PC 06-28-05
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
June 28, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert
Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Taghi Saadati
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner
City Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Colin Jung
Vera Gil
Ciddy Wordell
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Wong noted receipt of communications from Taylor
Woodrow.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Deborah Hill, resident:
· Expressed concern again about the intersections of Stevens Creek, Stelling and what the
people will have to say at the public hearing tonight.
· Expressed concern that bicyclists not getting respect on the public roads; motorist driving at
excessive speeds.
· Would appreciate it is the Bicycle Commission could do something about the issue of safety
on the roads.
Robert Levy, resident:
· Expressed concern that on July 23 the Supreme Court ruled that cities may seize homes as
long as it is for the benefit of the city. The people in Connecticut whose homes are going to be
seized under this declaration are also very concerned.
· I regard it as a death penalty crime; if the city seizes people's property so the city will make
financial benefit from it, it is on par with the City Council who leased our water system to a
private utility a number of years ago. The thing that concerns me most is the fact that I see
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
June 28, 2005
those terms, "financial benefit to the city" and all sorts of stuff on the city General Plan which
you will be discussing later on, and will speak later in the meeting.
POSTPONEMENTIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.
CP-2005-01
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Five-Year Capital Improvements Program FY 2005-06
to 2009-10
Chair Wong removed the application from the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Jung:
· In response to a question from Chair Wong, when the $850,000 improvements will be done, he
said that they will not be completed as it is an unfunded project on the CIP program; it has
been in the program for at least a couple of years now, and a recent look at the presentation on
the CIP showed that of those listed unfunded projects, it is not a high priority, 5 of 6 or 7.
Com. Giefer:
· Regarding unfunded projects, aren't we anticipating improvements to the storm drain as part
of the redevelopment of Vall co; and the sewer improvements which I believe the land owner
was doing.
· Relative to the Linda Vista Creek fountain pond restoration, why is it not listed as an unfunded
project. What we were told was that the circulation pump was broken and no funds to fix it. I
would like it to be on the radar map.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The landowner will be obligated to make the sanitary sewer improvements in conjunction with
the expansions planned at Vallco. I am not aware of any storm drain enhancement; it is a
redevelopment project area and the city may be involved in assisting with some of the
improvements around the shopping center using the redevelopment tax increment monies, but
I have not heard the storm drain would be a part of that.
· Relative to the Linda Vista Creek fountain pond restoration, we will bring it to the attention of
Public Works for this year or next year.
Com. Chen:
· Relative to the traffic signals, it has a location for the $50,000, please explain why this location
is pegged as where we are going to invest the signal money. Page 1-35, traffic signal upgrade
at Stelling, Greenleaf Drive, and Page 1-34.
· Do we have a list of traffic signals or intersections that need traffic signals or an upgrade; do
we have a priority list.
Mr. Jung:
· I am familiar with that because I have conducted the annexation of Garden Gate and that used
to be a county owned and operated traffic signal light there, and it never met city standards to
begin with and has been a high priority for the city Public Works department to upgrade that to
a standard that meets the rest of the city.
Mr. Piasecki:
· I am sure Ralph Qualls has a list. This is the program they put together and we bring it to
you, for two issues, General Plan consistency and environmental review.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
June 28, 2005
· Public Works staff was unable to attend the meeting to address any specifics on the capital
improvement program.
· Said in case the new signal is required, the requirement is part of the project. Any new signal
or traffic enhancements are usually part of development projects.
· Upgrades have to be related to project impacts.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the negative
declaration, with the finding that it is consistent with the General Plan on
Application CP-2005-01. (Vote: 5-0-0)
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
GP A-2004-01
EA-2004-17
City of Cupertino
Citywide location
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan.
Topic: Final recommendations on the General Plan and
the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Tentative City Council date: July 19, 2005
Chair Wong summarized:
· There have been many special meetings, 6 meetings total; the process started on November 15,
2004 and it is now coming to a conclusion. It is a 20 year vision for Cupertino which will be
reviewed every ten years.
· Appreciate staff for helping the Planning Commission in putting this together.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· This is the concluding meeting of the Planning Commission after 21 meetings in less than a
year on the subject, and many more preceded that, including a General Plan Task Force.
· The task before the Planning Commission is to see if there are any additional changes to the
recommendations that will go to the City Council in July.
· The consultants are available to answer any questions or comments that you have on their
responses to comments on the EIR; and then recommend certification on the EIR and
recommend approval of General Plan amendments and appendix to the City Council.
· There were some issues that Planning Commissioners contacted staff about regarding things
that you would like to additionally discuss tonight and staff prepared some additional
information.
· One suggestion relates to street signs, another to sustainability, another to parking cashout.
The street sign suggestion came from Chair Wong; he illustrated a photo of a sign that he feels
has some potential to use more around Cupertino that provides a unique identity of the
community. He requested that we suggest some language you might want to consider for the
General Plan so that those kinds of street signs could be used around the city. Some suggested
language is to install new street signs at major intersections that promote Cupertino
community identity such as using the moreon logo on the sign.
· Vice Chair Miller that he would like to have the Commission discuss a stronger language on
sustainability, particularly as it relates to more energy efficient buildings. This would be to
amend a policy and a strategy in the current draft and instead of saying "encourage" it would
actually set some standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving
efficient buildings and sites, and the strategy would be to prepare and implement green
building standards for all major private and public projects that ensure reduction of energy
consumption for new development through site and building design.
