument sign for BoA's Fine Asian Grill, the former Hamasushi
Restaurant, as outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed the findings for a sign exception and the applicant's justification for the use of the
exposed neon sign.
· He pointed out that the applicant has not changed the size of the previous sign, but outlined the
perimeter of the sign with a neon order for better visibility from the street.
· Staff feels that the neon border alone does not improve the business's identification; and the
size of the sign has not been changed which would address the visibility concerns expressed.
They also feel there are other ways to improve the illumination without using exposed neon.
· Staff does not oppose the use of exposed neon per se, but it should enhance the business
identification in building form, and questions that the BoAs sign does that.
· He reviewed the usage of neon in other restaurants in the city;
· Staff recommends denial of the exception per the model resolution because they are not able to
make the sign exception findings.
Chair Wong:
· Questioned the difference between the Shell Station sign and the subject sign.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the two types of illuminated signs are sign cabinets which may include incandescent light
bulbs in it or just the illuminated letters, with neon tubes in those letters. The sign company
puts the fusing panels over the neon so the light is not that penetrating and not that bright, but
it diffuses the light itself and it doesn't give that stark penetrating appearance.
· The Shell station sign is not a neon sign, but a light box with incandescent tubes.
Jae Chung, owner of BoA's Fine Asian Grill and BBQ:
· Relative to Mr. lung's staff report, he said there was no specific standards for review in the
code for exposed neon.
· He purchased Hamasushi's and because business was slow and he faced bankruptcy, he
revitalized the restaurant and wanted to make improvements with minimal expense.
· He noted that the competitive restaurants near his location were large companies and their
signage was very costly; whereas the cost of his small sign was a small fraction, and his
business had to be noticeable from the street as well.
· He said he felt he was misled by staff regarding the permit process and granting an exception
for the proposed sign.
· If he did not get support he would not be able to stay in the community as it was difficult for
the business to survive and compete with the larger restaurants in the present economy.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
March 22, 2005
· He explained that he did not go through the permit process first because it was an existing sign
he was modifying by making it brighter; and going through the planning department was
difficult, time consuming and costly. He said he could not open the restaurant without the
sIgn.
Vice Chair Miller:
· He said he drove by the restaurant and the sign was difficult to read, with or without the neon
because the lettering was small.
Mr. Chung;
· Said that if the business survived for 6 months, he would change the sign.
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Saadati:
· Is willing to approve the permit for a 6 month period until the business can prove to be
successful. A new sign could be installed and the neon removed.
· He recommended an expensive plastic cover for the neon to make it similar to the other signs.
· (Following Mr. lung's comment, he said he was willing to extend the period of time to six
months to a year, to determine whether or not if the restaurant would be successful.}
Mr. Jung:
· Indicated that if there was a different color of tube placed around the neon, it would not be
considered an exposed neon sign.
· Said the Planning Commission has within its authority to approve the application for a limited
amount of time; and suggested a longer period of time to determine whether or not the
restaurant would be successful.
Com. Giefer:
· Concurred with Com. Saadati that they wanted the new business in the community, to have the
benefit of being successful and enhancing their image.
· Said the corner location was very busy in terms of signs; and adding more in the area would be
more distracting.
· She said she was disturbed by the applicant's admission that he did not file for a sign permit or
exception because he did not want to go through the inconvenience and delay of getting the
permits. His actions disregard the process put in place to create quality within the community.
· Because they want the business to be successful in Cupertino, she said she would support
granting an exception for up to one year for the neon sign. Following that period, the sign
would have to be replaced with a new one or the neon covered.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Concurred that they wanted the businesses to succeed, but said they should follow the rules set
forth.
· Regarding neon, as pointed out by the applicant and staff, it is a subjective rule and he does
not find that strip of neon to be objectionable and agrees at night that it will make a difference
because the lettering is not visible from a reasonable distance; the outline calls some attention
to the restaurant.
· Said he felt they could make a finding for an exception in that case, that the border if it doesn't
follow the letter of the ordinance, at least is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, and he
was inclined to grant the exception for a limited time, because they need to encourage the
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
March 22, 2005
businesses to apply for the permit they need to pursue their business in the city. At the same
time they want to be accommodating and want to encourage the businesses to succeed because
both the applicant and city benefit when that occurs.
Chair Wong:
· Concurred with the commissioners, and said he understood Mr. Chung's frustrations about
starting a new business.
· Said they wanted small business owners to be successful in Cupertino.
· Agreed with Com. Giefer's comment that no matter how frustrated an applicant becomes,
there is a process to follow. If they experience frustration or have concerns, they can always
work through the Planning Commission or City Council to follow through. He said the
applicant could have saved a large sum of money by not coming to a hearing. City staff, the
Planning Commission and City Council support small business owners and he said he
appreciated Mr. Chung explaining his situation.
· He agreed that neon does help the business; it is difficult to compete with the larger national
businesses.
· Said he supported granting an exception up to one year; and hoped that within the one year
period the applicant could come up with a plan, work with staff and see how to get bigger
letters and fall within the guidelines. Staff may be able to provide suggestions of other
alternatives as well.
· Said they welcomed his business and noted that there is also the Chamber of Commerce to
assist him.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve
Application EXC-200S-06 to grant temporary exception for the sign
not to exceed a period of one year. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
3.
GPA-2004-01
EA-2004-17
City of Cnpertino
Citywide
General Plan Amendment to revise the General Plan.
Subject: Land Use discussion on Hillsides, Parks and
CirculationlEnvironmental Resources/Health and Safety
Study Session
Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled
Ms. Wordell:
· Explained that the subject of the meeting was to review the items scheduled for the discussion
tonight under four main topics: completion of items on land use and housing related to
hillsides, open space, parks and trails. There will be other land use housing items that the
Planning Commission wanted to discuss more but those will not be the subject of the meeting
tonight. There have been presentations on other elements, but no opportunity for the Planning
Commission to provide direction yet.
LAND USEIHOUSING ELEMENTS:
. The hillside designation has been discussed quite a bit, and the issues were that 27 parcels
were proposed to go into the hillside land use designation, changing the designation from
1 to 5 dwelling units per gross acre to one-half acre hillside slope density.
