PC 05-24-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
MA Y 24, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDA Y
The Planning Comoùssion meeting of May 24, 2005, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert
Wong.
ROLL CALL
Comoùssioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Comoùssioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Taghi Saadati
Staff present:
City Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Ciddy Wordell
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Tom Hugunin, Cupertino resident:
· The documents supporting tonight's meeting were not on the website. It is hard for a person
like me to study them for any length of time without being able to find them. You have to
come down to the City to find them, is what I was told on some documents; I can't name them,
because then I would be speaking about what is on the agenda, and I'm not supposed to be
doing that. My problem is: "Where's the "docs"?"
Chair Wong:
. What documents are you referring to?
Mr. Hugunin:
· I was looking for the Draft EIR that you are supposedly going to cover tonight. I sent an e-
mail to the City Clerk asking where it is. They said Planning has it, so I sent an e-mail to
Planning asking if it is in an electronic form. I started this process about 8:30 this morning and
somewhere close to 2 or 3 0' clock is when I cut it off and stopped communicating. I checked
my e-mail before I came and nothing was there. It was just hard for me to find it. I understand
it is a draft or something, but it would be nice if it were somewhere in the City system. The
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
2
May 24, 2005
City Clerk didn't know about it and Planning must be really busy, so I hope we can do a little
better next time through.
Chair Wong:
· The Draft General Plan is on www.cupertino.org
· The Draft Environmental Impact report is not on the website.
· The Planning Comoùssion received a copy of it in February.
· I suggest that you contact the Planning Department; Ciddy Wordell is the project manager, and
she'll be happy to get you a copy.
· For anybody in the public who would like a copy, it is available.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Chair Wong moved the agenda to Item 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.
ASA-2005-04
John Tang (San
Jose Water Co.)
Regnart Road
Architectural and site approval for a security fence for
a security fence for an existing water tank. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued
From April 26, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Com. Giefer was recused from discussion of the application as she owns
property adjacent to the applicant.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Noted that it was the second hearing held by the Planning Comoùssion on the architectural
review for a fence and existing water tank.
· She illustrated an aerial photo showing the location of the water tank in the middle of the
neighborhood on Regnart Road and Lindy Lane.
· The fence was erected at the top of the water tank last Fall and neighbors expressed concern
about it at that time. Staff contacted San Jose Water Company eXplaining that they would
need architectural review for the fence. They began working with the staff and also with the
neighbors in determining a desirable location for the fence, because there were concerns about
it being at top of the water tank and also there was a concern about the visual impact of the
wire around the fence.
· The fence at the top of the water tank was around all sides of the water tank.
· At the last meeting the water company proposed some changes to moving the fence down the
slope for those neighbors who wanted it moved further down the slope. There was some
interest in trying to get it way down the slope so that some neighbors would not see their own
fence as well as a duplication of the water company fence.
· The water company prior to this meeting presented a proposal to have the security fence at the
base of the slope in the north part of the water tank, at the base of the slope on the east to keep
it on the lower slope as originally proposed on the south and to retain it at the top of the water
tank at the west, which is the preferred location for the neighbors in that vicinity. The southern
boundary is still lower on the slope and it goes back up to the top of the tank on the west.
· The recommendation is for these locations; since they do have to relocate the south elevation
to where it will still be visible to some neighbors, the condition of approval recommends that it
be dark vinyl chain link to dioùnish its visibility; and that the fence be installed within 30
days.
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
3
May 24, 2005
John Tang, San Jose Water Company, applicant:
· The last time we met there were two outstanding issues; the property line that you wanted to
see on the map that has been put on the map; and the PG&E right-of-way easement issue.
Further clarification from PG&E is that they require a 6 foot clearance; the proposed fence
meets the 6 foot clearance.
· Based on the feedback from the neighbors and from PG&E, we have decided to lower the
fence down to the slope at least on two of the sides; it is our belief that the best location for the
fence is on top where it currently exists.
· However, in light of the energetic and active participation of the neighbors and the
neighborhood watch program, we feel that the proposed location is going to meet our security
objectives.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Christopher Johnson, Monterey Court:
· I want to express my appreciation and thanks to Mr. Tang for his diligent work; it appears
from our discussions with the other neighbors that the proposal is an aoùcable solution for all
those involved.
· Mr. Tang and the water company have done an excellent job in accommodating our desires,
wishes and needs.
· We support the proposal.
Jim Davis, Palos Verdes Court:
· Residence is located on the north side of the water tank.
· I have reviewed the water company's proposal; it is a good proposal that addresses most
complaints from the neighbors who have participated in the meetings.
· I would also like to thank the water company for working with the neighbors to come up with
a solution that appears to satisfy almost everybody's concerns.
Mark Lee, Regnart Court: Road:
· Residence is located on the eastern side of the water tank.
· I would like to voice support for the revised proposal; I think for the majority of the neighbors,
and all of them that I am aware of, the revised proposal is very satisfactory and we are
enthusiastic about working with San Jose Water Company as a neighbor and helping them
with their security concerns as well.
· I would like to thank San Jose Water Company for conducting their energy in the spirit of
comprooùse; this has been a difficult discussion with both the neighbors and the water
company and I know that they have put a lot of energy into helping make sure that our
concerns were assuaged.
· I would also like to thank the Planning Commission as well.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
· It seems that now and again we get applications where there is a lot of contention between the
applicants and neighbors; and it is always nice to see the process working where the applicant
and the neighbors work it out themselves, as opposed to having us impose a solution on them.
It is a pleasure when that occurs.
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
4
May 24, 2005
· This is one of those occasions, and I want to thank all of you for your well intentioned
negotiations which actually bore some very productive fruit.
· I fully support the application as set forth in the model resolution.
Com. Chen:
· I concur with Vice Chair Miller's comments; and I appreciate everybody here for working
together to reach a solution.
· I support the proposal.
Com. Saadati:
· Everyone has taken a great deal of time and effort to work toward a satisfactory resolution; it
makes it simple for us; thank you.
· I support the application.
Chair Wong:
· I concur with the Planning Comoùssioners; and want to thank Mr. Tang and his colleagues at
San Jose Water Company for working with the residents.
· The residents had many concerns, and the water company addressed them and supported the
Planning Commission as well, which indicates you are a good neighbor; which makes our jobs
easier by addressing their concerns. The residents also want to be sure that the water company
facilities are secure, and that is important to us as well.
· I support the application.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application
ASA-2005-04 per the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent
(recused).
Com. Giefer returned to the meeting.
Chair Wong moved the agenda back to Item I.
1.
GPA-2004-01,
EA-2004-17
Citywide location
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan.
Topic: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
· The consultants will present the Draft EIR summary.
Leon PirofaIo, Planning Resource Associates:
· Bob Harrison, the traffic engineer and Al Morales, the principal author of the Draft EIR are
also present.
· The staff report indicates that this is the first public hearing on this item, but, for clarification,
keep in oùnd that this Draft Environmental Impact Report has been out and available to the
public since January 24, and it was authorized to be suboùtted and reviewed by the State
Clearinghouse on February 2 of this year.
· While this may be the first official public hearing, there have been some comments made
during your discussion of the General Plan. We intend to make response to all of the
comments that have been made prior, as well as anything this evening.
Planning Commission Meeting
5
May 24, 2005
· You may continue to discuss anything else you wish on the General Plan for as long as you
need to, but we do have to have an ending date on the Draft EIR in order to do the response to
comments, which are then included in the fmal Environmental Impact Report
Chair Wong:
· I want to explain to the public one more time why it is important to close the public hearing
today on just the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
· You said to give you more time to respond back to us on June 28.
Mr. PirofaIo:
· Weare going to try to be ready by June 28, but it depends on how many comments we will
have to deal with.
· The procedure is normally to combine the comments in certain areas, such as traffic, and many
times you will get 2 or 3 comments that are fairly similar. Rather than have an individual
response to each comment, you will have a response to all of the sioùlar ones together.
· We need the time to do that; this has probably been one of the most prolonged review periods
of any EIR that I am faoùliar with.
· It started in January, so you need to close it off, so we have an ending point, at which point we
can begin responding to comments. Otherwise, if you keep it open while you're discussing the
General Plan, you can't finish the draft of the EIR, and we can't finish doing the response to
comments
AI Morales:
· The EIR was prepared under the provisions of Section 15166 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
which permits that an EIR prepared with a General Plan can be combined with the General
Plan into one or several documents.
· The EIR discusses the policies and issues at a level appropriate for a planned document.
Section 15146 of CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR for a General Plan need not be as
detailed as one prepared for a specific project.
· The policies included in the General Plan and discussed in the EIR are of two types:
o Are those policies that could possibly generate some effects on natural and built
environments
o Other policies, in essence, will act as oùtigation measures to those policies. This
self-mitigating feature of the General Plan will help elioùnate, or at least reduce,
potential environmental impacts to levels of no significance
· The EIR is organized into nine chapters, starting with the Introduction; Project Description;
Summary of the EIR, which includes policies and the potential effects of the EIR; the
Environmental Setting and a matrix which includes all the policies of the General Plan and
briefly describes them and briefly describes their potential impact and refers the reviewer to
where further information can be obtained relative to the EIR and the policies.
· Section 6 is basically the "meat" of the EIR, because that is where the analysis of the potential
impacts is included. This section goes through the various potential impacts and also includes
potential oùtigation measures.
· Chapter 7 includes alternatives to the project and other CEQA considerations.
· Perhaps we can look at Chapter 6, where we can discuss the potential effects of some of the
policies. You have before you the list of those topics that we analyzed in this chapter, starting
with Land Use and the potential impacts of the Land Use policiesmobviously increase in
population and traffic, changes in the visual characters of those areas near where potential
development might occur and the community as a whole.