· The last subject requested, was a suggestion by a resident on a parking cashout concept that we
are prepared to discuss. The recommendation would be to the City Council to certify the EIR,
to approve the General Plan amendments and the technical appendices. We can then go back
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
June 28, 2005
to the order of business to discuss any changes or recommendations for General Plan
amendments and then move on through the rest of these items.
Chair Wong:
· Suggest that we go to the three new items; the first one is the suggestion on the street signs to
install new street signs at major intersections to give identity to the community.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I support the suggestion.
Com. Chen:
· I support the concept; it is a good suggestion; but is there any cost impact?
Ms. Wordell:
· One suggestion would be that if the signs are changed, they be changed to these, and just as
needed, which could take a long time. If you wanted to go back to the major intersections at
one time, it would be expensive and would have to be part of the capital improvement
program.
Chair Wong:
· I see it as needed, a 20 year vision, not right away.
Com. Giefer:
· If it was rolled out as signs needed to be replaced, I wouldn't have a problem with that,
provided that they were only on major intersections where the signs would be larger.
· I have a concern about having a logo on our normal street signs because one thing that I think
Cupertino has done well is they have used the vivid blue background with popping white
letters and the font is larger than San Jose's or Sunnyvale's font. We have the easy reader
street signs which is positive and I would not want to compromise the size of the font used on
the signs by making it smaller with the logo. I would also want to be consistent with using the
blue background instead of the green demonstrated.
Com. Saadati:
· I agree, as the signs are replaced to incorporate it as long as the size of the logo is large enough
that it could be recognized.
· The other option would be to have logos at various locations in the city.
Ms. Wordell:
· Asked for suggested language.
Chair Wong:
· "As signs are being replaced" is adequate.
Com. Giefer:
· I would also like to add that the font size of the sign is not reduced; I would not want to make
the lettering on the signs smaller.
Chair Wong:
· I agree with Com. Giefer.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
June 28, 2005
SUST AlNABILITY:
Chair Wong:
· I support Vice Chair Miller's idea regarding the green building.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We started talking about this with suggestions from Com. Giefer about providing incentives
for energy conservation; those are good ideas, but we can't help note that oil at $60 per barrel
last week and prices are probably going higher for energy and from a city standpoint, it makes
sense that we do things to try to improve energy conservation.
· The suggestion was to take a look at this again and see at least for larger projects if there was
something that we could do to either have some objectives in mind in terms of reduction of
energy or increase in energy efficiency or some other method strongly encouraging developers
to make their buildings more energy efficient.
Corns. Chen, Giefer, Saadati:
· Said they supported the proposal.
Chair Wong:
· An additional comment, is that there was an idea that as new government buildings came on,
they should be sustainable as well.
There was consensus that the wording "public and private" and "all" was adequate. Corns.
Saadati and Miller said for very small projects, the cost factors need to be considered.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted that if leaving the word "major" in, one could define the meaning when evaluating such
a program; the bar could be set lower or higher. If you don't leave it in there and say "all" it
means al!. and you may not like that when it gets down to the implementation.
Ms. Wordell:
· I think that will work; it would make it flexible.
PARKING CASHOUT PROGRAM:
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggestion made by a resident; and he has brought this up before; it is a concept of
recognizing that parking spaces are very expensive to build, plus parking spaces are asphalt
and they cover the ground and they impact permeability and cause runoff and a lot of ills we
don't tend to appreciate when we are parking our SUV there. We are always looking for ways
to encourage people to find other means oftransportation; the concept is that as larger and new
projects come in that we might give a developer or project applicant the opportunity to enter
into an agreement to do a parking cashout system, which would be part of their transportation
demand management (TDM) or transportation demand systems (TDS) where they would
provide payments to employees who do not use parking spaces. Rather than have to put in the
parking space to accommodate you, they may pay you $5 per day or $4 per day; and you
would only get paid for the days you ride your bike or take the bus or carpool. It is a good
concept; a good example of extensive TDM programs exists at Apple Computer where they
have lots of encouragement and provide bus passes or stagger their start times. I would leave it
open so you could define what it is and how far you would want to go with it; I think it is a
worthy idea and appreciate Mr. Bullock for bringing it up.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
June 28, 2005
Michael Bullock, resident:
· Defined parking cashout as a program where employers pay employees to not drive to work.
· Said that it was an effective method to reduce traffic, less parking is needed if companies do
cash out; and with government cooperation, more productive and profitable use of the land is
possible; that is what I am suggesting tonight and what I hope you recommend in your General
Plan recommendations.
· It enables a corporate policy that gives each commute choice equal monetary support. As soon
as you introduce cash and figure out how much the parking is costing, and what it is really
worth, it allows an equalization of support across all different modes.
· Reviewed a chart illustrating an example of programs.
· Because land is valuable in Cupertino, said he felt it would be possible to construct a schedule
of reductions in the required parking as a function of the amount paid where a company would
decide to go forward with a cashout program as soon as it was demonstrated the company was
making money. Even though they are paying extra money out, they can make enough money
with the land; other companies will follow and the overall result could be truly significant for
the city.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If you want to incorporate this concept, I suggest that you incorporate the wording into Page 4-
6, under the circulation element, under Goal B, Policy 4-2, which says "reduced reliance
.....TSM programs."
· We suggest you add parking cashouts as one of the options to evaluate under TSM programs.
Chair Wong:
· What are the financial consequences for the employer?