. One of the issues that came up when you discussed this before was how that redesignation
would affect subdivision and four of those properties could currently be subdivided under
the existing land use designation at least theoretically. The square footage is there; the
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
March 22, 2005
analysis of how that would work has not occurred, the numbers would work. If the hillside
designation were applied to those four properties, one of them could subdivide under the
hillside designation but the remaining three likely could not. On the other hand, our office
is working with some of those property owners to see if they are requesting to proceed
with their subdivision at this time. Since they have the ability to do that, in one sense it
could be a moot point whether the application of the hillside land use designation would
have any affect or not, unless there were a moratorium. As well, the Planning
Commission has indicated in your preliminary direction that, if the geological analysis
were done that showed that the properties could develop safely under the existing
designation that you would support that. If they applied now and got approval prior to a
General Plan change, even if you did put the hillside designation on it, you would have the
ability to look at those geological reports and determine if it was a subdivision that you
wanted to approve. An option would be to allow that procedure to occur and then you
could still continue to change the General Plan and the zoning during the regular General
Plan calendar.
· She illustrated a drawing of the area outlining the 27 parcels, showing the hillside lands to
the left of the red line; showed the land use designation change area as shown in the
previous slide, and indicated which properties could subdivide.
OPEN SPACE AND PARKS AND TRAILS:
· There were some additional things you wanted to consider. One related to how the
connection to Stevens Creek Trails should occur; one to the words "urban" instead of
"rural".
· There is also a question about why the diocese trails haven't been opened up. There were a
number of residents who were concerned about pursuing the idea of Regnart Creek trail. It
was pointed out in the staff report that on the trail linkages, one of the points that was
made was that this trail should have a higher priority on this graphic. Presently it is called
"future trail linkages" and the point was that this is a very desirable trail and it should be
bumped up and be called an "existing" or "proposed".
· There were some concerns about some of this trail shown as on the streets and it would not
be the kind of trail that people like. The response to that was that this is already approved
as a trail linkage for Stevens Creek trail, so it is correct to show it as an existing or
proposed trail.
Ms. Wordell:
· Illustrated where Deborah Jamison wanted to make part of the trail rural, but not want the
linkage to be on the urban streets. She wanted to increase the priority of one trail over the
street one on Stevens Creek.
· Said it was a moot point because it is already designated as an existing trail. The other trail is
on private property.
Mr. Piasecki:
· As the Planning Commission can appreciate, it is easier to improve trails on public property
and major streets, such as Stevens Creek and Foothill. I would agree with her that the trail in
red is a beautiful area and is one we should pursue. In time and possibly if there is any
development on those hillside properties, we will have the opportunity to do so in that event;
but I don't think I would agree that it should be given a higher priority, because you would
never get the urban or street trails while you are waiting for this other trail, which is much
more difficult to implement and costly.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
March 22, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Are there further improvements that need to be done to the street trail, or are they already
done.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said she did not do any further research on the improvements as it was not indicated at the
previous meeting that staff should bring further information back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If I was just to surmise, and we do need to look at it more closely, I think there are some gaps
in that connected sidewalks; there are some disconnections in the sidewalks that need to be
filled in. There may be some bike route issues also.
· In response to Com. Giefer's, question, Mr. Piasecki said that the block areas indicate the
urban service areas annexed to the city but there are improvements and it is private property.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to putting a trail on private land, he said you would need to go to the property owners
and acquire the right of way to allow the public to go onto the property. If you wait for
development, sometimes you can require that it be done as a condition of the development.
We have done that on a number of occasions as well.
Ms. Wordell:
· Illustrated the proposed urban trails.
· The railroad tracks which is in a holding pattern; not likely amenable to a trail.
· Part of the Regnart trail; shown in the General Plan as a possible trail.
· Some of the Calabazas trail is underground, and not a possibility that it can be improved.
· The San Tomas Aquino trail; half is completed; with a bridge half way up that provides a
connection to the neighborhood; the city is looking at extending it further north.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT:
Ms. Wordell:
· Summarized the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommendations as set forth in the staff
report:
o Retain pedestrian grid: Policy 4-3(2)
o Emphasize pedestrian aspects of road design: Policy 4-11
o Reinstate "Balancing LOS and pedestrians: Discussion C-I
o Add policy for regional trails
o Add a strategy to use Valley Transportation Authority's Pedestrian Technical Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT:
Ms. Wordell:
· Environmental Resources had one Hot Topic which was the task force on sustainability and
we raised that, not so much to say that it is not something we should do, mostly it is a timing
and funding issue. It was a reason to point out the importance of sustainability.
HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENTS:
· There were no Hot Topics and nothing new to present on that.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
March 22, 2005
· There are three consultants who helped with environmental resources circulation and health
and safety; and are present at the meeting as resource people.
Com. Giefer:
· Question for consultant who worked on sustainability.
· Gov. Schwarzenegger recently made an announcement that within the next 20 years he wanted
California to exceed Japan's production and use of solar energy. What is real about that
announcement; what is the window of possibly launching the programs.
Don Wolf, Consultant:
· The Governor has made a lot of statements and pre-policy statements on the environment in
the last month or so; what is happening overseas, Japan and Germany and France, are retooling
and refitting themselves for use of solar energy and other types of energy. Presently what we
are doing is taking care of the energy problem in terms of energy policy, sustainable policy, on
a county by county or less than that a city by city basis.
· It is gratifying to see the individual cities taking heart and seeking alternative energy sources.
Unless there is some kind of county buyin to this and regional buyin, it is not going to affect
the state's production or use of solar energy or other types of energy resources.
· That recalls the need to address the issue of regional planning and I think the development of
energy resources would be one of the most significant areas for the regional planners, but we
don't have much regional planning in our state. My personal view is that we won't have it
until we can develop stronger regional planning bodies.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We received two different reports, one from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (BPC)
and one from the safety commission that I am not sure if they conflict or not, that is what I
want to discuss.
· The BPC is suggesting that traffic calming is important and the VT A document also calls for
traffic calming as a means of making it safer for pedestrians. The Safety Commission
suggested that if the LOS levels declined, that would pose a potential hazard for public safety.
Can we have traffic calming and still maintain existing LOS?