Planning Commission Meeting
6
May 24, 2005
· Again, as is natural and a feature of the General Plan, there are other Land Use policies that
address these potential impacts and include mitigation measures to ameliorate those potential
impacts.
· Under Circulation, perhaps Mr. Harrison can respond to any questions you have regarding
circulation.
· Under Open Space and Parks, obviously new development and increased population will
intensify the use of existing recreational facilities and parks. However, there are, again,
implementation policies which will ameliorate these potential impacts, such as acquisition of
surplus school property; Parks and Open Space Acquisition Program; acquisition of additional
park lands along with other policies included in the plan would reduce the potential impacts.
· Visual and Aesthetic Impacts-again, new development will affect the visual character of
those areas within close proximity of where development might occur, and generally the visual
character of the community as a whole. As with the other environmental areas, the policies
included in the General Plan have been included to address those potential impacts.
· Air Quality-obviously additional traffic could generate air quality impacts, as well as, those
impacts generated during construction periods. There are ways to ameliorate those impacts
that are related to construction by irrigating the site and other methods---and there are codes
within the City and ordinances that require that such measures be taken.
· Public Services and Utilities-there will be an increased demand on public services and
utilities. However, there would not be any significant levels of demands that would preclude
extending services to new construction.
· Wildlife and Vegetation-possibly, if development occurs within the hillsides, there may be
some potential impacts. But, again, there are policies included in the General Plan and there
are also existing ordinances that are aimed at the protection of the hillside, which will reduce
the potential impacts to less than significant levels.
· Noise-there will be a slight increase in noise levels. The General Plan includes two maps,
one of readings taken in the year 2000 and one projected for the year 2020. It indicates that
will probably be an increase of about 3 \/, decibels of noise. This is deemed to be not
significant.
· Geology and Seisoùcity-the entire San Francisco Bay Area is exposed to potential geological
and seisoùcity impacts. There are local and state ordinances that require that buildings be
designed in such a manner to preclude or to ameliorate any potential impacts relative to
earthquakes generated on any of the existing active faults.
· Floods and Drainage and Water Quality-there could be some flooding in those areas where
there aren't any drainage systems. There could then be some level of impacts. However, the
City has a plan for the improvement of the drainage systems and, also, there are other types of
policies included in the General Plan that oùght ameliorate those potential impacts. There is a
Capital Improvement Program that will eventually correct possible existing problems.
· Hazardous Materials-new manufacturing uses may increase the amount of hazardous
materials within the industrial areas and within the City. There are mitigation measures and
there are ordinances and codes from federal, state and local levels to control hazardous
materials. The City has an ordinance that requires a certain amount of control over hazardous
material.
· Historical and Cultural Resources-the City has an ordinance that controls the potential
impacts on the historical and cultural resources. Also, whenever any types of deposits are
discovered, the ordinance requires that construction be stopped until a final deteroùnation is
made as to the archeological deposits.
· Energy-with an increase in development, there may be some increase in energy demands, but
there are also ways to oùnimize the usage of energy. There are state laws that require a certain
amount of insulation and other types of measures to reduce energy consumption.
Planning Commission Meeting
7
May 24, 2005
· Mineral Resources-there aren't any mineral resources that are within the City that are still
active. The mineral resources adjacent to the City, in the County, are still active and the City
has to monitor the activities on that side to see how they oùght impact the City.
· Consistency with the Existing Plans-the proposed General Plan is probably inconsistent with
the Santa Clara County's General Plan with respect to the expansion of or operation of those
oùneral resources sites.
· Those are the environmental factors that we discussed in the EIR. That summarizes the
General Plan, other than possibly the alternatives. The two alternatives discussed for the
project were:
o the no-project alternative, which is the existing General Plan
o the Administrative Draft
· From a graphic on the alternatives, one can see that the various alternatives are about
the same level of development, except for the Administrative Draft in the residential
area, where the Administrative Draft has a greater capacity for residential development
Chair Wong:
· Going to the Power Point presentation regarding alternatives, you say, "No-project" alternative
and Administrative Draft alternative.
· I want to clarify: Is that your suggestion for the status quo and the allowance of more
residential development?
Mr. Morales:
· No, those were alternatives provided to us to analyze.
· The no-project alternative is the existing plan and the Adoùnistrative Draft was another
alternative that was given to us to consider and analyze and discuss.
Ms. Wordell:
· I believe state law requires a no-project alternative, so among us, we determined that it would
be the existing General Plan.
Chair Wong:
· Is this a City staff recommendation or is this a General Plan Task Force recommendation?
Ms. Wordell:
· It is a collaboration of staff and consultants.
Com. Giefer:
· I'm curious why, in terms of the contributors, people who reviewed the plan, there is nobody
from PG&E who has reviewed the plans. Is that normal, or should somebody from an energy
company also be included?
Mr. Morales:
· The plan was circulated through the State Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse circulates the
plan for 45 days to various agencies throughout the state that have, or oùght have, any interest
in the plan or the document.
· There were no responses received from PG&E. What that tells me is that they didn't see any
significant problems with the document, that is with the General Plan or the documents. That
means that they will be able to serve the potential growth included in the General Plan.
Planning Commission Meeting
8
May 24, 2005
Com. Chen:
· On page 3-4, where you talk about the impact on schools, there is a potential significant
impact and under mitigation measures proposed by the General Plan is "No" and the level of
significance after oùtigation is "Less significant".
· Does that mean that the proposed General Plan has no measures to oùtigate the potential,
significant impacts and that's the area we should pay some attention to?
· This is under Roman Numeral III, dash 4 under Category D "Schools".
Mr. Morales:
· We are talking about increase in school enrollment generated by new development.
· Classroom overcrowding is not a significant environmental impact report. It is, in fact, at least
by the courts' decisions, a socia-economic issue and not a significant environmental impact
report issue.
Com. Chen:
· What does this report mean when you state school impact and mitigation measures proposed
by the General Plan is "No", but the impact can be reduced from "potential significant" to
"less significant"?
Mr. Morales:
· What is says is that the General Plan would not have a significant impact on the schools in
terms of increased school population.
Com. Chen:
· The way I read it is that there is an impact or potential impact, and the mitigation measures are
to collect school impact fees.
· Proposed by the General Plan is "No", so the proposal to collect school impact fees is not
covered by this General Plan?
Mr. Morales:
· The impact fees are collected by the school district, and not the City, so the General Plan
doesn't address that issue.
· The school district would continue to collect impact fees. What the "No" is, is that there aren't
any mitigation measures included in the General Plan that address that issue itself.
Com. Chen:
· Will school impacts not be part of any environmental impacts in the future analysis for new
development, because it's not within the City's jurisdiction, even if it does create impacts on
the neighborhoods?
Mr. Morales:
· What the courts said is that classroom overcrowding is not a significant environmental impact,
but a socio-econooùc impact for which the school districts have the responsibility of taking
care of. This was in the case of Goleta Union School District versus the Regents of the
University of California, a case where the Regents of the University of California adopted a
IS-year plan for the expansion of University of California campus at Santa Barbara and
prepared an EIR that disclosed that there would be some increase in school population. The
Goleta Union School District sued the Regents claioùng that this was a significant
environmental impact and that they should provide some oùtigation measures.
Planning Commission Meeting
9
May 24, 2005
· However, the courts ruled in favor of the Regents, deteroùning that classroom overcrowding is
not a significant environmental impact, but rather a socia-economic issue and it is the
responsibility of the school district
Ms. Wordell:
· In our initial studies on projects, schools are analyzed as part of the impact of the project, so
they always are presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in terms of how the
schools are affected.
· As you know, we work with the schools on that. There is a policy in the General Plan that
says we will work with the schools, and you will see a new policy recommended when you
come back with the changes that you haven't seen yet that will specifically say that school
impacts will be analyzed project-by-project.
· I think you can be assured that that kind of analysis will be done for all of the projects.
Com. Chen:
· Can that be counted as part of the oùtigation measures that we ask developers to provide the
school impact figures?
Ms. Wordell:
· In my experience, I think so far the school impacts have not been significant.
· As you've seen with the projects in the past few years, there has been no additional oùtigation
and no significant impacts.
· We have some projects coming up that might be different.
Com. Chen:
· I am confused about whether or not it is within the General Plan to address the school impacts.
· It seems like, based on this recommendation, there are no measures proposed by the General
Plan to oùtigate impacts, and from what I heard from the consultant, is that it is not in the
General Plan to address impacts.
Ms. Wordell:
· We have policies that say we'll work with the schools and they will analyze it, so we aren't
going to say that we will assess additional fees or that sort of thing.
· We guarantee there is a process to address their concerns.
Com. Chen:
· I will settle for that.
· This EIR is done, based on the task force draft, correct?
Mr. Morales:
· That is the project on which the EIR was prepared.
Com. Chen:
· Am I correct in saying if there are any proposed changes for the Hot Topics specifically in the
housing unit area, it is going to change the circulation analysis and it is going to change
several parts of this EIR?
Planning Commission Meeting
10
May 24, 2005
Mr. Morales:
· If there are any changes, hopefully, they will not be of any significance. If there are any
significant changes to the Draft EIR, which has already been circulated and the review period
ended, may require re-circulation of the EIR.
Ms. Wordell:
· On the other hand, if the changes are less than either the task force impacts or the alternative
impacts that we've already analyzed, and if it's within those parameters and it is close enough
that we can assess that it has been addressed already (and this is what we did ten years ago--
the eventual alternative that was selected was not right on any of the alternatives, but it was
close enough that we could say that the impacts were similar to what has been analyzed, or
within the parameters of what has been analyzed), we could use the EIR for that final
recommendation. We will make that assessment once the final recommendation is made.