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is probably positive over time because parking spaces are very expensive. This is only an
option they may elect to select as one of their TSM programs. It would be optional under here
and they could select from a menu of different options to implement.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Because the cost of energy is increasing dramatically, any ideas we can come up with to get
people out of their cars and to reduce the amount of traffic on the road and reduce the amount
of gasoline we burn, is a good idea.
· I support this.
Com. Chen:
· It is a very creative new idea and I support it.
Com. Giefer:
· I support the additional language.
Com. Saadati:
· I support it; it is a good idea, as long as we can provide the incentive to reduce congestion.
Chair Wong:
· I support it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
June 28, 2005
All Planning Commissioners:
· Said they had no comments on the preliminary recommendation for changes to the task force
draft General Plan.
Chair Wong:
· On Page 6: No. 11 - Policy on Crossroads: there was a question regarding residential; We
agreed by consensus on the wording "limited residential".
· Page 10. Box 18 - The policy on Val1co Park North: I know they have a development
agreement on part of Vall co Park with one company, but we agreed for a master plan in Val1co
Park South; I thought we also agreed on a master plan on Vallco Park North.
Com. Giefer:
· The evening we originally spoke about a master plan, I somewhat flippantly suggested that we
include anything with Val1co in front of it, but I seriously meant Vallco Park North as well.
Chair Wong:
· I agree with Com. Giefer, and need consensus before we put that language in there.
· I know that we have a development agreement on part of it which will expire soon, and this
would go after that development agreement. Is that approvable to you?
All Planning Commissioners: All said yes.
Chair Wong:
· Since we are talking about master plan agreement, and we have a very important application
following, do you want to apply this on the Bubb Road as well too?
· The reason I am saying is that we are going to be listening to one part of the Bubb Road area,
but with the rest of the Bubb Road, there has been suggestion of a streetscape plan. I think we
can bring it back to the Planning Commission to do a master plan on the whole area.
Vice Chair Miller:
· If it is a good idea for VaUco South and it's a good idea for Vallco North, it is also a good idea
for Bubb Road; and we are going to get into that when the application comes up to some
extent.
· In general I think the city would do better if we master plan each of these critical areas in town
so that we have a more specific idea of where we are headed.
Com. Chen:
· In general, I think master plan is a good idea, but when we put a master plan language in a
General Plan, what exactly does it mean; is it a burden on the city to provide a master plan, or
not landowners??
Mr. Piasecki:
· There are two ways to do master plans for larger areas, one is when a major developer comes
in, such as you will probably see with the Toll Brothers application, you could conceivably ask
a major developer like that to also master plan or at least show conceptual plan for the
surrounding areas. When you are doing that you are on other people's property; they don't
necessarily appreciate; one of the private consultants master planning their sites,
· The second way which I think is a better way is for the city to prioritize the areas that we
would like to do master plans for; we have done it on North DeAnza Boulevard, that is why
North DeAnza Boulevard looks the way it looks; we have design guidelines for the Monta
Vista area and that is why the style of buildings is like it is in Monta Vista. We have done it
on South DeAnza Boulevard, it is something we have been doing but you are simply
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
June 28, 2005
identifying three or four other areas where you would like to see them. It would most likely be
city initiated master plan.
Com. Chen:
· I would support that also.
Com. Giefer:
· Rather than a separate master plan for Bubb Road, I suggest we extend the Monta Vista design
guidelines to include the Bubb Road area which is primarily commercial; but we are hearing a
residential application this evening.
Ms. Wordell:
· One thought is that it is not an overall plan; it is design guidelines and they might be more
suitable for the village than an industrial area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If you used the wording "master plan" that would be appropriate; that will umbrella everything
and you can say Bubb Road/Monta Vista. It would be a good idea to take a look at the overlap
area.
Com. Giefer:
· I am somewhat uncomfortable calling Bubb Road separately because I think it should actually be
incorporated with its immediate neighbor which is Monta Vista.
· I would prefer to think of this as an extension of Monta Vista and perhaps have a Monta Vista master
plan that the guidelines are part of.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Simply say a master plan for the Bubb Road/Monta Vista area and we can finalize it later.
Com. Giefer:
· I would be more comfortable with that, than just calling Bubb Road out as a separate master
planned area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That is fine.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the master plan, it would be easier for a property owner and developer when they
come out and develop that if they know where the Planning Commission and City Council is
coming from, and that staff supports this kind of development.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is always easier when they know the rules.
Com. Saadati:
· I like Com. Giefer's idea of having a separate master plan for the Bubb Road/Monta Vista area
because I don't understand how the Vallco area compares to Bubb because of the acreage; is
that compatible.
Mr. Piasecki:
· I don't have the exact answer; I know the North Vallco, the Hewlett Packard site alone is a 100
acre site, so you have several hundred acres in north Vallco. In the Bubb Road/Monta Vista, it
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
June 28, 2005
depends on whether you are talking about Monta Vista, all the residential areas... just Bubb
Road; I don't know if I can give a specific number; it is probably in the 70 or 50 acre category.
Com. Saadati:
· I support the master plan as long as it allows some flexibility because they are in different
areas of town.
Chair Wong:
· The consensus is to have a master plan that incorporates both Bubb Road and Monta Vista.
· The reason I support Com. Giefer is that on Imperial Avenue, that would be considered more
into the Monta Vista, not the Bubb Road area since Imperial Avenue has a lot of light
industrial.
· A lot of housing is taking over those areas and it is nice to fix your car in Cupertino vs. going
out of Cupertino; perhaps this master plan might address that issue as well.
ENvmONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
Mr. Piasecki:
· The concept we wanted to discuss with you briefly is that you have been reviewing the task
force draft and making amendments to it and modifying different things, and we feel
comfortable that the assessment you did in the EIR for the task force draft is about the same in
terms of its overall impacts as what you have come up with as a Planning Commission
recommendation.
· You have taken away some office/industrial, particularly in South Vallco; you have added in
some residential units in that same area; the biggest impact that that we experienced in
Cupertino, is you have tried also to balance the plan a little better, that is to provide housing
that would balance with any new office/commercial development in the community, or at least
that we wouldn't make it worse.
· I think overall it is about a balance; we feel you can move forward and make a
recommendation to the City Council based on the information before you. We will work with
the consultants and crunch the numbers and make sure we don't have any overage or
unexpected consequence of the changes and will report that to the City Coundcil. Their option
will be to either act on it, find that it is minor, or go altead and act on it and adopt/not adopt or
ask for some additional information. There is a longshot they may say this needs much greater
assessment and send it back to you; but I don't think that will happen.
Leon Parofallo, Planning Resource Associates, Consultant:
· At the May 24th meeting, the Planning Commissioners asked to see the response to comments.
· With regard to taking any action in the near future, tonight hopefully, it would be appropriate
for you to recommend certification to the City Council of the EIR, and also include the
response to comments.
AI Morales, Planning Resource Associates:
· The Response to Comments document contained two sections, the first section contains
responses to letters submitted by agencies and interested parties; the second section contains
the responses to Planning Commission comments.
Com. Saadati:
· Referred to Page B-20, noted that the average rental is based on the December 2000 date; and
asked how critical it was to have current year information since rentals have changed since that
date.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
June 28, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Said they were advised that they didn't need to update that; the only things that need to be
updated is the information that changes as a result of policy changes.
Com. Giefer:
· As part of the EIR that we read the responses to, on Page 2-41 with regards to sensitive
receptors, I had expected some of the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the General
Plan, and I was unable to locate some of the screening and other ideas that were listed as
mitigation.
Mr. Morales:
· Those are recommendations to Planning Commission and City Council to adopt regarding the
sensithoity sensitive receptors to preclude conflicts between potential uses that might generate
some sort of pollutants vs. the sensitive receptors.
· The next step is to take the mitigating measures and implement them into the plan.
Com. Giefer:
· Is it necessary for us to vote on the individual mitigating measures this evening, or will they
automatically be rolled into the General Plan.
Mr. Morales:
· Many of the mitigation measures recommended in this section are included in the General
Plan; these recommendations are probably to be used in the project review process to ensure
that those conflicts do not arise.
Com. Giefer:
· I noticed also when I was trying to find where these might have been included in the General
Plan for mitigation, on our environmental evaluation checklist, we actually don't look for
these type of receptors to see if they are mitigated, so it left me thinking that we didn't have a
process in place that specifically tries to understand if we have pollution sources that we need
to be sensitive to when we are putting housing or hospitals or anything near those types of
things.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That would need to be added to the environmental checklist.
Com. Giefer:
· That would be one place and perhaps adding a strategy in the housing section that talked
screening or putting in a buffer area in the actual state response on Page,
· The state agency that reviewed it and responded actually had some specific language that I
liked; they had suggested language with regards to mitigating and creating a buffer area
between sensitivity.
Com. Chen and Vice Chair Miller:
· No questions.
Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification on comment Nos. 15 and 16.
· Weare going to pass a conversion policy that will convert industrial areas into housing and
my main concern is what kind of impact would it have on our traffic and our housing. I am a
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
June 28, 2005
strong believer in protecting our tech parks; and since this is a General Plan, a vision, I have
strong concerns regarding converting industrial to housing.
· I believe that this should be addressed at the General Plan level and I wanted Mr. Morales to
clarify his answer on Page 2-49.
Mr. Morales:
· The impact on the tech parks would be negligible in terms of what would happen to them; if
you wanted to develop additional houses, there would be some reduction in the commercial
area which has already occurred and you have recommended. The impact would be that there
would be less commercial or industrial development.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The policy that the Planning Commission adopted was a policy entitled Maintaining Cohesive
Commercial Centers and Office Parks and goes into a lot of detail about the conditions under
which that would occur and it is very limited series of conditions, and that it can demonstrate
there is sufficient or supplementary local revenues to support municipal and school services.
· I think you have covered most of the questions you are asking in the form of your policy
structure in the Plan. It is very restricted.
Chair Wong:
· I appreciate your answer Mr. Piasecki; but when I look into the EIR those were guidelines that
the Planning Commission suggested for a plan on how to convert industrial to housing, but
when we hired a consultant to analyze the environmental impact citywide of converting
industrial areas to commercial, I didn't feel we received an adequate answer.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The bottom line is that this is going to be a very limited application under very restricted
conditions and circumstances, and it even says in the policy that they will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis to determine if they can demonstrate these findings. You have already
stipulated in the policy structure that it isn't across the board; it will be evaluated; we will
preserve the tech parks; we will make sure the development can pay its own way.
· In almost every case we have looked at, the traffic generation is less from residential than it
has been from a functioning office on those same sites.
· You may have some actual benefits that can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when you
look at these projects.
Ms. Wordell:
· (To Chair Wong) If the question you are asking is only an environmental impact that relates to
traffic in terms of reduction of office space and that the final sentence in this response is that it
is a loss of jobs, but there wasn't any additional discussion of environmental impacts I think
that would be the case and when we were talking earlier about the Planning Commission
option, when it gets to City Council level, there will be an analysis of the environmental
impacts of those changes.