Ms. Wordell:
· It may depend on what kind of traffic calming you are talking about. If you do speed bumps or
bulbouts, it probably would not affect LOS. If you are talking about road narrowing, a traffic
study would have to be done to see if that in fact affected public service.
Mr. Piasecki:
· You also need to go back to the data that you have, and is the supposition that one leads to
another just conjecture or is there hard data to back it up. There are many communities that by
any standard we would judge, are highly traffic calmed; they have relatively few lanes, cars
are forced to go slower, and I don't think there is any evidence that there is a more dangerous
or safety question in those cities or towns; they accept the idea that you will drive slower in
those communities.
· It gets into what is the vision for Cupertino; where do you see the city going in terms of
building community and reinforcing a suburban or small town character.
Cupertino Planning Commission
]3
March 22, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if they do some effective measures of traffic calming and effectively slow the traffic
down, which some would say is a laudable goal, does slowing the traffic down degrade the
level of service?
Bob Harrison, Transportation Planning Consultant for the General Plan:
· I am not clear where the Safety Commission came from on their analysis. I wasn't part of their
discussion and it isn't clear how they came to their conclusion. In general, LOS is not directly
related to safety in any event; LOS is a measure of how well the traffic is performing; not
directly related to how well the rest of the system is performing. So we did not evaluate the
rest of the system as part of the LOS analysis. I go along with Mr. Piasecki, I am not aware of
any statistical analysis that suggests traffic calming leads to increased accident rates. It
depends on what kind of traffic calming you are discussing; an improperly installed speed
bump can clearly have a traffic safety impact, but a properly installed speed hump does not.
That would be my initial reaction to the question.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I wasn't asking that question or suggesting that linkage; the Safety Commission didn't say the
traffic calming causes an issue of pedestrian safety; they said they reduced levels of service.
Mr. Harrison:
· The level of service is not directly connected to traffic safety.
· You would have to ask on a case by case basis, what kind of traffic calming are you talking
about. We measure LOS on how well traffic is functioning at a particular spot in the system,
and LOS at intersections accounts for pedestrian crossings, so we do put into the analysis how
much time it takes for a pedestrian to cross a particular street, and that time is taken out of the
green time for the cars to pass through that intersection. It affects LOS to that extent and there
are those who argue that we don't put enough time on the pedestrian crossings and particularly
in the senior citizen crossings.
· There is the concept in the plan as originally written, and I am not sure if the task force picked
this up or not, that the time we put in for pedestrian crossings might be extended to make sure
that there is enough time for those people who can't do the average pace, which is what the
crossings are based on. To that extent, LOS of the traffic flow could be related to the safety of
the pedestrian crossing.
Vice Chair Miller:
· One of the objectives is to prevent or discourage traffic from going from a major arterial and
taking shortcuts through the neighborhoods. If in fact we were to slow traffic down as a
general objective in the community, would that in fact encourage people to take these shortcuts
or is it just the fact that you are sitting at a light a little too long, as opposed to we do an
effective job of continuously moving people through town a little slower than normal; is the
behavior to stay to the major arterial if we do it that way.
Mr. Harrison:
· One of the key policies of the plan was that on the major arterials we want to keep LOS at a
good level; we don't want to let it drop below a minimum standard; which is to encourage
people to stay on the arterials. On the opposite end of the spectrum in the neighborhoods we
were talking about traffic calming devices which might in fact slow people down and therefore
discourage them from making the shortcuts; so those two things worked together.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
March 22. 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· I am not totally clear on the answer to the question, if we slow traffic down on the arterials,
does that equate to a lower level of service.
Mr. Harrison:
· It could, it is possible, there is no traffic calming that I am aware of specifically on any of the
major arterials that we have proposed in the General Plan; it is traffic calming in the
neighborhoods that we are primarily talking about.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Additionally, there is nothing in any of the versions of the plans that would reduce the LOS
below the accepted standards that we are used to on major arterials. It is not being suggested.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he thought there were some proposals for narrowing Stevens Creek Boulevard at various
points.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There was some discussion about retaining the option to explore that; but no proposal that we
do anything; and that it would require that we do the analysis to ensure that we are not creating
the problems that you are potentially concerned with.
Com. Saadati:
· On the major arterial, the median islands - do they playa role in the traffic calming and also
increasing safety, because they are not allowing u-turns or left and right turns at any
intersection.
Mr. Harrison:
· Medians in general provide a place for pedestrian refuge in terms of their safety; medians also
separate opposing traffic flows which is inherent as a traffic safety measure. The design is
always crucial in any of these issues; and in general, medians are a positive.
· We have set a standard in the General Plan as specific policies and it is LOS D with the
exception of three intersections where E+ which is just over the boundary between D and E
would be accepted; and that is a 45 second maximum average delay per vehicle is what we
accept in the General Plan as currently drafted.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if there were specific strategies to encourage the people in Cupertino to walk their
children to school if they were a block away as opposed to driving them.
Mr. Harrison:
· He explained the Safe Routes to School Program, which is a walking bus concept with
students who live close enough, gathering with one or two adults, one in the front and one in
the rear, and they walk the children to school, similar to a bus moving. They are volunteers
and the children are under the supervision of an adult.
· Nowadays parents are frantic about the children's safety; children can no longer walk to
school unsupervised.
· He said there were programs that the school district could be involved in if they are interested
in working with the city.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
March 22, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· Said her children and other residents' children in her neighborhood walk to school all the
time; they live fairly close to the school, believe that walking to school is part of the
experience. In the past ten years the schools have made the drive through more efficient for
parents, and more peopie are driving their children to school. There are also many two
working parent families where it is more convenient for someone to put the kids in the car,
drop them off at school and go to work.
· I think the paradigm has changed and this is something I have grappled with for years; how to
get people out of their cars and let their kids walk to school. I have been a part of many of the
suggested things and still don't know what the right answer is.
Chair Wong:
· Said he also walked his daughter to school; and the concern is not walking across Homestead
High SeRssl Road, but as you get closer to the school, folks are in a hurry, the sidewalks are
narrow, and it becomes a safety factor; that is the parents' main concern.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Lucy Heymann, Clifden Avenue:
· Opposed to the trail opening.