Com. Chen:
· Let me make sure that I understand it, for example Valko South, the task force is 125 units,
or 25 units per acre. I assume 25 units per acre is more than 125 units. This is analyzed based
on the build-out, which is 25 units per acre; this EIR analysis for the task force.
Ms. Wordell:
· Yes, but also the Adoùnistrative Draft, which is probably 35 (units per acre) as I recall, so it is
also assessed at a high density.
Com. Chen:
· Is this analysis is done based on the Adoùnistrative Draft?
Ms. Wordell:
· As an alternative, yes.
Com. Miller:
· Regarding the school issue, when you evaluated the potential school impacts, did you take into
account projected demographic changes over the time frame of the General Plan?
Mr. Morales:
· Initially, the analysis included in the EIR was done by Bay Area Econooùcs, and they used the
2000 Census data to estimate their projections.
· As you remember, the school district has a much more updated new projections, based on up-
to-date data, and those are the figures that will be included in the Final EIR.
· Again, we did not do the school projections, and we used Bay Area Econooùcs' figures and
we will use the school districts' figures to prepare the Final EIR.
Com. Miller:
· On page 6-23, it talks about water systems and treatment and it says, 'There are some existing
infrastructure problems. The care and capacity of some of the lines in the system may not be
able to accommodate effluence from new development in the Town Center south of Wolfe
Road, south of 1-280 and Wolfe Road, Stelling Road, Foothill..." and a number of different
areas in town. Is that including the Valko area?
· As Com. Chen pointed out, looking at the task force proposal, the potential for development
there was significantly less than it looks like things are going right now with the two
developments that are currently approved and one more cooùng before us.
P]anning Comoùssion Meeting
]1
May 24, 2005
· It looks like there is a significant amount of development over and above what you folks
analyzed, and my question is: Do you have a feeling for exactly what kind of infrastructure
improvements are needed and what the scope of that is, their costs and how much substantial
development in that area we could feasibly do without having a major re-haul of the system?
Mr. Morales:
· According to the sewer district, the lines are under-capacity, or running right at capacity, and
any additional development would have to correct that problem.
· What that entails is obviously increasing the capacity of those lines, and that would take a
substantial amount of work and money to upgrade.
· I think there is a policy in the General Plan that says that costs of upgrading the lines would be
borne by the potential developers in that area.
Com. Miller:
· I read that, but what I'm trying to get at is: Do you have a feeling for the scope of the costs and
the amount of work entailed in terms of do we have to tear up all the streets in that area; is it
going to take years to do it, or is it a month job?
Mr. Morales:
· We did not go into the specifics of the measures that would have to be taken to correct the
problem.
· Again, we are thinking in general terms of the General Plan document and not specific details
of, say a potential specific project that would discharge "x" number of gallons into the line,
where you could then do an analysis to see what type of improvement would needed to
increase the capacity of the line.
Ms. Wordell:
· We did see that kind of detail on the Vallco project and on the Menlo Equities project.
· We knew, at that level, exactly what was involved.
Mr. Morales:
· That would have to be at the specific project level.
· We were dealing with the general condition of the lines in those areas.
Ms. Wordell:
· The lines on Wolfe, for the Vallco Fashion Park, have to be increased; I don't recall the exact
kind of construction activity that would take, but I believe the line capacity would have to be
increased from north of Vallco Parkway up to 280.
Chair Wong:
· Has that been projected since there are two approved projects?
Ms. Wordell:
· That projected just for Menlo Equities and Vallco. If something happens at Hewlett Packard,
I don't know that it's been sized in.
Com. Miller:
· Presumably we wouldn't change the lines without making sure we've sized in everything that
potentially would go on there, so that we'd only do this activity once.
Planning Commission Meeting
]2
May 24, 2005
· How does the process work? Let's say that Menlo and Hewlett Packard are ready to go and
we know there is some increase in capacity needed, and there is no other project at this time,
but we know that over the course of this General Plan period we are going to need additional
capacity, who pays for it? How do we decide what size additional capacity to put in?
Ms. Wordell:
· There are times when they do over-size and then people who come later down the line
reimburse the early people.
· The early people bear the brunt of it and then are reimbursed at a later time.
Com. Miller:
· Do you have a breakdown in terms of how much of the traffic is generated locally from our
own residents versus how much traffic is pass-through such as people cooùng from Saratoga
going to Sunnyvale or people getting off the freeway and trying to infiltrate the local streets
because the freeway is backed up.
Mr. Harrison, Traffic Engineer:
· No, we've never done that analysis specifically for Cupertino.
· We have done studies like that elsewhere, and typically what is found is that much more of the
traffic is local than any of the locals would expect.
· There are some unique circumstances here with the freeways being through traffic facilities,
and it is possible that De Anza has a higher-than-typical through-traffic volume.
· On the other hand, unless 85 is completely blocked, what is the advantage of taking De Anza
unless you're heading just north of 280 or something like that.
· I would guess that most of the traffic is local, but I haven't done the analysis.
Com. Miller:
· From a traffic standpoint, how much of this do we really control?
· How much is related to development locally versus how much is beyond our control because
of these major freeway systems and the north/south traffic that goes on daily
Mr. Harrison:
· On the local streets, you control most of the traffic.
· If you count a trip that at least begins or ends in Cupertino as one of your trips, not necessarily
having both ends in Cupertino, but at least one end in Cupertino, as a "Cupertino trip", then
you control most of the traffic on all the local streets.
· The vast majority of De Anza traffic comes right out of adjacent land uses. You can see them
pouring out of the driveways.
· I would guess 80% is Cupertino on De Anza; it would probably depend on where on De Anza
Boulevard you measured it; if you are by Apple, it oùght be 90% Cupertino-generated,
because so much of the traffic comes out of the Apple area.
Ms. Wordell:
· From some of the mitigation that other cities have had to do, the peripheral intersections like
De Anza and Homestead are impacted by the other cities and they end up degrading them,
regardless of what we do, and they end up mitigating them.
Mr. Harrison:
· If you're right on the boundary or near a boundary, it would be a different analysis.
Planning Commission Meeting
13
May 24, 2005
Com. Saadati:
· How does the speed of vehicles affect the air quality?
Mr. Harrison:
· The carbon monoxide issues are generally around intersections, because that is generally
where vehicles are not moving as fast; the slower the vehicles are going, you get pockets of
carbon monoxide pollutant.
· You get less concentrations of pollutant if you have traffic moving.
Com. Saadati:
· How does Cupertino measure compared to other cities in the state?
Mr. Harrison:
· Is there even an air quality station in Cupertino?
Com. Saadati:
· The state has measurements that are done regularly to come up with the new standards for air
quality. Is that done throughout the state? Is that done in Cupertino?
Mr. Harrison:
· I'm not aware of anything done in Cupertino.
Com. Saadati:
· When we develop on the hillsides, do we do any evaluation of the effect of it on wildlife
habitat and endangered species?
Ms. Wordell:
· Except for the Diocese property, the analysis has been house-by-house, so those are not
significant impacts.
· The only time a hillside project comes to the Commission is through a hillside exception and it
goes through environmental review.
Mr. Morales:
· We went through the report and I think we have found the answer to Com. Chen's earlier
question.
· The reason we indicated on the summary page no impacts for the school and no
recommendation for mitigation, on page 6-25, it gives a rundown on the impacts on the
schools and they are less than significant.
· The bottom line is that the schools do have the ability to charge developers funds for
improving schools. They may have some flexibility under state law to increase that. We did
not include that here under mitigation, because it is not something the City can do. It is
something the school districts must do.
Chair Wong:
· Looking at the environmental analysis on page 6-25, did the numbers come from the school
district?
Planning Commission Meeting
14
May 24, 2005
Mr. Morales:
· The numbers in the EIR came from Bay Area Econooùcs, which is a consultant that the City
of Cupertino retained to do this analysis and to come up with the projections on the student
generation.
· They used data from the 2000 census; however the school district has much more up-to-date
data which will be included in the final EIR.
Chair Wong:
· There is a huge concern regarding school impacts as we have more development.
· How do we oùtigate it other than collection of fiscal impact fees for both the elementary and
the high school?
o I think these numbers are too low even though we get them from the schools
o Is Bay Area Econooùcs looking just at Cupertino?
Ms. Worden:
· Bay Area Economics was hired to do the student generation and the revenue impacts for the
initiatives, so it was assumptions from that study that Planning Resource Associates used in
the ElR, which will be supplemented by the more recent information in the Final EIR.
Chair Wong:
· The only oùtigation factor that you are suggesting right now is just collecting fees.
· I'd like some more suggestions when you come back on June 28 for additional oùtigation
measures as the city grows.
Mr. Morales:
· It is my understanding that the City itself cannot conect fees or generate fees to mitigate
school impacts. State law does not provide for the City to collect fees or generate conditions
that oùght result in increased fees for school mitigation impacts.
Chair Wong:
· Are there any additional oùtigations that we can partner with the school districts as more
students come into the schools.
· The schools were built for a smaller population, and it is very difficult to get into the schools
to drop off or pick up students. How are we partnering with the schools?
· We are always having concerns about the impacts on the schools with each new development
that comes to Cupertino.
· All we are talking about are impact fees, but I want to see something more concrete that shows
we have better cooperation with the school districts.
Ms. Worden:
· If you are interested in partnering, those are the policies that we will have in the General Plan.
If there were something more than that, you would need to add additional policies.
Chair Wong:
· Wouldn't the consultants suggest additional policies to mitigate those?
Ms. Worden:
· It depends on what more you think is needed; if it's partnering, that will be covered. If it's
something more than that, then we would need to suggest something else.