· I think perhaps you are looking more for what are the policy impacts of the changes or maybe
the economic impacts and I don't know that there would be more to say there in that response.
Com. Giefer:
· The paragraph I was looking for is on Page 2-25 of the EIR and it is a response from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. They suggest adding to our land use element an
implementation strategy requiring buffer zones for new residential and sensitive receptor site
plans to separate those from freeways, point sources and hazardous material locations as a
condition of approval for new projects.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
June 28, 2005
· It appears that we are going to be having more demand for housing close to freeways, railroad
crossings, and also a concern of conversion from commercial to residential. I think it is
important for us to acknowledge pollution points and try to do what we can to mitigate those
effects.
· I would like to adopt some of the mitigating factors in our General Plan as strategies as well as
change the environmental evaluation checklist and add a factor, is thisa sensitive receptor?
Ms. Wordell:
· Are you suggesting that the General Plan incorporate this language?
Com. Giefer:
· Not verbatim; I think we need to have a strategy, and I envision adding a strategy that
discusses buffering, pollution; we are obviously not going to be able to get rid of freeways as
an example of pollution sources and we are not going to be able to close 280 because it creates
emissions.
· I think we need to be conscious that we need to buffer anything that is a point source of
pollution when we are planning to put housing or schools near it or anything else; and we need
to acknowledge that it is there and do the best we can to mitigate that.
· It is one of the things that is listed as something to be mitigated in the General Plan.
· I would like something that would help Ìls defme what a buffer zone; if it is vegetation, if it's
barrier walls; I am not sure what the best way to go about it. I would defer to staff and their
experience.
Ms. Wordell:
· If the Planning Commission supports that, we can add that to the list of recommended changes.
Com. Chen:
· Clarified they were looking at adding a language that which gives direction to the new
development to add a buffer as one of the mitigation measures for a significant impact; we are
providing more directions to new development on how to reduce the significant impact.
· I have no objection; my only concern is that it doesn't restrict new development.
· If it has already been identified as a significant impact, one of the mitigation measures can be
to add a buffer of some sort, which is acceptable.
Vice Chair Miller:
· On the discussion held, 1 don't appreciate what the ramifications are in terms of does that
mean that some sites won't be developable or they will be developable only in a very
excessive cost.
· I have no objection to discussing it, but I am not sure we want to put it in as something that has
to be put in place at this point.
Com. Saadati:
· I feel we do already consider these elements and development with the EIR and public hearing
when the buffer zone could vary depending on the noise impact. How much will the verbiage
change what they are doing now?
Ms. Wordell:
· There are strategies and policies on Page 5-8 of the draft; there is no policy about considering
the effects of pollution on new projects. You might want to add something along those lines.
Cupertino Planning Commission
i3
June 28, 2005
Com. Saadati:
· I think pollution is considered; any time we do any development, we do consider all potential
impacts on a development; to what extent it depends on how much research or data is available
at the time.
· It would be good to add the pollution, but most of them are already included in the General
Plan.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Jeff Glick, Clay Street:
· Representing Regnart Gatekeepers who oppose the Regnart Trail Project.
· Read part of a statement: "We the Regnart Gatekeepers value what you do for protecting
Cupertio's best interests. We also value your time and will not repeat the reading of the
petition that was submitted at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission. What we
would like to do is update you by saying that we now have about 370 signatures on the petition
and are still gaining more. We attended a joint meeting of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
and the Parks and Recreation meeting last April 7th".
· I was going to read statements from that meeting, but in the interest of time, I will skip those
and invite you to look at the webcast archives.
· I would like to summarize our position. The following is a partial summary of our safety
concerns with respect to this project.
o "Steep banks that would be difficult to negotiate should a person intentionally or
intentionally go to the bottom of the ditch. Interference with flood control zones and
the danger of flash flooding during the rainy season.
o Inaccessibility for ftre, police and ambulance and complete negation of the value of
our neighborhood watch program; increasing the potential for crimes.
o Bikes and pedestrians would flow out onto our streets, creating a potential for injury
by vehicles.
oWe are concerned about the burden of liability for our city should any of these safety
concerns occur. We implore you to remove the proposed Regnart Trail from the
General Plan. Those are the wishes of almost 400 residents.
AI Modine, Cupertino resident:
· As a senior citizen and sole owner of my property, I resent the imposition made on Page B-66,
Item 9, "the city will consider adopting.. ..or major renovation". This would force a seller to
insulate, install double pane windows or doors, replace appliances, toilets, roofs, etc. at the
time of resale.
· This could place an undue hardship on the seller at a time when he/she may want to invest the
money gained from the resale ofthe property for future living expenses, such as moving out of
the area and investing the money. This would not be a good time to impose these expenses on
the seller and I wish you would strike that provision.
Dr. Beverly Bryant, Executive Director of Homebuilders Assoc. of No. California (Southern
Division):
· Thanked the Planning Commission for the many meetings on the General Plan.
· The opportunities for Cupertino are significant in the area of industriaVresidential conversion.