· Spoke in opposition of the trails to be considered to reopen.
· When the culvert was open in the past, there was a culvert behind her house and the area was
open; people would come in through there and throw rocks over the fences; hit the windows.
· It wasn't safe and everyone on our side of the street facing the culvert faced breakins at one
point or another.
· We all have alarm systems in our houses because of that.
· A few years ago they closed off the culvert so that people couldn't get back there, so people
haven't been back there and it doesn't seem to have any problems. It would negatively affect
the property values if opened up again.
Julie Miyakawa, Farallone Drive:
· Opposed to the trail being reopened.
· Said she would like to comment on Captain Hirakawa's speech at the last meeting.
· He said when the trails are opened crime does increase, but with increased usage of the trails,
crime rate does go down.
· There are times when the trails are not going to be heavily used, particularly during the week
days; and used more in the summer evenings and on the weekends. Said she had safety
concerns for the evening.
· It is a safety concern for everyone to have the trail opened up in their back yards again,
especially for the new development along Rodrigues. Last summer when we walked along the
trail, apparently the City Council specified to the developer that their fences could not be
higher than 3 feet; these people are really vulnerable to people coming right into their back
yards, right in front of their front doors. They are not protected at all.
Nita McGalliard, Clifden Way:
· Opposed to the trail.
· Said she was concerned about the quality of life which would be affected by making a trail
behind her home and impact her safety.
· We work in our back yard a lot; it will not be safe to be there when the trail is opened.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
March 22, 2005
· She said she understood that the City of Cupertino would be liable for anything the people on
the trail did when they were back there, or if they were injured, or fell in the creek.
· Flood control has been cautious about keeping it locked up so that there wouldn't be things
thrown in the creek; or the ditch if it floods. It wasn't there when we purchased the homes.
· I would greatly appreciate it if it were taken off the plan, not just putting it on the back burner.
· Opposed to the reopening of the trail.
Chandra Rao, Clifden Way:
· Said he had the same issues about the trail being opened on the back side.
· Said one of the reasons he purchased his property was there was no one in close proximity to
their property; the trail was closed.
· The upside of the trail opening is that people can walk and get exercise, but the downside is
the safety factor. Recently a neighbor's home was burglarized.
· Opposed to the trail opening, and requested that it be removed from the plan.
John Dozier, Lindy Lane:
· Said he supported the 27 property owners who resided on lower Lindy Lane and Mount Crest
in their efforts to either forestall or eliminate the rezoning of the properties.
· My property is on 3.5 acres and surrounded by other contiguous properties that are on similar
sized parcels and was formerly R I zoned.
· About ten years ago the city decided to rezone all of upper Regnart Road and upper Lindy
Lane and Canyon View Circle.
· The city tried to rezone lower Lindy Lane and Mount Crest years ago and decided it was not
appropriate and it did not fit the same hillside criteria that the larger parcels on Regnant and
upper Lindy Lane fit. He said he felt it was inappropriate to rezone those people; those parcels
appear to be a transitional zone.
Frank Sun, Lindy Lane:
· Opposed to the trail.
· A few months ago a major change was implemented and we didn't have a chance to give any
input because none of the affected homeowners were notified.
· This proposed change is going to affect us profoundly again. I have seen the proposal for
further rezoning; we hope we don't have to surrender everything and it has been too many
changes and each time the magnitude is just too great.
· I don't think the interest of the property owners was given the proper consideration and I urge
the reconsideration of the change and have a comprehensive evaluation and decision; state
what is really necessary, and what kind of change we should have. It is too lengthy and too
expensive and can be nerve wracking for the property owners. A simple decision can just
change the property value greatly and I don't think that is fair.
· We do consider other people's concerns and their rights, we tr:i to be flexible but we want you
to hear our voice.
Mark Santoro, Lindy Lane:
· Opposed to the trail opening.
· Was previously a business owner in Cupertino.
· Before acquiring the property, I talked to numerous people at the city planning office and there
was never a mention of rezoning, or changing slope densities for building. I was told I could
build a house based on a simple R I ordinance; and given the size at that time and the number
of structures I could build. I was also told I could subdivide.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
March 22, 2005
· Without notifying any of us, II of us showed up at a meeting we heard about the potential
rezoning, we found that the R I ordinance had been changed to encompass a 15% slope density
instead of 30% slope density in terms of what you can build. That is what we are talking about
now, that it is a benefit to change to hillside ordinance, only because they have enforced the
15% rule on those 27 properties in that area. So now those properties are bound by two sets of
rules where before they were only bound by one.
· The next step is we are looking at a potential rezoning. When I bought my property, it was not
my intent to subdivide; however, you have heard several individuals that are rushing to
subdivide; I would be one of those. I have tried a couple of times to get my application, I am
told I need to talk to a certain person; I am waiting to get a meeting with that individual. But
myself, Mr. Sun, we are in the process and one other, are in the process for applying for
subdivisions because they are going to take away our ability to do that forever in the future; I
wouldn't be applying for a subdivision right now if it wasn't being changed; but what
happened is the 15% rule would prevent me from building a small house on my property for
my parents. Now I am forced to subdivide to build something, because if I don't do it now, I
won't be able to do it later.
· There is a tremendous impact to property values. Under the old rules, Mr. Sun would be able
to build a structure of 30,000 square feet and now he is limited to 6,500 square feet; under the
subdivision rule, he cannot subdivide his property. The Moxley property was divided into
three lots and sold for about $1 million each. There was a huge potential gain in net worth of
the property by subdividing; in my case not being able to subdivide in the 15% slope density
which I would also like to see repealed since there was no notice given to the property owners,
adverses my property by more than a $1 million. There are several of us in that situation and
we have tried to work with the city; we have been told that maybe there can be some
concessions made but what we are seeing is that there seems there is a march going forward to
do this rezoning and we didn't even know about the 15%, and there will be an adverse affect
on our property values if that happens.
Dennis Whitaker, Cheryl Drive:
· Expressed concern about the LOS of traffic by the Blue Pheasant I :30 p.m. weekdays.
· Reiterated his concerns about Stevens Creek heading west in front of the senior center and
having to wait for two to three lights to get to Highway 85. I am hoping things can be done to
ensure that the pedestrians can safely get across, but at the same time, not make us wait for so
many lights to go through before we can get from point A to point B.