Planning Commission Meeting
15
May 24, 2005
Mr. Morales:
· Whenever a project comes along, it is subject to its own environmental review and the City
will include an analysis of the impact on the schools.
· At that time, the school district can have input into the preparation of that specific EIR and
address those potential impacts.
Chair Wong:
· In section 3, regarding Open Space, Parks and Trails, there has been a lot of concern that, as
the City grows, we're collecting in-lieu fees and now we don't have enough parkland space.
· Is there something in here that oùtigates urban trails? The General Plan policy does encourage
urban trails, and if we're going to encourage that, how do we oùtigate some of the
environmental concerns that the residents have?
Ms. Wordell:
· When you get the final recommendations back in a couple of weeks, one of them will be a new
policy based on what you have already directed; that new trail proposals will evaluate the
security and safety impacts to the creek and to the neighboring properties. That will be
something that will be looked at as part of those projects.
Chair Wong:
· There is a policy in the General Plan that requires a certain amount of acreage for parkland
space. It is affecting the environmental that we are not having open space as we allow more
growth in Cupertino.
· If it is impossible to create new parks, then we would collect in-lieu fees, but I want to
encourage the creation of new parks.
Ms. Wordell:
· There is an existing policy from the General Plan that we have now that talks about priorities
for parks in areas that don't currently have parks. It is a policy that says we want 311, acre
parks, but we'll accept less than that in a priority, and the highest priority is neighborhoods
that have no parks.
· It says we want parks, we want them to be 3\1, acres, but we will accept something less in areas
that have nothing now.
Chair Wong:
· If we're building a large development and you can't build that 3\1, acre park, what is the
impact for the quality of life; going back to the environment, you have to drive farther to go to
Memorial Park and then you impact that park.
· I don't see any balance; we're getting a lot of in-fill projects and there is not much place for us
to grow, but where can people go for recreation?
Ms. Wordell:
· One of the impacts in the park element is the proposal for 311, acre parks in three areas:
Vallco, Homestead and Rancho Rinconada.
Chair Wong:
· Back to policy 4-5: Right now we're asking for a level of service D, but in some places in
policy 4-5, you're asking for E+ on Stelling and Stevens Creek; Stevens Creek Boulevard and
De Anza and Bollinger and De Anza Boulevard. How can we keep it at D and not go to E+?
Or how can we oùtigate that?
Planning Commission Meeting
16
May 24, 2005
Mr. Harrison:
· The E+ was in the last General Plan, on the preoùse that the City was considering the idea that
a higher intensity of traffic was acceptable in that central City area.
· It has been continued forward from that earlier policy. To make the changes you're suggesting
could be done, but it would mean that we would have to mitigate a significant impact that we
don't have to oùtigate now.
· In order to mitigate an impact, for example, if the existing level of service was an E+ and we
went to a D policy standard, we would have to figure out a way to make that intersection work
at level of service D. Usually that would mean widening approaches, adding left-turn lanes,
adding right turn lanes, etc.; some kind of increase in capacity, in order to get that intersection
to function at that level of service.
· The alternative is to reduce the number of trips that you project that would use that
intersection. That gets back into all the issues about traffic management, transportation
management and how to get people to choose alternative modes of transportation.
· The Plan talks about the alternative modes, and emphasizes the idea that we are going to go to
alternative modes, but the level of service standards are still based on traffic analysis and
capacity analysis work that is basically traffic engineering.
Chair Wong:
· Could we have a study to show how we are affected by the freeways, Highways 85 and 280,
cooùng into our major thoroughfares?
Mr. Harrison:
· The simplest way to find out what is the share of local traffic is to do a license plate survey.
People go out on the comer where traffic comes to a stop so you can read the license plates
and write them all down; then you find out what their home locations are. That won't give you
a precise number, but it will give you some sense of where the residential trips are coming
from.
· What is much harder where you have a major employment center is to figure out how many of
these people came out of the employment centers.
· To some extent, we can count driveways and we can make some kind of estimate, but if you
want to do a thorough through-trip analysis on De Anza Boulevard, for example, we could go
to the south City limit and look at the licenses of all the cars that are entering the City there,
writing down the numbers and then go to the north City lioùt and write down the license plate
numbers we observe there. We could find out what share of the cars drove all the way through
the City.
· License plate studies are done, but on a busy street like De Anza, they are difficult because it
is hard to see all the lanes of traffic, even at a stop sign.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding growth in infrastructure: As the City grows, we will need more schools, traffic will
grow and we will need more facilities. There will be some type of impact to the environment
and to the community.
· Do you feel comfortable with the projections of the task force, Administrative Draft and the
Minority Report?
Mr. Harrison: -
· I feel comfortable that what we have projected in terms of the relative growth compared to the
expansion of infrastructure, will fit.
Planning Commission Meeting
17
May 24, 2005
· They will fit within the policy guidelines that are in the General Plan. In other words, the
intersections will operate at level service D, or, in the case of the two or three others, no worse
than E+. In that sense, I am comfortable that things fit together.
· That doesn't mean that traffic won't be getting worse than it is today, but it won't be getting so
much worse that the numbers exceed your policy standards.
Com. Chen:
· We talked about how the potential oùtigation measure is to reduce the trips for that
intersection.
· When you performed your analysis, is mixed-use an acceptable oùtigation measure for trip
reduction?
Mr. Harrison:
· Mixed-use could help with trip reduction. If you can get work locations and residence
locations closer together, the first thing that happens is the length of trips is shortened. That
means that for some intersections, the trips will not be passing through.
· Land Use policy is important in terms of reducing trips.
· If you put all your jobs at one end of the county and all your houses at the other end, you get
gigantic flows from the south to the north in the mornings and then flows from the north to the
south in the afternoons.
· For the last 10 to 20 years there has been this jobs/housing imbalance resulting in this traffic
imbalance.
· The assumptions used in the analysis are based on the land use policies of the Genera) Plan
and the policies of the General Plans in the cities surrounding Cupertino.
· We used the County's traffic model, and they used the General Plan assumptions for all the
cities.
· What Cupertino cannot control is what is projected in the other cities; we attempt to look at the
bigger picture, rather than just Cupertino.
Com. Chen:
· If we put in a policy to encourage oùxed-use wherever we can as a way to reduce trips and
bring up levels of service, is that an acceptable oùtigation measure that can be used in future
development to oùtigate traffic issues?
Mr. Harrison:
· It is an acceptable nutlgation measure, but we did not specifically evaluate a oùxed-use
concept. We evaluated the land use policies that are in the General Plan as drawn.
· I'm not sure you have a lot of oùxed-use in Cupertino. Most of it is traditional land use
planning where people have to travel to get to work.
· In most suburban communities, people travel in their cars to get anywhere; to shop, to go to
school, to recreation, everything is in the car.
· That is built into our travel model assumptions, but we can test any land use policy that you
would like to see tested. As Cupertino is 85 to 90% built out, it is very difficult to radically
change the land use patterns.
Ms. Wordell:
· On page 7-12 of the draft, there is a comparison of trip generation from the proposed General
Plan (which is the task force draft) and the no-project (which is the existing plan) and the
Administrative Draft. The Administrative Draft has the most residential units and puts them in
the Stevens Creek area; that is a heftier oùxed-use scenario for the Administrative Draft.
Planning Commission Meeting
18
May 24, 2005
· Would those comparisons be helpful to say that we're adding more residential units with the
Administrative Draft, most of them in the mixed-use areas?
Mr. Harrison:
· Yes, and the analysis that we did is based primarily on the Administrative Draft.
Com. Chen:
· Going back to Vallco South, the number of units that can be built in that area can go from 125
units to 700 units.
· In the report, on page 6-12, it says in the Wolfe Rd./ Miller Avenue to 1-280 southbound ramp
the current level of service is B in the morning and A in the afternoon, and it's not going to
change, even if we add 700 units to the area.
· Are you also considering the impacts on the Lawrence side, which is outside of the Cupertino
boundary?
· How is the analysis done when we move from 125 units to 700 units without changing the
level of service?
Mr. Harrison:
· The general concept is that we take the total number of growth and compare it with the
existing condition and that growth percentage gets applied to traffic.
· It's possible that the traffic use volumes are so low to start out with, that even with a
significant amount of growth, they remain at a reasonable level.
· I would have to look to see what we have in the system to answer your question precisely.
Com. Chen:
· I would appreciate it if you would do that.
· With the new development on Vallco Parkway, traffic will come out and get on 1-280.
Com. Miller:
· In addition to the 700 units, are the assumptions for all the additional commercial space and
the potential theater traffic in the Adoùnistrative Draft?
Ms. Wordell:
· The Adoùnistrative Draft and the others would have had all the Vallco square footage, it
wouldn't have been a theater. Because they get something like 560,000 square feet of
commercial build-out, that is what it would have been based on.
Com. Miller:
· A theater is a very different use, and from a layman's standpoint that would tend to generate
more traffic.
Ms. Wordell:
· The theater was not factored in as a specific use.
Mr. Harrison:
· We do peak hours. Theater versus retail at peak hours, I would think is probably a "wash".
· The theater would create a much heavier use in the evening, but we did a morning and
afternoon, peak-hour traffic analysis.
Planning Commission Meeting
19
May 24, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· One comment earlier said that a dramatic change to the General Plan would have an impact on
the EIR that is before us.
· Could you give an example of what a dramatic change would be that oùght impact the EIR?
Ms. Wordell:
· If you wanted a lot more office or a lot more commercial square feet than any of the
alternatives analyzed, it could make a change.
Mr. Harrison:
· Cupertino is 80 to 85% built out, so you're working with that 10 to 15%. If you change that
last 10 to 15% by 5%, that would not make a big difference. If you're talking about a 50%
change or close to doubling something, that would make a big change.