We understand that there are many under-performing areas in the town that have Class C
buildings or less that could go into housing, and the need for housing is quite a concern to this
valley, the city, and we hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will see it fit to
go ahead with some of these industriaVresidential conversion attempts; because the homes
built today are really important to Cupertino and I think you will find that the city will benefit
by them.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
June 28, 2005
· I am concerned with what I heard this evening in terms of the green building proposals and the
discussion, because at the state level, so many of these things are being discussed and they are
going to be state discussions for all of the cities in California. I noticed in the draft General
Plan you have, you have some recommendations with Title 24 and other energy programs
already in place. I think you would find that these will be quite sufficient; the homes being
built by our members today and other builders are incredibly energy efficient. I think you will
find that what is being done already is really what you want and that more and more of the
laws coming down and the builders doing it for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of
the consumer, because this is what sells; will be sufficient.
· I encourage you to not make too many mandates on this in the General Plan.
· In terms of the buffer point source pollution, please remember the really important thing for
housing today is availability; availability drives affordability. The more regulatory things that
come down from cities and communities to regulate builders who are probably doing the good
things already, will be indeed increasing the cost of housing, so we encourage you to remove
the regulatory ballot measures, streamline the approval process; make sùre there is an adequate
land supply in order to build housing in Cupertino and try to contain the fees and charges. The
estimate in many cities is that between $50K and $150K of the cost of a new home is fees and
charges and the cost of some of the regulatory activities.
· We hope that you will look at these projects favorably.
Ned Britt, resident:
· Opposed to the parking cashout if it applies any mandate to the businesses. It may be
economically feasible for certain larger employers to implement such a plan, but if a mandate
is placed in the General Plan which requires it, it would be a detriment to the formation of new
business enterprises in Cupertino.
· There are other things associated with the red tape coming about in the General Plan. Part of it
are things such as the mandates for energy efficient buildings. That should be done based on
marketplace. If fuel costs rise, there would be a motivation to do that anyway; people will
want to rent such buildings or own them. If you try to set standards, the devil is in the details
of what standards you set; it causes another business unfriendly aspect to our city. .
· We should avoid the conversion of commercial/industrial space into residential even though
there may be some under-performing places now, once they are gone, we lose part of the
business base, the tax base, and the retail sales possibilities. Even your own city manager
acknowledges in newspaper statements that the cost of housing is a net loss to the city because
of the providing infrastructure. The increase in property taxes don't cover that.
· As we continue to make these changes going the other way, we just dig ourselves into further
financial hole.
· Please don't implement those things in the General Plan.
· I also agree with Mr. Modine that putting some sort of resale requirement for upgrading
energy should not be in the planning document; that should be something that is market
driven. If there are high energy costs, people will have a motivation to get a higher sales price;
but it should not be part of the red tape.
Chair Wong:
· Noted that the parking cashout program was just an option.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· The General Plan process has been an educational process since she was a resident of the
county for a number of year before Rancho Rinconada annexed to Cupertino.
· Expressed concern about the building heights proposed for Cupertino, particularly the heights
of the buildings at Vallco and Hewlett Packardlfoll Brothers Projects. Please try to keep them
under 45 feet; it has been stated over and over in public comment that the neighborhoods do
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
June 28, 2005
not want buildings of 60, 70 or 90 feet height. 45 feet or below is preferable; there are many
residential neighborhoods at that end of Cupertino and trying to keep the heights down will
allow everyone to have their beautiful views of the mountains. It gives everyone the sense of
being in a neighborhood area where they can go and shop with greenbelt areas around it. If
people wanted to live in San Francisco or San Jose, they can move there, but as a resident of
Cupertino, I appreciate the greenbelts around southern Cupertino.
· Please protect the views of the hills.
· Please do not increase the building density in Cupertino.
· Do not build housing just to be satisfying outdated ABAG numbers. I was not aware of the
ABAG numbers were until I attended the General Plan sessions, but I became aware that
something was wrong. There are no new jobs in Cupertino; we are dealing with outdated
numbers. Please keep the housing density down.
· Please protect the tech parks. I expect the tech industry to return, and wonder if we will be
having startups in the condos and townhouses when there is no room left for industrial parks.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· The General Plan is about our quality of life. I have concerns on the impacts of our schools,
traffic and scenic views; also for the parks for all the neighbors; Imperial Way that was just
built; Menlo Equities that was just built; Vallco - where are parks going to be?
· We need proper infrastructures in place now. In 1985 we had 28,000 people and now have
58,000 people. I don't see new sewage lines or any other major improvements and the EIR
report shows we have problems.
· Also concerned about neighborhood children going to neighborhood schools; it cuts down on
the car rides if we can get the students to attend locally instead of out of the way. We need to
have more of an emphasis on creating a sound, financial base, via focusing on bringing in
more retail tax and less emphasis on huge housing developments.
· We need to retain proper notification for residents on oncoming developments instead of the
200 or 300 feet; let the citizens remain aware.
· In the past many months and years, the Planning Commission and staff have worked extremely
hard, but so did the community members taking part in the 2003 General Plan Task Force, and
by participating throughout the Planning Commission meetings.
· We can use past history and it is very important to remember. By allowing the Apple towers
to be built, the precedent was set for allowing the gigantic condos, apartments and hotels of
Stevens Creek and DeAnza. By allowing limited housing in the Crossroads you are now
setting precedent for housing to encroach on one of our jewel shopping districts, limiting
potential retail growth and potential retail tax.
· It seems eye opening that a signature member of the Minority Report currently on the Planning
Commission was allowed to wipe out line item by line item the work of the majority of the
General Plan Task Force easily tossing away months of hard work through a democratic
process. The Planning Commission saying the public input is important seems like lip service
only.