· There are regular people who use these streets on a regular basis; and before this major
population influx comes in, I would like to see the city allow the Cupertino Scene to do a
survey again to see what people think about the traffic scenario and then after all the.
population comes in, do it again and find out where we are at.
· Perhaps we can get help from the ambulances; the sheriff, and fire department on where the
hot spots are for traffic; we know some of them but maybe they can give more help to us.
· Raised the concern that they were adding a 100+ units at Menlo Equities, 204 at Valko; which
is 300 cars and then another 300 to 400 cars in the Toll Brothers; that is 600 cars on a
conservative basis times 2, which is 1200 cars between Wolfe and Lawrence Expressway; now
is the time to plan for circulation and make it work.
· Relative to Calaveras Creek; Captain Hirakawa said that as long as the population uses those
trails, there is not a problem. But from 9 to 10 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. during the summertime, it is dark; people aren't out there and that is when crime is biggest.
· Please don't let the trail go through there.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
March 22, 2005
Luciano Daile Ore, Lindy Lane:
· Expressed concern that everyone was considering subdi viding; and said that considering the
prices that the lots were getting, he may consider it also.
· From my point of view, it is not something that I really would want to do, I have lived there
since 1986 and would like to stay another 20 years; but to some extent would like to figure out
a way to make sure that I can protect the value of my property. Would it be possible to
combine the two things, it would make it easier. Many people are jumping in because of that
and if there was a way to delay people from subdividing, it would be more appropriate for
everyone.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· We need to address the concerns raised to some extent, what is good for the community as a
whole; if the trail is built at the proposed area, is the whole community going to benefit; we
need more input from the community; have there been any specific public meetings for the
trails.
Ms. Wordell:
· Relative to the Regnart Trail, the City Council has set it as a goal and the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Commission has had meetings on it; therefore it is on their work plan to try to get
some grant funding for a feasibility study. That portion had public discussion.
· The Planning Commission might want to consider a strategy to consider impacts on adjacent
property owners when studying trails abutting residential neighborhoods. There would have to
be an EIS done at some point.
Com. Saadati:
· Said his definition of trail is to go out into the woods and hear the birds and wildlife; the urban
trail as far as Stevens Creek is not a trail, it is basically providing a safe pathway for people to
walk, making the community a walkable community. That we need to emphasize to make it
safer for the community. For biking, also encourage biking and provide safe bike paths for
people to be able to use their bikes more.
· As far as the trails that are behind the certain peoples homes, that is going to be studied in
detail and more information will come up before those are approved by City Council.
Com. Giefer:
· I am a big proponent of trails if they are, particularly as Com. Saadati stated, wilderness trails.
The trails we have in open space in the mountains are great; they are well utilized and the
more of them we can have, the better.
· I support adding connectivity throughout our city and residential neighborhoods.
· I have heard the neighborhood concern for their safety; I support staff's idea of having
additional strategy added to make sure we clearly understand the impact of the neighbors,
which would include their safety in my opinion. Some of the information that I don't know as
we are discussing it now, and it came to mind as one of the residents was testifying, is the
plan to keep the trail open 24/7, or is there going to be a mechanism to close it so that it is
secure for the residents during that time.
· If you think about a neighborhood and there is already access through the neighborhood from
Point A to Point B, this is not what I would consider a wilderness trail experience; you are
basically walking behind someone's backyard, and I would like to give this more thought and
consideration, actually go out and look at it, just to better understand what the layout is. I
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
March 22, 2005
certainly don't want to be a nimbi, I want to provide connectivity and this is an opportunity to
provide safe passage for kids, who are going to Cupertino High School or other areas, and a
quicker way for them to get through; but I do think we cannot underestimate the concern of the
neighbors, and I don't feel like I have a lot of information that I need still.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he was sympathetic with the arguments that the residents raised; several issues with a
Regnart Creek Trail, No. I was the security issue if the gates are opened and of course there is
no mitigation there as Com. Giefer suggested and someone could close those gates every night
if that was an effective way to do things; of course it would cost extra city money.
· The second issue is safety, basically it is a trail walking along a steep V-ditch, which I don't
know why people would want to bike along that, it is significantly dangerous unless there is
something extra built there to prevent accidents; and there is also the potential that kids will be
kids and someone is going to fall in that V -ditch. I see that as a very serious issue.
· The third issue is for the people who manage the flood control, they are very conscious about
keeping that terrain and the V -ditch clear and not having anything disturb that terrain in any
way; so that performs the function it was intended; and if we are now using it for dual purpose,
I see that the flood control function could potentially be compromised. I would hope that when
this issue is reviewed again by Parks and Rec and the City Council, that they would take those
concerns into consideration.
Chair Wong:
· I also agree with Vice Chair Miller's concern about the neighborhood, and overall it is safe to
say we all support trails; but do we support it in an urban area or in a rural area.
· We want something that benefits the community and to take into consideration what is good
for the community, but there are pros and cons.
· Staff suggested that it would be a good idea to add a strategy in the General Plan to address
that issue since it is a City Council goal to have urban trails in Cupertino.
· He suggested to the residents to start a petition and start a dialogue with the City Council. It is
also going through the BPC, and if staff notifies the neighbors when the meetings are when it
is agendized, then we can address their concerns at an early point if they can't convince the
City Council to change their goals.
· I just want to be fair to both sides that where you can express your opinion since it is already a
City Council goal and has been in the 2003 General Plan.
· We also need to address the safety issues; they have heard the residents' Concerns and they are
legitimate.
· The other thing I agree with Com. Giefer is we want to bring the city together with
connectivity is other than having children to walk on our sidewalks, maybe they can have
going through these trails, but again there has to be a buyin with that particular neighborhood.
· It may be easier to build the trails in a newer neighborhood like on the Hewlett Packard where
there is no existing neighborhood, but since some of you have been there for five years, some
for 20 years, I can understand your concern.
· The more information that the residents can get will be beneficial to them. Staff will keep the
neighborhood informed and they can also find information on the city website.