· The other possibility of change that would make a difference would be if you were going to
move the development from one area to another, that could make a measurable difference.
Ms. Wordell:
· There are guidelines in CEQA on signiticant thresholds.
Mr. Morales:
· You would have to conduct an analysis of what the changes might be against the existing
conditions or projected conditions before you could determine if the potential impact as a
result of the changes would warrant a re-circulation of the EIR.
Com. Giefer:
· Looking at the Hot Topics matrix and some of the consensus items, when I look at the
densities in certain areas such as Valko South and Valko North, I wonder if they are above
the threshold that was in the Adoùnistrative Draft and the task force draft for heights and
density.
Ms. Wordell:
· We will need to look at what you finally decide. If they are not, there will need to be a
deteroùnation as to whether they are significantly different.
Com. Giefer:
· Wouldn't that be the same if we added a new policy as an example, if wanted to strengthen the
relationship between the General Plan and school funding.
· If we added a new policy to the General Plan, would that be something that would have to be
reconsidered as part of the EIR?
Mr. Morales:
· We would have to look at any new policies to see if they would create significant impacts.
Ms. Wordell:
· We would look at all of the changes to see if any of them trigger significant impacts that were
not evaluated.
Com. Giefer:
· Would the re-review be done by staff m conjunction with the consulting organization?
(Answer: Yes)
Planning Commission Meeting
20
May 24, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Mr. Harrison spoke about the housing/jobs imbalance and there have been suggestions from
the Planning Commission for conversion of old industrial areas on the periphery into housing.
· That would help our housing imbalance, but what kind of impact would that have on the
community, especially with losing some of our tech parks?
Mr. Morales:
· If you are losing income-generating uses, there will be some impact on the fiscal conditions of
the City, but in going from commercial to residential, we would have to analyze what kind of
densities you are looking at and what the potential impacts would be compared to what is there
now.
Chair Wong:
· There are several areas that will be re-zoned from industrial to housing. I want to see what
overall impacts there will be on schools and traffic and the communities.
Ms. Wordell:
· It is a question of timing on that. You would come up with your recommendations and we
would determine what impacts there are and analyze those, rather than trying to analyze
hypotheticals.
Mr. Ahern, Cupertino resident:
· Please post the Draft EIR on the City web site, so other people have access to it.
· The three things I picked up on when I went through the Environmental Resources section
were:
oWe need to reduce waste
o Consider low-cost innovation
o Address accountability for this section of the General Plan
· I picked "Reduce Waste" first, because the plan talks about energy, water and solid wastes.
Both the City and the residents of the City have huge costs involved, and there are a lot of
environmental damage occurring because of wasted resources.
· There are many low-cost ideas in here that the Planning Commission could address: "green"
buildings, informational seoùnars, prohibiting wood fireplaces, encouraging native plants,
reducing impervious surfaces, and using region-wide water conservation policies.
· One thing that disturbed me on the Hot Topics sheet was the first strategy listed that said
"Appoint a task force or comoùssion to develop an appropriate sustainable plan for the City."
The response was: "Would require staff time not currently available and perhaps not available
in the near future".
· I would hope that the cost reductions that the City and the residents would gain by having a
task force like this to make the City accountable for implementing some of the
recommendations would be worthwhile.
· We might not be able to get something going that will have a plan every year, but we shouldn't
say that we're not even going to try to start a task force or commission until some time in the
future when we have staff that doesn't have anything better to do, I think we should get this
commission started now and start considering how we could go about an annual planning
process.
Planning Commission Meeting
21
May 24, 2005
Ned Britt, Cupertino resident:
· I searched for the website for the Environmental Impact statement to review it and found
notice of this meeting, but I could not find the packet.
· If we're now told that we can't provide any input except tonight, if you're going to do more
than provide lip service, why not put it on the website and let people at least e-mail comments,
otherwise it's not realistic to think people could work on it without a copy of it.
· Regarding circulation and traffic patterns: Most people moved into Cupertino because they
wanted to be away from their jobs, in the beginning--the jobs along 237, down in Morgan Hill,
south San Jose, Milpitas and along 101. If you build thousands more residential units, you
won't have people leave their single-faoùly homes and suddenly sell those and go to work in
these hundred-units apartment complexes to take a job in the two businesses in the bottom, in
the bakery or the clothing store.
· New people will move in to go to the schools and they, too, will have jobs along 237, 101,
down toward Milpitas and south San Jose, and they will drive again. It will not do what you
think, despite the fact that you have econooùc models, mathematical analyses based on
realistic assumptions.
· All this big push to convert from commercial to residential is cooùng from people who don't
live in the City that want to move in and don't want to pay real estate prices.
· We used to say that we have ajobslhousing imbalance so we have to build more houses. Now
we're taking a double-edged sword; kill the jobs and flood the place with housing.
Chair Wong:
· I understand the frustration regarding the Draft Environmental Impact report not being
available, but the Planning Comoùssion is making a recommendation.
· You can e-mail your concerns and the consultants will be available at the City Council.
· At the City Council level, the whole process will be opened up again. There will be an
introduction at that level, so if there is something that was missed, you can address it at the
City Council level.
· The discussion regarding the Draft EIR will only be ended at the Planning Comoùssion level.
The consultants need time to answer the public's and the Planning Comoùssion's concerns.
· We are not giving lip service, the process could have been better, and I apologize for that, but
we are trying our best. The City Council requested that we complete our discussions by June
28.
· We first received the Draft EIR on February 3 for discussion on March 22. This packet has
been out, and we will make sure it is available online.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· I am a 20-year resident of Cupertino and am very concerned about the effect of the maximum
build-out of Cupertino on the existing school infrastructures, the further congestion of City
traffic, stretching of already- precious resources, loss of rural nature of the community and the
City and loss of the views of the hills.
· With the development of the former orchard lands on the Vallco and HP properties at Vallco
and Vallco Parkway and Tantau, Cupertino will have attained maximum build-out. There is
no more land. Any more building will be infill from tearing down existing buildings and
replacing them with structures of more concentration and higher density.
· One can propose many new building projects for Cupertino, but any of these new projects will
impact the existing infrastructure of the services of the City.
· Why should we be so quick to build in Cupertino when the City services, traffic density and
schools are already stretched to the limits?
Planning Commission Meeting
22
May 24, 2005
· If one wishes to build in Cupertino, these are some suggestions of how to do this more easily:
o To address affordability, institute rent control in the rental and lease sections in the
City
o To reduce the future impact on the schools is to bring back school buses for school
children. There are currently no buses for elementary, oùddle or high school
students. Parents have to drive their children to school, generating two or more
trips per day. Bringing back school buses would reduce traffic around the schools
and would increase safety of school children
o Cupertino is a town of charm and natural beauty. By controlling the density and
height of future building, we can retain the rural charm and protect our mountain
views.
Dennis Whittaker, Cupertino resident:
· I cannot believe Cupertino is an anomaly by itself. The report said the schools are a socio-
econooùc issue and not an environmental impact issue. Yet, when I had to visit Regnart
School with all the parents waiting there to pick up their kids to drive them to a new location,
and was told that with all the new people moving in, the schools are overcrowded and this is
where the kids have to go, I would think the carbon monoxide becomes a very big
environmental impact problem.
· It has been said that the schools have not had a significant impact with over-crowding; Seven
Springs, the kids from Faria and Jollyman have to cross a dangerous De Anza and a dangerous
Stevens Creek at 6th, 7th and 8th grades to get over there. Not all of the parents are going to be
traveling over there, but if they do, that makes more cars on the streets and that's a greater
environmental impact on us. We are putting pressures on the school districts when we should
be sharing them all around.
· We have been having infrastructure problems all along. We are massively increasing our
citizenry another 20%, yet we're not looking at our infrastructure. The comment was made
that probably 80% of the traffic comes from Cupertino; I think it is closer to 60%. We are
grateful for our schools, but a lot of our people take their kids to Bellaroùne or Harker or
Mitty. They are going outside and are not neighborhood kids using neighborhood schools.
· Traffic is a great problem, and in my oùnd, a greater percent than is being gi ven credit for
comes from outside of Cupertino in through Cupertino, especially when 85 gets impacted. If
you use those license plate surveys, I think you'll find that to be true.
· We are talking about increasing our citizenry, by 20%. Where is the light rail? What is going
to take for Cupertino to become light rail accessible and have better transportation here?
· We have water problems; we haven't been through a drought for a long time, but we are going
to have one again.
· We have a lot of problems we have been through in the past, and we're not paying attention to
our past. I hope when you are planning, you think about the future.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong:
· Com. Saadati has to leave early, so I would like to go over future meeting dates while all five
Comoùssioners are present.
· A meeting is scheduled for Sunday, June 12 from I to 4:00 p.m. June 14 is a regular meeting
that will be starting early at 6:00 p.m. There is an extra meeting on Wednesday, June 15 and
our final recommendation is scheduled for the regular meeting of June 28, starting at 6:00 p.m.
· Do we need any additional meetings? I am available for all of those dates, and I think we
should choose an extra date, just to be safe.
Planning Commission Meeting
23
May 24, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Those are the scheduled dates so far.
· You said the City Council has directed that June 28 is the last Planning Comoùssion hearing.
They want to start to start talking about the General Plan on July 19 and I believe they will do
that in an introductory sense.
· We should get attendance availability on the dates you have proposed and then some feeling as
to whether you feel you need and additional date and what that might be.
Com. Miller:
· If there is a tour on June 12, what will it entail?
Ms. Wordell:
· It hasn't been deteroùned, but the general idea was that, if you're talking about making some
changes to the task force draft, looking at the areas where you oùght want to make those
changes.
· If you wanted to add residential or convert office/industrial to residential, to look at what those
areas are. We could get a general sense of heights and densities as we drive around, what is
being proposed and what you would like to see.