· Retain the quality of life and the character that is Cupertino; don't let it go further away.
Chair Wong:
· Stated that Com. Giefer was on the General Plan Task Force, and did sign the Minority Report,
but she is but one commissioner. Whatever Com. Giefer presents, she needs consensus or
three commissioners here to pass anything. There is no conspiracy involved.
Com. Giefer:
· Chair Wong summarized it well. For the record, everything I put in about mixed use, nobody
agreed with me.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
June 28, 2005
Radisa Nagakatan, Cupertino resident:
· I like the idea of green buildings and buffer zones. As a previous speaker said, the seller
should not be responsible; if the seller and buyer can agree on some amicable solution, the
market will bear the cost of upgrading the home.
· I am opposed to industrial to residential conversion. A simple answer is that is just increases
the density, decreasing the quality of living.
· In the General Plan, it was stated that Bubb Road will be a different master plan; I was
wondering if there are any details to that or if you just wanted to have a separate plan.
Whatever comes up, I think due consideration should be given to the existing industrial use
land along that corridor.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong summarized the questions asked:
Pal!e B-66. rel!ardinl! enerl!V conservation on resale and maior renovations.
· The other thing is the master plan on Bubb Road, or the master plan on Vallco Park North or
Vallco Park South; what we are suggesting is that if there was a master plan that we could
present to the community, do you want housing, industrial, commercial; then it would be
easier for both the community and developer to know that this is what you can do vs. right
now, there is a housing overlay on most of the stuff, so that would be more precise; no
guessing work.
· The concern regarding the major renovation or resale is why do they need to meet the
minimum energy efficiency requirement at the time of resale?
Ms. Wordell:
· These were directions that were in the housing technical appendix when it was adopted in
2001; it is a list of things that we said we would do or consider; it hasn't been on a work
program to do that.
· The State is looking for this sort of thing, but I doubt that they would consider it a critical
element, if it was changed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Do you want to eliminate the words "resale" and make that recommendation to the City
Council?
Com. Saadati:
· I would suggest changing "requiring" to "encouraging"
· Questioned the cost involved.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If you look at the preceding page B-65, it says that "during the planning and development
process, there are ..... such proven methods include..." It is just a listing of methods, we
haven't adopted this and it has been around for awhile. The comments from the speaker are
well taken that somebody might want to implement this; if you change the words to
"encouraging" that would probably take care of it; and perhaps remove the word "resale".
Vice Chair Miller:
· I agree with Mr. Modine that it shouldn't be in there; I notice that it says "consider" and not
"adopt" but as pointed out, it is not really enforceable; and on an individual home level, it will
happen as the marketplace dictates and energy becomes very expensive.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
June 28, 2005
· I would note also that when we were discussing energy efficiency with respect to new
developments, that is why I felt it was important to talk about major projects. I wish we had
that language in place when we built our library.
Com. Giefer:
· When we currently issue permits, for any new construction in your home or remodeling, you
have to FeIKI meet Title 24. In this particular paragraph it says we will consider adopting, not
that we actually have a policy in place.
· As we have discussed before, we are interested in trying to stimulate saving energy and use, so
I would like to keep it in, if we say "encourage" rather than "require" I support that. We need
to take the first step, and I would like to keep the language in.
Com. Chen:
· Most of the language is acceptable as discussed.
· I do not support the requirement on resale; if "resale" is deleted, it is acceptable.
Chair Wong:
· 1 support the word "encourage" and deleting the word "resale".
Chair Wong summarized suggestions:
· Regarding the signs, okay with the mitigated languages
· Sustainability: also agreed to Vice Chair Miller suggestion
· Parking cashout program: supported unanimously
· Energy conservation: delete word "resale", use "encourage"
· Environmental mitigation, buffer point: Policy 5-4: There are a series of strategies, I, 2, and 3
that speak to the issue of air pollution effects of new development; add a new strategy entitled
"environmental review" and it would state "Evaluate the relationship of sensitive receptors
such as convalescent hospitals and residential uses, to pollution sources through the
environmental assessment of new development."
There was consensus of the Planning Commission that the suggestions were acceptable.
Chair Wong:
· A preliminary recommendation was to include a master plan language for Val1co Park North,
Val1co Park South and Bubb Road/Monta Vista, and to add back the word "limited housing in
the Crossroad areas".
Com. Saadati:
· Thanked staff and Planning Commissioners for their hard work, and the public who attended
meetings to late hours to provide input.
· It was an opportunity to provide suggestions for change; an effort that only happens every 10
or 20 years.
Com. Giefer:
· Thanked staff for all the hard work; members of the General Plan Task Force for the
groundwork they did; and also fellow commissioners. It was truly a collaborative effort and
we have all worked very hard and had specific points of view that mayor may not have made
it into the plan; but I think it is a better plan for all of the input we got from both the task force
staff, different points of views of commissioners and the public and the property owners.
· I feel confident about the document we will recommend to City Council.
Cupertino Planning Commission
IS
June 28, 2005
Com. Chen:
· We had one common point and that was to create a balanced community. During the months
of discussions when some of us might have held a strong position on certain items, we
attempted to balance between the need for affordable housing or the agreement on affordable
housing and the oppositions to the density, and tried to balance between the improved city
economic conditions, while facing the opposition to let functional obsolete buildings go vacant
for years and years;
· It has not been an easy job; but all of you did a fantastic job in providing your input and I think
that the plan in front of us that we are going to recommend for approval is a balanced plan and
we successfully addressed the growth issue and affordable housing issue without discounting
the quality of life by addressing the traffic issue, the school issue and also the energy saving
and environmental issues.