Com. Saadati:
· I walked on the railroad track which runs from Bubb Road to Stevens Creek and some of my
neighbors houses back into the railroad tracks Steveas Creek; I am not aware of any problem
that they have expressed in the past. so maybe the staff could look at that area, see if there is
any safety problem or vandalism. It is good to get input from the residents.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
March 22, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that it was not an official trail.
HILLSIDE PROPERTIES:
Chair Wong:
· There was a comment by one of the speakers that when it was changed in the R 1 ordinance,
the 27 property owners were not properly notified. What was the notification for those 27
property owners at City Council level.
Ms. Wordell:
· That was a general ordinance change that affected the entire city; we didn't do any individual
notification for that.
Chair Wong:
· Can it be reversed? Can the 27 property owners petition the City Council and have that
reversed back to the original zoning.
Ms. Wordell:
· They could do that on behalf of all hillside owners; I wouldn't think you would isolate any
particular area for that.
Chair Wong:
· These 27 property owners said they were not properly notified, and as Mayor Kwok said,
notification was very important to the community and I don't want to open a huge can of
worms then because the hillside ordinance is working
Ms. Wordell:
· No hillside resident was notified because it was a citywide ordinance; even if they felt their
particular group had an identity it wouldn't make any sense to change the R1 ordinance just
for that group. If they asked, it would be on behalf of all hillside property owners.
Ms. Wordell:
· Relative to the Moxley property, it was an agreed upon solution as a sideline, it was not done
through a resolution or public hearing; but came up because the applicant came back to extend
the tentative map.
· Com. Giefer questioned the appropriateness of being able to develop that under R I and had the
idea of possibly seeking a rezoning, and after the property owner indicated that he was willing
to try to agree to some limitations on the size of house, that if it is RI, they wouldn't be limited
by the 6500 square foot house under RHS. He agreed to record a covenant on those
properties; the maximum was 5500 square feet.
Com. Giefer:
· They were planting screenings to enhance the view from people in the valley and several other
of the RHS details that were voluntarily included and reported on those deeds.
Vice Chair Miller:
· My primary concern is with safety; I received some emails from folks with concerns about a
prior slide; that is a major concern for me.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
March 22, 2005
· The second issue as Com. Giefer said is the views of the hillsides and whether we are treating
them in a fashion to maintain them.
· As some of the speakers and staff suggested, it may be a moot issue, and if we force this issue
here the property owners will go through and do a subdivision before it comes to fruition.
· I think that the proper approach to this is to have some wording, not to switch them, so that
they can't subdivide, but rather to limit the construction based on the safety issues and the
geotechnical reports that come out and also to have some kind of solution that we did on the
Moxley property, that perhaps permits them to build a house more in keeping with the hillside
ordinance in terms of size, as opposed to the R 1 ordinance. If they wanted to subdivide, they
could and not feel like they have to rush out and do it now.
· On the other hand we want to restrict them as appropriate relative to safety and relative to how
we want to view our hillsides.
Com. Giefer:
· Safety has always been the number one concern; there have been slides in the area on both
sides of the hill above the Lindy Lane side and the opposite side of the hill facing Linda Vista,
and I am concerned that the more weight we add to the hillside, the more vegetation that is
removed, that we are making it more susceptible to that. If we had a comprehensive
geological study of the area that said it's not highly expandable soil and it is never going to
slide, I wouldn't be worried about this, but it is a big unknown.
· Expressed concern about preferential zoning, the opposite side of the street is RHS, the west
side of Lindy Lane is RI, so I don't understand why we have preferential zoning in this
specific canyon in the hills, because they both look equally steep to me.
· The owners who are looking at subdividing now; they will have to do those studies and find
out how expansive the soil is; and if those studies come back stating that there are no
problems, and a certain size house can be built, and if it is reasonable, but they now have to
also contend with 15% slope of trigger that was put into the RI by the City Council.
· I think that these properties should be more appropriately zoned as RHS.
Com. Saadati:
· As stated in the last meeting. a geological report needs to be done in order for this area to be
subdivided; I am not sure a building permit will be issued without enough geotechnical study
regarding the stability.
· The other concern I have is how they look as we look at some of the hills above Regnart; the
houses like eyesores and any house that is built needs to be blended and architecturally needs
to be designed in such a way that it doesn't take away from the beauty of the hillside.
· Concur with Com. Giefer that there seems to be two different standards, one side is R I and the
other side being looked at differently.
· If there was enough justification to do that, it would be appropriate; there are many earthquake
standards that they change and people say certain areas have been safe for a long time, but you
have an earthquake and it is no longer safe. What you do is change the guidelines, the rules, or
the code to prevent any future problems.
· If you are doing it based on that, then it is the right thing to do; it is done to protect the
community and the public.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the 27 property owners; said he understood their frustration regarding notification
under the R I. Staff notified them and they are present and he commended them for expressing
their viewpoints, which were heard loud and clear.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
March 22, 2005
· Said Com. Giefer made a good point, one side of Lindy Lane at least the first layer, is under
R I and then you are under moderate, and now you have been changing to a quasi R I and
hillside residential.
· Agreed with his colleagues that safety is No. ] and the residents also agree that safety is a
concern, because they won't build a home if it wasn't safe.
· Page 3-11 - Supports the study and asked staff to change it so that there should be a hillside
study, and if the hillside study is good, it not be rezoned hillside, because of the neighbors
concerns.
· Said he would rather it be quasi-RI hillside which is the best they can get unless they can
change the Council's direction that, in the city of Cupertino there is a concern about hillside,
concerns about views, and they have a strong contingency and I understand their constituency,
but again, if safety was met as well as geotechnic, I do support it to be subdivided.
Unfortunately it would be the new R 1 policy on that, but] will not support it going to the RHS
zoning.
· Asked the commissioners to look on Page 3-11, to make sure it is the direction they want to
go. If it is the right direction, it would assist staff in writing up the Planning Commission
recommendations.
Ms. Wordell:
· Chair Wong and Com. Giefer were the only ones who clearly said which direction you wanted
to go; everybody talked about safety and views, but I think it would be helpful to say whether
you wanted the land use designation changed or not.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I would prefer leaving it as it is, but the subdivision would require geotechnical reports and
supporting evidence.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he concurred with the modified RI, with the specific geotechnic evaluation which may
include the slope stability evaluation.