Chair Wong:
· We will schedule June 13 for an additional meeting at 6:45, since all of the Com. s are
available.
Com. Saadati:
· In general I think the Draft EIR looks good.
· This is part of the General Plan and is meant to be general; specific issues will be discussed for
specific projects.
· In general, the approach is to try to reduce pollution and circulation as much as possible.
· We need to look at the big picture to see the overall impact to the community; is it attainable
with other growth that is going to take place within the state and the surrounding
neighborhoods.
· Overall the draft is good, it addresses many of the topics that affect the environment, and we'll
probably be revisiting this in 10 years or so, and we will probably have some discussion on
these issues in the next 4 meetings before it goes to the Council.
· Recycling is one area where we need to make it easier for residents to get more involved,
which would also help the environment.
Com. Giefer:
· I am concerned that an energy company did not respond to us on this.
· There may have been many other organizations that it was circulated to from whom we didn't
have a response. We had the fire department, the sheriff's department, San Jose Water
Company and a number of other organizations respond to it. That seems to be a hole in the
response.
· As I was reading through the general nature of the report, things were either things we could
control, or things we could not control.
· If we increase the population, we increase the traffic and the circulation and the air pollution
and the noise.
Planning Commission Meeting
24
May 24, 2005
· We could say we are going to close our City and not build another housing unit or commercial
site, which is more severe than the "do nothing, stick with the old General Plan", which I am
not advocating.
· The things that I feel we can control are things like recycling, using renewable energy sources,
and I would like us to look at renewable energy sources.
· If we want to grow our community and welcome newcomers into our City and try to oùtigate
the circulation, traffic and pollution issues, there are some things we can do. The EIR would
be in response to those measures as we add them to the General Plan.
· The EIR oùrrors what the General Plan says and I think it is appropriate and the only hole with
which I am still uncomfortable is the energy portion, because I didn't see a response.
Mr. Morales:
· I believe PG&E and all the other utility companies were contacted and they were also
contacted when the section for sustainability for the General Plan was prepared. Their
response was that they would be able to serve potential growth in Cupertino.
Com. Giefer:
· We heard that they had no response and therefore we assumed that they were okay with it. A
non-answer isn't an answer in my oùnd.
Mr. Morales:
· PG&E was contacted as part of the sustainability section, and they have long-term plans. If
you are in conformance with their plans, they obviously have no problem. They work through
ABAG projections and make their projections based on the ABAG figures. We were contacted
by the water department and various other agencies. A Notice of Preparation was mailed
through the clearinghouse before we prepared the EIR. They contact all interested parties that
may have some concern about what is happening in Cupertino.
Mr. Pirofalo:
· It does make you feel uncomfortable when you ask an agency something and you get no
response. What does that mean? You didn't get the letter? You don't care? Everything is
OK? What are you telling us?
· The bottom line is that all agencies were contacted, including surrounding cities, utilities and
the County. When we held a Scoping Meeting, which was the basic kick-off meeting several
years ago, zero agencies showed up.
· Another aspect to consider is that they were all notified again when the Draft EIR was
suboùtted to the state and the state also contacted them. We did get some responses, so we
know they were sent out.
· To oùnioùze some of your discomfort, let me say that the General Plan here that is being
proposed under the task force banner is not significantly different than what you have now;
there is fine tuning as is necessary.
· That tells me that this is not something that is going to make a lot of other cities uncomfortable
or be in conflict with Cupertino.
Com. Chen:
· The Environmental Impact Report, in general, looks good.
· I would like to ask for support to not let the level of service drop down to the E level, with
whatever we can do in the General Plan to elioùnate that from happening. Or, if there are any
effective measures that we can put into the General Plan to help to bring that up, I welcome
any suggestions.
Planning Commission Meeting
25
May 24, 2005
Mr. Harrison:
· I think we ought to be aware that that is a major change in policy, and if the Comoùssion
wants to go forward with that, it will take some evaluation time for us to make sure that will fit
within the parameters of our existing EIR.
· That would also be a major change from your existing General Plan.
Com. Chen:
· The most dramatic increase that we are proposing is in Valko South, and I don't see any
impact on the level of service. In the Homestead area we are not recommending that much
increase, but the level of service dropped.
Mr. Harrison:
· De Anza/Homestead is one of the few intersections where we do require mltlgation to
maintain the level of service, because it is right there on the border and it gets all the traffic
from the north that adds to that intersection.
Com. Chen:
· The other area that is analyzed as dropping the level of service is McClellan/Stelling. What
are the contributing factors for that?
Mr. Harrison:
· I assume that's the school, the college. The college has some fairly significant growth plans
that are built in. Those numbers come from the County model, which uses the college's
projections for their growth.
· Most of the students are driving in, and that is the primary cause of that particular intersection
showing a problem.
Com. Chen:
· School impacts need to be addressed, so I suggest that we strengthen the language in the
General Plan to add more mitigation measures for school impacts if our decision is to increase
housing.
· I would like to see more language go into the General Plan to protect the environment as a
result of this report.
Com. Miller:
· In general, the report does not point out any serious red flags.
· There is a significant amount of development in the Valko South area, both in the terms of
commercial and residential, which may not have been fully accounted for and I would like to
see that reviewed again to make sure we're not overlooking something.
· We have talked about 700 units there potentially, but on January 1, the state implemented a
new density bonus program, which allows developers to come in and get additional units.
· There will be very significant development in the Valko area and it is not clear how that will
affect the levels of service. I don't believe the level of service is "A" during rush hours in the
Wolfe Road/ 280 interchange.
Ms. Wordell:
· That has been discussed before. It is an anomaly, because evidently the cars can get through
so slowly that it is counted as a good level of service because they are so infrequent.
· It's actually inverse to what's really happening there.
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
26
May 24, 2005
Mr. Harrison:
· I can't speak specifically to that intersection, but it is true that if we do our level of service
calculations based on traffic volume only, if you have a very congested location, the volume is
actually lower than it would otherwise be and the service level appears to be higher, because
it's a lower volume compared to the theoretical capacity.
· I would guess that there may be a typo in the table, and I will double-check the figures.
Com. Miller:
· We all want to see more renewable energy sources and conservation measures.
· I took an affordable housing tour and visited Murphy Ranch in Morgan Hill. For their
community center, they had implemented a photovoltaic system and the developer was very
proud of the fact that this system had paid for itself within 4 years. He also talked about all the
recyclable materials that went into the construction of the buildings, from the floor coverings
to the exterior coverings of the houses to the walkways. Everything that was done was done
with an eye toward conservation.
· If they can do that in Morgan Hill, we can be looking at that in Cupertino.
Chair Wong:
· I agree with Mr. Ahern regarding accountability in doing a task force for sustainability.
· As a property manager, I believe that introducing rent control in Cupertino is very dangerous.
We have a great affordability scheme that we are trying to push for 15%.
· I like the idea of re-introducing school buses, which is something that has to be addressed at
the school district level. One of the reasons why busing is not being implemented is because it
is a fiscal matter. A lot of the problems regarding mitigating factors for the environment can be
solved with money, but if there is no money in Sacramento or in the City, they cannot be
solved.
· Light rail is very important to us; it would help mitigate the traffic in Cupertino.
· I agree with what my colleagues have said regarding traffic, school impacts, open space and
sustainability.
· We need to look at Vallco South; we are encouraging oùxed-use for that area. It will be
rezoned from office/commercial/industrial into mixed-use. Also the Homestead Road/De
Anza area is another area where we are suggesting doing some type of mixed-use or
commercial. I want to see what the impacts on traffic and schools in that area.
· The current 1993 General Plan allows for housing units to be built in Manta Vista, and I want
to know what the impacts on the schools, traffic and infrastructure will be.
· We need to welcome our new residents as well as commerce and industry; we need to prepare
our infrastructure to accommodate them.
· I want to ask staff about how all the comments and questions the public gave tonight will come
back to us, since we will be making recommendations during the week of June 13 that oùght
affect what we recommend to City Council.
Ms. Wordell:
· The consultants will provide responses to comments as part of the EIR.
Chair Wong:
· Can we get those responses in writing, sioùlar to a synopsis? There were a lot of questions
that were asked tonight, and I would like to have a synopsis before we make our
recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
27
May 24, 2005
Mr. PirofaIo:
· The official, final Environmental Impact Report normally doesn't go back to the Planning
Commission; it goes directly to the Council. However, we have agreed to provide you with
the best response to comments; they all will be in writing as soon as we can get them to you.
We may not have everything that you have asked for tonight at the end of June meeting, but
we will do our best.
· We need to respond to those that have been submitted in writing already and to those that have
been asked tonight.
· The normal procedure would be that a Planning Comoùssion would not get any responses,
because then there oùght be additional comments on the responses and it just goes around and
around. The ComfiÙssion would recommend that the Council certify the EIR, with the
response to comments to be included. In this case, we will give you a response to the
comments, in writing, as best we can in this short period of time.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and began
discussion on the topics of the four selected meeting dates
Com. Chen:
· What kind of final comments do you expect from us, in what format?
Ms. Wordell:
· You are going to get a matrix that has all the proposed changes to the General Plan so that you
can follow it, look at the matrix, compare it to the task force draft and agree or not agree to the
proposed changes, and the changes are based on comments you have already made, on
corrections that need to be made, things that need to be claritied.
· From what I have done so far, it seems to me there are still some gaps in some of the densities,
the housing units, the heights and those are identified no consensus here; and so there is still
more to talk about particularly related to development potential.
Com. Chen:
· I heard that some Hot Topic items still need to be discussed further; we will start from the
matrix and the matrix will cover all the changes including the hot topics.
· I think the tour would be helpful; on the i2'h if we can finish the tour early, and come back and
start the introduction of the matrix, so we know what discussion is needed, which would give
us a day to think about it and come back and discuss the matrix in detail and go as far as we
can on the 13'"'hopefully finish the discussion on the 14'", and also attend to the regular items.
Chair Wong:
· Asked that the matrix be put on the website for the public, and provided to the consultants.
Ms. Wordell:
· The consultants will address that once you have decided where you are going with it; they
would not evaluate things as you go along, but rather evaluating what you come up with.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I would like to go back to some of the issues I have previously raised; I think as both the task
force plan and the Administrative Draft new options stand, there is an imbalance between the
amount of commercial/industrial space we are proposing and the number of housing units we
are proposing. If we just implement any of those plans the way they stand now, we will make
our jobs/housing balance a lot worse.
Planning Commission Meeting
28
May 24, 2005
· I think it is a beneficial exercise to try to achieve some balance moving forward and that
doesn't mean that I want to fix the imbalance we already have; I just don't want to make it
worse. That is going to entail either cutting back some of the proposed commercial and
industrial development, or increasing some of the housing units or some combination thereof
that makes sense. In order to do that, I think staff needs to tell us from a realistic standpoint
over the time period of the draft General Plan; I have been told a lot of that
commerciaVindustrial space will never get developed anyway, and if that is the case, it is an
easy exercise; but if there is some that might get developed, then I think we need to be careful
on how we start cutting things out in order to balance our commercial/industrial space with our
housing units.
· I think that is an important exercise to go through and I don't perceive it is necessarily trivial.
After we decide how much industrial space and how many housing units, the next exercise is
to figure out exactly where we want the housing allocation to sit, in which areas of town. Right
now, there is development cooùng before us for a huge number of housing units that we have
no allocations for in the Vallco area; also we have a lot of allocations that are in undesignated,
which I am still not clear on what exactly they are or where they come from or where they go.
That is an area that is valuable for us to fix and if we don't do it, the City Council will do it;
therefore we should take a stab at it and they can refine it or do whatever they think best.
· The other things that Ms. Wordell mentioned about the matrix are appropriate, but some of
that, at least in the land use portion, has to be preceded by this exercise.
Chair Wong:
· As pointed out by Vice Chair Miller, we need to see there is a housing job imbalance; if we
add housing to certain areas, we will need to take that into consideration.
· I am hesitant that the tour would be helpful; I would rather go through the exercise on Sunday
that Vice Chair Miller discussed to see where the different things are going and go through
that exercise; because even with the matrix that would take us one meeting, What Vice Chair
Miller suggested is going to take one meeting, and what we started with Com. Giefer at our
last meeting, is that we went item by item in the General Plan and we started putting things
back, and that will take a while. I think there were other things you wanted to bring to our
attention also.
· The tour may not be that practical.
Com. Giefer:
· I agree that we need to address the housing/jobs imbalance, and I think strategically the way I
would like to address that is not by wholesale conversion of our commercial property to
housing. I would prefer to take a look at dilapidated retail centers, strip malls, that currently
abut neighborhoods or abut other apartment dwellings; and I would like to look at
rehabilitating those, turn them into higher density than they currently are, while still not
creating a high profile community, that is for the most part over 36 feet tall.
· I think we can take a look at dilapidated strip malls, apartment complexes that are not working
today that can be rehabilitated while saving much of our commercial property for commercial
rehabilitation when the jobs come back.
· With regard to how I would like to spend the next several meetings, my understanding is that
the City Council has instructed us to stick to the hot topics; and just doing a quick audit on the
hot topics, it appears that there are very small portions where we either do not have agreement,
a quorum for agreement, or that we have blanks in that.
· I would like to work in parallel, focusing primarily on the hot topics. If I or other
commissioners have specific language that we would like to either have added back to the
General Plan or changed in the General Plan; I think it is up to us that if we feel strongly about
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
29
May 24, 2005
it to communicate that to Ciddy Wordell and she can distribute the information amongst us.
We can look at areas in common, where perhaps we feel we need to talk about those.
· Mixed use is something I would like to discuss, but I would also like to specifically invite the
person who is the head of the Housing Comoùttee for the task force Andrea Harris, and also
the minority report leader Rod Brown. I think it is important for somebody from the task force
to provide you information about why they did what they did; a neutral person providing
additional insight.
· We do need to look at commercial and is there any commercial that should be considered for a
zoning change. I think we need to look at mixed use and where it falls within our city
boundaries and where it should be; and I would like somebody from the task force to be here
to answer any additional questions that the Planning Comoùssion may have.
· I don't think a tour on Sunday is necessary; I would rather discuss it and look at maps; we
have all lived in the community for a long time. If there are specific areas to drive around to
look at on our own, I would gladly do that. If the majority of the Planning Commission want
to go on an organized tour, I will go on it, but I don't believe it is the best use of our time.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I agree, while the tour is a good idea, time oùght prevent us from utilizing that and the time
would be better served in discussion. There is still a lot of consensus building to do as a
Commission to get on.
· Along those lines, I did speak before the City Council at their last meeting when they were
deciding what our deadlines were and three council members felt that they really wanted to
finish up by the 28th; two of them felt that perhaps they could give us more time. The bottom
line is that the 28th is our deadline. Because of that we need to prioritize and so that also
means that if there is anything that, for example, going through the General Plan I think is
something that we don't want to go through line by line; perhaps staff can help us make some
of those changes and run the change versions by us for review and comment.
· After the City Council meeting, Councilmember Chris Wang wanted to express her
appreciation to the Planning Commission for our hard work and make sure we did not feel
unappreciated.
Com. Chen:
· Said she was willing to forego the tour if others felt it was not warranted.
Chair Wong:
· I agree that we need to invite back the General Plan task force because they put in a lot of time
and effort.
· Also agree to invite back Andrea Harris and Rod Brown on Sunday to provide diverse
viewpoints regarding the General Plan.
· Would also like to address the jobslhousing balance and where the units are going, based on
the matrix where we suggested if we discussed those items on Sunday those 4 hours will pass
by quickly.
· Monday will go to the heart of the hot topics that City Council empowered us to get consensus
on those items on the matrix.
· Both Vice Chair Miller and Com. Giefer suggested that if we have specific comments to email
them to Ciddy Wordell, to see if staff can put it together and present it to us on June 13th.
· Ms. Wordell will only have two weeks to turn it around to give final recommendations.
· I talked to Ciddy Wordell and even though we give our final recommendation on the 28th, she
will be away for a month, but in August as a report, I would like to see the language that staff
put together before it goes to City Council to ensure all our ideas are captured.
Planning Commission Meeting
30
May 24, 2005
Com. Chen:
· What I hear is that Ciddy Wordell is proposing the matrix that covers all items we want to
discuss including the hot topics, and it should include the jobs/housing, and LOS E not being
changed; and also some technical changes required in the General Plan.
· What I hear you say suggesting Chair Wong is with the cancellation of the tour we would have
more time to focus on discussion with the priority on the task force General Plan and the
oùnority report comparison and the jobs/housing discussion, and the hot topics discussion; but
that is all part of the matrix I hope. I do think we need some help to organize our discussion
and then an item stating we are going to discuss jobs/housing and leave it open for awhile.
Ms. Wordell:
· There are some things brought up tonight that would not be a part of the matrix because it
would be part of the matrix I will bring you, because that is based on votes that you have taken
or a consensus that it is clear that everybody wants these things, or it is clear there is a
division.
· If you just brought up ideas tonight, I wouldn't expect to include that in the matrix, but maybe
that would be part of what you would give me to say here are some specific changes that you
want; and I think we can identify them in the material I give you as additional changes that
you want considered. It would be better to handle it that way.
Com. Chen:
· I would still like to see the matrix to help us organize the discussion. Within the matrix, we
are going to prioritize the discussion items to the jobs/housing as Chair Wong suggested, and
then the Hot Topics, and down to the other items as required, because we do need to look at
General Plan as the whole plan, but not still doing our spot discussion as we had done in the
past months.
Chair Wong:
· I am looking at the Hot Topics and under residential density and units, do you think that oùght
address. your concern regarding excess housing balance?
Vice Chair Miller:
· The first exercise is to balance the amount of proposed commercial and industrial development
which isn't addressed there.
· The second one; we did do densities and units, but what I think we are talking about here is
allocations which is really different; we can have densities and proposed number of units and
no alIocations and then nothing gets built there; and then that is an issue relative to do we have
this pool of undesignated that if something should come up, then it goes into that area. In
terms of the allocations that we are going to start off this General Plan with, I don't think this
matrix addresses that at this point.
· Perhaps we could discuss it in the context of this chart in terms of where the units go. If the
rest of the Commission is serious about balancing the amount of commercial/industrial space
with the housing, the first objective is to figure out what the housing number is and we haven't
done that until we do that balancing. We can then allocate them or proportionately allocate
them based on this matrix.
Planning Commission Meeting
31
May 24, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· The ABAG number is 2,235 units by 2006, which was our allocation that the task force draft
kept at the General Plan number of housing units. That is all ABAG cares about; you could
choose to keep that or change it; to lower it would be difficult.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I am confused about that number, because staff has mentioned that many of the units have
already been built. I am not clear whether the 2,235 is a number moving forward from this
point, or is that the number from 2000; what is the real number.
Ms. Wordell:
· It is still the operative number but is not as realistic as it was in 2000 because there are some
800 units that have already been built or committed from it; you are now at 1400 that are
available. The real number we are looking at is 1400.