Chair Wong:
· We are going to address other issues too. but these can change. This is just a recommendation,
we will make a final recommendation later in April or May 2005.
· Said it was up to the residents to stay in tune and to watch the issue; the city staff will try to
advise you if your particular subject is agendized, but it falls back on the responsibility of the
property owners/residents.
· On Page 3-12 we did address other land use topics regarding open space, Parks and Rec.,
urban trails.
Chair Wong:
· Asked the commissioners to address Circulation, Policy 4-3, Policy 4-6, Policy 4-11 and add
strategy No.4.
· Relative to Policy 4-3, retain the pedestrian grid; I believe that the General Task Force did a
good job in addressing this issue, and I support their suggestion to "consider" vs. to "develop".
· Relative to Policy 4-6, delete the Task Force draft, balancing the needs of pedestrians with
desired traffic services.
· I support what the General Plan Task Force says. I believe that we need our major
thoroughfares to be clear and we want customers to come to our businesses.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
March 22, 2005
· Lowering the level of service to E+, is not acceptable to my standards and some of those in
Cupertino.
· Regarding Policy 4-11, discouraging traffic and encouraging walking on neighborhood streets;
I do agree with that policy; and to add the VT A pedestrian technical guidelines,
· Page 4-10, he said he supported trails in the circulation element.
Com. Giefer:
· Supported retaining the pedestrian grid 4-3.
· Add back Policy 4-6 and add Strategy I back.
· Strategy 2 ~ I don't think it is appropriate at this time.
· Policy 4-11, I do agree with that; agree that we should add the VT A pedestrian technical
guidelines as Strategy 4, and add the policy for regional trails, but I would like to see the
wording on that.
Com. Saadati:
· Policy 4-3 - I support the task force recommendation; only question I have is a quarter mile to
shopping and the only way to do that is mixed use to some extent which is good
· Policy 4-6, - lowering level of service where possible; I am not sure you can reduce the LOS
everywhere and you can't expect to lower it everywhere without cost and it may be cost
prohibitive. At the peak hours usually the LOS goes up, and that needs to be looked at and
seen overall in the average what it is and that may be acceptable. (After Ms. Wordell noted
that the task force struck the entire policy, he said he would support that.)
· Policy 4-10 - Correct use of neighborhood streets; that is part of the traffic calming aspect in
many communities
· I support VT A guidelines -separate guidelines.
· Regional Trails - should remain.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The pedestrian grid - does that now include the Regnart trail or not? The task force of
"consider developing" is preferred.
· Policy 4-6 - It is a reasonable goal, and where necessary and appropriate allow lower standard
of LOS; I think that allows for appropriate evaluation, I would retain that.
· Strategy No. I - makes sense; but would concur with Com. Giefer and strike Policy No.2,
reducing street width.
· Policy 4-11 - Discourage traffic through the neighborhoods - I support that, and also add that
there is one other place on 4-2 where the task force said the impact of through traffic on local
streets should be minimized by traffic calming to enhance the quality of residential
neighborhoods - task force said cross it out; I would put that back in as well. I do think we
want to minimize traffic impact on our residential neighborhoods and it was likely an
oversight.
· Add Strategy No.4 - Use VTA pedestrian - those guidelines are excellent and I support that.
· Add a policy for regional trails - again, I would like to qualify; I want to see the rural trails,
and I think we need to re-evaluate the urban trails with respect to safety and security.
SUST AINABILITY:
Ms. Wordell:
· This is more of a fine point and the task force draft called for appointing a task force or
commission; we are pointing out that has some practical limitations; you might want to
Cupertino pjanning Commission
24
March 22, 2005
consider appointing; it really is a fine point, because even if you say appoint, every year you
are going to look at this and see whether we can do it or not, but by saying "consider
appointing" it highlights the fact that this is going to have some challenges to do something
like that.
Com. Giefer:
· The idea behind having a committee or commission whichever is the appropriate group, is to
try to keep some momentum as the technology in this particular area becomes more readily
available; and try to look for opportunities where we can either enhance our city's
sustainability plan on an ongoing basis or as the Housing Commission does when there is an
opportunity that arises, interject policies of sustainability as appropriate within other city
documents and plans.
· That was the idea behind it, otherwise the concern is that it is something that gets dusted off
every 10 or 20 years and you are going to have major leapfrogs in what has gone on, and I
think it is more of an evolutionary, evolutionary process than a revolutionary process every 10
or 20 years as new technology becomes available. They would also be advocates within the
city for this type of technology and sustainability as it becomes available.
Ms. Wordell:
· The option wording that we suggested in the background document was "at the time that
additional staffing or funding is available, appoint a task force or commission".
Chair Wong:
· Asked the commissioners if they supported appointing a task force or commission to develop
an appropriate comprehensive annual sustainability and resource plan for the city and also take
into consideration staff's comments as well.
Com. Giefer:
· I missed the meeting when sustainability was discussed. My recollection is this was not a Hot
Topic at the end of the task force as we concluded.
Ms. Wordell:
· When we brought it up as a Hot Topic I believed the main reason for bringing it up was for
positive reasons as a way of trying to make it shine, and it's a side issue about the commission,
but just to be cautious that being able to do that has some practical problems.
Com. Giefer:
· The other thing I want to make the other commissioners aware of is that sustainability was one
of the big ideas that Council set the task force up with; it was one of the four agenda items
they wanted to see the task force go after.
· I understand there may be some issues with regard to funding this type of activity, but I am an
advocate of it and I think that we tend to disregard this, and it is not an area that people
naturally gravitate to, so I think the more we do to empower a panel of citizens who can be the
advocates for this area, the more progress we will make.
Com. Saadati:
· I also think we should continue to emphasize sustainability and if we can get some citizens to
serve on the task force to bring recommendations, that would be good and also we need to
encourage the developers who are building in the city to do this because it also benefits them.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
March 22, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Also believe that sustainability is a concept whose time has arrived. When we discussed this
before, I suggested, and will again, that maybe there are some ways to start doing some things
along these lines that don't engender that much cost, such as providing information to
developers or easy access or just making them aware of where infonnation is; and then I
would support a task force, but again, depending on when the funding is available, but I still
think there are some small steps that we can begin taking even without having a task force.