Vice Chair Miller:
· One of the potential opportunities is that there is some industrial space in town which has been
vacant for considerable periods of time, and is not generating income to the city and is
effectively unused. The owners with their developers are cooùng to us and suggesting a
change of use; in two cases we have had applicants say they would like to do conversions to
residential. Areas prime for conversion include the Measurex site, the property next to the
Hamptons and properties on the east side of Tantau, between 280 and Homestead.
· What is interesting about these areas is it is an opportunity now, because they are not being
utilized as industrial space and removing them from the industrial pool expands the pool to be
used in a more effective area.
· It is not that we are taking jobs away as one of the speakers mentioned earlier, the jobs aren't
here to begin with. If that space was shifted to another area of town, it oùght be used more
effectively and those jobs oùght then come back to the city. I see it as an opportunity both to
address the housing issue and also to address the need for appropriate industrial space.
· The other thing about these particular areas is they are fringe areas; they border on residential
on at least one side in all cases. It is not that we are taking space out of the oùddle of an
industrial area and converting it to residential, but we are shifting the boundary over a little.
· The concern I have heard is that if we continue to do that, eventually it will encroach on all the
industrial space and the industrial space will disappear. From a market standpoint, I don't
believe that is the case; the marketplace will dictate what uses are most effective and non-
effective, and by allowing us to go into these particular areas, it meets some immediate goals
of the city and also some potential longer term goals in terms of we have talked about the
importance of putting housing close to the industrial areas to oùnimize the circulation impacts.
These are opportunities to do that in the Vallco area.
· Relative to Com. Giefer's suggestion, I think the same thing oùght apply to strip malls, where
appropriate, or apartment buildings, but I don't know of any where that oùght be the case.
Ms. Wordell:
· There are some commercial areas on Stevens Creek particularly in the east part of Cupertino
that are very under-utilized, very outdated, which could be an excellent oùxed area.
Com. Giefer:
· I am hesitant to convert commercial to housing because once you do that you never get it back
and I think that econooùcs come into play; and if you are asking for A Level commercial rents
for C Grade facilities, then you have a pricing problem. I don't know what the relative costs
Planning Commission Meeting
32
May 24, 2005
are for rehabilitating commercial property or leveling it and building better commercial
property; but that would be my preference is redevelopment of commercial property as
commercial.
· I understand that we have lost jobs in the Bay Area and that it is a long term proposition, and
staff was going to provide uS with input on different properties providing tax revenue to the
city. I think that would be insightful if we had that information and we could make more
informed decisions and better recommendations.
· I am not dealing with enough information at this point, and I am not completely close-minded
to it; but in generally philosophically I am opposed to it.
Com. Chen:
· Asked Com. Giefer what her opmlOn was on adding residential to commercial without
reducing the commercial spaces.
Com. Giefer:
· That is sioùlar to oùxed use, which I support. It is just where you put it. I don't want to build
islands within our community and within our commercial centers; so that is why it is the
"where" that I have a problem with. If it was a development that was appropriate for the area,
I would be more likely to do it and there are a number of other things that could be done that
would make me more enthusiastic about projects.
· Across the board, I am not saying I would not do it, but there are a lot of things I would have
to take into consideration before I would consider it.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Relative to Com. Giefer's comment about once converting commercial to housing you never
get it back, there are many areas in town for commercial and industrial development - the
Hewlett Packard site is very under-utilized currently and I understand that Apple has sioùlar
space they could build on if they wanted to, and there are also other sites in town.
· It is not that we are at this point limiting the space to develop industrial at all, it is just
recognizing the fact that some spaces are not working, and why not convert them to something
that will work and generate some income, and then in our plan make more space available. It
comes back to some extent to the jobs housing balance issue and if we take away some space,
then our housing balance improves, and we can afford to put some more effectively utilized
space somewhere else in town where it will be better utilized.
· When referring to these three sites and doing it as a mixed use, that is possible, but we would
have to look into the economics of doing it because there is already these huge buildings there
which have to be torn down, and it is not clear whether a developer would consider it a project
they could profitably engage in. I think it is a good idea to consider it since we are looking at
oùxed use in different areas of town, but for these specific sites that have these large industrial
buildings, I am not sure that commercial would work in those sites. Then what we are really
talking about is office and then residential over office and that generally is frowned upon by
the industrial community.
· It might make sense on the Measurex site except the circulation doesn't work very well for
commercial there; with the railroad tracks, I don't know how you would make that work.
Chair Wong:
· I agree with Com. Giefer regarding conversion of industrial property to housing. I am still
open oùnded depending on the circumstances, but I believe that we need to protect our tech
parks and that is the theme I kept saying through the entire General Plan process that we are
suggesting some rezoning from industrial into oùxed use/housing.
Planning Commission Meeting
33
May 24, 2005
· Already Vallco South is zoned office/commercial and that is an area I wanted to have for
mixed use to provide the housing imbalance that we need for ABAG, but the North DeAnza
North Vallco area and the Bubb Road are areas that I want to protect, and to get that Class A, a
lot of our industrial businesses need to be refurbished and there is a need for office condos. If
you find that niche that has been working in Morgan Hill and some parts of San Jose, you can
save some of the property on Pruneridge or the Measurex site or other areas Vice Chair Miller
discussed.
· It is all determined by the market and I am a strong believer of private property rights, but the
Planning Commission does look into the zoning and I would like to uphold that particular
zoning. We might need more density in Vallco South or on major arteries or the Homestead
area to accommodate that housing, and I won't be afraid to suggest having 5 or 6 stories of
senior housing, abutting a freeway or near a major intersection; just food for thought.
· Regarding dilapidated strip malls, there is potential to bring in mixed use and also bring in a
light rail system from downtown San Jose and someday hooks up to BART.
· We have to be strategic, we have to take into consideration the school impact as well as the
traffic impact and that is what the General Plan is about.
· A discussion item I would like to reintroduce, is there was some confusion at the City Council
level regarding this is a 20 year plan vs. a 10 year plan and it should be reviewed.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the Crossroads streetscape plan, which I hesitate in supporting on Stevens Creek
Boulevard; [ believe the streetscape plan is good, but I would rather see it in another location,
and I believe that location is good on Vallco Parkway. We already have the Rosebowl project
approved and I feel it should be continued on Vallco Parkway; and that would be the best
location since it gives walkability, and gives the ambiance of Santana Row. I think if we get a
lifestyle center down on the Hewlett Packard property, which Hewlett Packard has to weigh
into, it can complement Vallco Fashion Park mall.
· A General Plan is what you would like to see in Cupertino - it is a vision, and I would like to
bring out that vision to the residents of Cupertino.
· The city of Cupertino is oùssing the retail component; and there are some big boxes who
would like to come into Cupertino, such as Lowes, Best Buy; they can buy in Cupertino, but it
is a matter of how business-friendly are the Planning Commission, City Council and city staff.
That is something that is missing in the city of Cupertino.
· I know we need housing but the retail component is on the edge of Cupertino; and I am tired of
seeing our sales tax dollars on the other side of the city lioùts.
It would be good to have a policy written in the General Plan that will encourage economic
development such as Sunnyvale is successfully having.
Com. Giefer:
· One of the key differences we talked about before is that Sunnyvale and some other cities
actually have business development and redevelopment funds and we have not aggressively
pursued that. It would make a difference if Cupertino had a staff person to go out and solicit
businesses we want to have in our community.
There was consensus to continue Application Nos. GPA-2004-01 and
EA-2004-17 to the special Planning Commission meeting on June 12, 2005.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input.
Planning Comoùssion Meeting
34
May 24, 2005
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· The discussion of this issue is extremely important for the future of Cupertino.
· The discussion about the conversion of the tech parks is dear to my heart; my job was lost due
to outsourcing several years ago; the IT industry was heavily hit.
· Before one begins converting tech parks into housing units, one needs to think about creating
public parks for the adjacent areas; there is a lack of parks in the southern Cupertino area; the
tech parks currently provide greenbelt park amenities to the adjacent community. The tech
parks have berms of lawn and trees; if you replace these tech parks with houses you lose the
lawn and trees for the community; therefore there needs to be large park designations for the
adjacent neighborhoods. Isn't there a law that the topsoil in the tech parks must be retained;
isn't that what the berms are composed of; the orchard topsoil; some of the most fertile soil in
the state; the soil from the valley of the hearts delight should not be used for building concrete
buildings; it should be used for planting lawns and trees for the community to enjoy.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· The numbers you were looking at were 2325; they were embedded into us; we met
continuously from July I" through October l4'h, every week and had a couple of wrap-ups in
November and December. There was a lopsided vote on housing, 65% to 35% and the
emphasis was on getting more retail and less housing.
· Please include Roger Costa when inviting Andrea Harris and Rod Brown, as he was the one
who talked about the retail tax.
· The LOS - it takes 5 oùnutes to get on Stevens Creek from Lawrence Expressway to DeAnza
so when we are thinking about Toll Brothers and putting 300 to 400+ units onto the Hewlett
Packard property, I hope these gentlemen look into the level of service.
· The tax revenues are not really addressed relative to getting the commercial and retail money
in there. We have El Torito, Peets Coffee, The Steak House, but they are replacements of what
was there before; but there is a lot of new housing areas that weren't housing before. Big box
Barnes and Noble, Circuit City; we need to have a lot more discussion on how to get these tax
dollars into our city; they would do so much to get the pressure off and fund more things that
are needed.
· The cost of housing in Cupertino; the people who can afford it are engineers, so let's keep
after keeping commercial here so we can attract the people who would work in those
buildings; keep the high tech in Cupertino.
Chair Wong:
· Reiterated that Andrea Harris and Rod Brown would be designated to attend the July 12
meeting, and if they are not available, to provide a replacement.
· There will still be a public hearing on Sunday, June 12 so that the community can provide
input.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Wong reported that the Taylor Woodrow application
was discussed.
Housim! Commission: No report.