Chair Wong:
· I also agree with Com. Giefer that sustainability is important and that the City Council is also
very interested. Appointing a task force or commission I hear loud and clear that because of
our limited resources we need to be open about it.
· To be effective, it has to be a task force that has different stakeholders like developers,
commissioners or council members.
· He asked which commission would address the issue.
Ms. Wordell:
· It seems the wording and document would be for a new commission.
Chair Wong:
· There are no Hot Topics relative to health and safety.
Ms. Wordell:
· That is true; in the public safety handout they did recommend one change and the Planning
Commission may want to comment on that. In today's packet Page 3-23, statement of the
Public Safety Commission, they are referring to policy 6-11, and relative to residential fire
sprinklers, they state it should be revised to admit the reference to reducing the need for fire
fighting personnel and equipment. It would then read: "consider adopting a residential fire
sprinkler ordinance; this will reduce fire flows. Although we understand that the earlier
intervention provided by residential fire sprinklers in the city should reduce the number of
large fires and therefore reduce the source of demand for firefighting personnel and
equipment, we think the General Plan should avoid language that could justify a reduction in
available fire fighting personnel and equipment resources." So they want to strike some
wording there.
Com. Saadati:
· The building code usually addresses the need for the fire sprinkler based on the type of
building. I am not sure how the sprinkler system would be installed; I know some other
communities that have required a sprinkler system in certain garages, depending on a specific
situation.
· It needs more study.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The suggested wording with the deletion of "fire fighting personnel equipment" is appropriate.
Chair Wong:
· I need more time to think about it.
· There are some other topics that weren't covered that may not be Hot Topics, which was
traffic circulation regarding schools, can we also make recommendations tonight.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
March 22, 2005
· I would like my colleagues to consider that many Cupertinians are talking about with the new
middle school coming in, as well as we have more housing. How can we address school
traffic; if we can develop some strategy or maybe staff can suggest some kind of language that
we want to encourage people to walk their children to school.
· Also want colleagues to consider light rail for Cupertino. especially we are talking about a 20
year plan, since we are supporting mixed use or smart growth, as we are implementing some
of them as we did at the comer of DeAnza and Stevens Creek; some folks like it and some
don't. We have another opportunity at the Hewlett Packard site and other opportunities along
Stevens Creek in the Heart of the City and also DEAnza College; so I do support light rail.
Ms. Wordell:
· I think we are covered on that; those corridors are shown on our circulation plan and the
policies support transit.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Relative to the circulation element, I think we should look into improving the bus system and
if appropriate, look at setting up a commuter bus system.
Ms. Wordell:
· We have either a policy or strategy in their or at least the task force put it in there about a
shuttle service.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We have talked about the importance of improving the traffic situation at schools and I support
doing more research on that to figure out how to get people to walk and how to work more
closely with the school districts so that the school districts and the city are working in the same
direction.
Ms. Wordell:
· We have a strategy about safe routes to school and are working with the school districts to
promote that, but perhaps we should broaden that. I can talk to our Public Works Department
about any other avenues that we would have.
Com. Giefer:
· CUSD has done a number of studies by school working with the Sheriffs Department to come
up with recommendations.
· Suggested contacting CUSD to see if there are successes that they can share with us, to roll
into the General Plan.
Chair Wong:
· I made a request for the EIR to have the superintendents of both CUSD and FUHSD here; I
did have a chance to talk to Dr. Rowley and Dr. Bragg and they said they would be available,
but had to check their schedules.
· I want to add to sustainability as a policy; it is a missed opportunity that the new community
hall and library do not have green aspects. For future capital improvements, we have to
encourage the developers and private citizens to implement green aspects; it Costs more up
front but saves money in the future. I feel that we should include that in the General Plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
March 22, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· Said the library and community hall had green aspects implemented; rubble from the previous
library was used for fill. We didn't do photo voltaic on any of them; the library is fully
illuminated at night, the lights should be on timers.
· I agree there are many improvements we can do to retrofit where appropriate.
· Said she was surprised that Cupertino did not have battery recycling, and would like to have a
curbside recycling for household hazardous waste.
· We need to educate the commercial and residential developers and builders to start focusing
on greener building practices, even if just a small step.
· When we have large developments come before us, we should start looking at how they are
using water, and are they doing solar as part of it to offset common areas. We need to be more
proactive and require that.
Chair Wong:
· There were other examples that Com. Saadati brought up previously; in the City of San Jose
the West Valley Library is totally sustainable.
· Suggested that a policy be added regarding Com. Giefer's comment about recycling of
batteries and household hazardous waste.
Com. Saadati:
· Suggested making drop off sites available for residents to recycle paint and hazardous waste
materials.
Chair Wong:
· Residents of Cupertino can recycle computers at Apple Computer sites.
· Beginning next month there residents will have recycling bins to collect recyclables.
Ms. Wordell:
· Discussed meeting dates:
o A special meeting on Monday, April 4th
o April 12'h for the draft EIR
o Tentative April 18th to bring back the other land use items not concluded
o Remaining schedule as previously discussed
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
4. Planning Commission 2005 Work Program
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that the date of April 12, 5 p.m. was scheduled for the 2005 work program.
· No additional discussion.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: There was no meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
March 22, 200S
Housinl! Commission:
. Com. Saadati reported on the March 16th meeting; focusing on the CDBG funding
distribution. Various non-profit organizations submitted applications and the Housing
Commission made a recommendation to City Council for approval of a certain dollar amount
for each.
Economic Development Committee Meetinl!
. Quarterly meeting; no report. The next meeting will be held in April.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
· Com. Giefer reported on the February 9th meeting. She said that the Mayor will likely be
having the meetings changed to bi-monthly, with time of meeting to be announced.
· Chair Wong asked staff to follow up on the schedule for the Mayor's meetings.
OTHER
· Chair Wong suggested a no-host dinner with the Commissioners, Mr. Piasecki and Ms.
Wordell and spouses. A date will be detennined by consensus.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the April 4th Planning Commission
meeting at 5:00 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Q.~
. Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: April J 2, 2005