· I am proud of all of you for doing this work with us and especially appreciate the Planning
Department staff for helping us through the process.
· I am ready to support a motion.
Vice Chair Miller:
· It has been a good process and we have had considerable input from the public and we have
taken that into account and as Com. Chen said, the emphasis has been on trying to achieve
balance. We took the position that in moving forward, anything else we did from hereon out,
would be in balance so that we wouldn't make the situation worse. That was a key issue,
moving forward, let's try to stay in balance. We also tried to add flexibility to the plan; the
plan offers guidelines in terms of what needs to be considered when an applicant comes in and
requests conversion.
· In other areas, we added some important points when we talked about doing specific plans for
different areas of town. This gives the public an opportunity for further input in terms of
guiding what gets done in particular areas as opposed to having applicants come in and say we
think we should build something here, Now if we have a plan in place, applicants will come in
and offer a development that meets the planned directions we put in place.
· It has been a good process, we have listened to everyone. I point out that the City Council is
going to look at our recommendation, at the Task Force recommendations, and they are going
to look at the input they have had from other sources such as the community survey and will
weigh and balance all the things that have gone on with respect to the General Plan, and I feel
good at this point about our participation in it.
Chair Wong:
· My colleagues covered everything. I want to say thank you to the City Council for being very
patient and giving us extra time. One of the reasons why we had extra meetings is that this is a
20 year vision for the city; I want to thank the General Plan Task Force the consultants and
staff for putting all the hard work into this.
· We agreed to disagree.
· I believe that what we put together is something that is really good to submit to the City
Council. We allow flexibility in mixed use, mixed use should only be used where it is
applicable. Also we tried to address the jobslhousing imbalance; the quality of life, we need to
address the traffic and school impacts, and most important is that the city is growing and
where do we want it to grow. We definitely don't want it to grow in the hillsides or RI
neighborhoods but we want it to be strategically put not in major thoroughfares so that we can
have public transportation like the light rail system will have.
· This is not the end of the road; this is just the beginning for staff. This will be a
recommendation to. the City Council and the City Council will start holding General Plan
meetings in July.
Cupertino PlaIUling Commission
19
June 28, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts; and noted that a predecessor when
learning that they met on a Sunday, said that it never happened in his career.
· Congratulated everyone for their hard work and recognized Ciddy Wordell who was the major
force in keeping the project together and tracking all the changes and getting them back to the
Planning Commission.
· He also thanked the Task Force's for their hard work as well; starting with 74 people meeting
for about 5 months doing a lot of hard work and getting a lot of valuable input that influenced
the plan significantly even with the Planning Commission's relatively minor changes; it is still
significantly what came out of that task force.
Ms. Wordell:
· Added her congratulations and thanks to the Planning Commission, the community and the
consultants.
· I acknowledge that some of the recommendations are not held by all, but I think there are
some new directions that we are starting to see in Cupertino that are very exciting that most
people won't likely embrace. I think the externalizing of activities such as the coffee shops,
outdoor seating areas, the linear parks, civic parks, open space and all the new developments
that open up developments to the community is a wonderful direction for Cupertino. There are
some very exciting aspects of it that the community is going to reap the benefit from.
· There are more roads to- go down, congratulations to everyone.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application EA-2004-17. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application
GP A-2004-01 as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong declared a recess.
3. U-2005-01, Z-2005-01,
ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01,
EA-2005-01. Alan Loving
(Taylor Woodrow Homes)
Bubb Road & Imperial Ave.
(a porton of Results Way
Corporate Park)
Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of
industrial buildings and construct 94 single-family
residential units and recreation areas. Rezoning of
a l2-acre site from Planned Industrial-P(ML) to
Planned Residential- P(Residential). Architectural
and Site Approval for 94 single-family residential
units and recreational areas. Tentative Map to
Subdivide a 12-acre site into 94 lots + 1 lot held in
Common. Tentative City Council date:
July 19, 2005.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: Noted that a citywide notification was
done on the application.
The video presentation reviewed the application:
· Application from Taylor Woodrow Homes to construct 94 single family homes around a half-
acre park located at the center of the development, and a one-acre park at the Bubb Road
Results Way entrance.
· The site is the former Honeywell-Measurex campus on Results Way.
· Proposal is for demolition of 5 existing industrial manufacturing buildings totaling 175,000
square feet to construct the 94 units and the 2.86 acres of recreational open space and
pedestrian trails.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
June 28, 2005
· Details on the application summary are outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends approval of the application.
Mr. Piasecki reviewed the application:
· The components of the application are the use permit, architectural and site approval, tentative
map and rezoning.
· Reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report, including the site
plan, various elevations, architecture, traffic, landscape plan, school and parking impacts, tree
removal, and pedestrian paths.
· Explained that Class A buildings provide all of the R&D office kinds of amenities that a
perspective might expect: tall ceilings, larger spaces, flexible spaces. When the buildings were
built 30 to 40 years ago, they were not set up for R&D and the market have shifted.
· Functionally obsolete buildings have been vacant for over 3 years and there is no history that
the site has been a sales tax generator. Vandalism has also been occurring in the vacant
buildings.
· Land use options: because of the traffic issues, it is not a viable site for a big box.
· Staff feels the project is a good option if you are going to allow this functionally obsolete
space to be removed, and that the other options were not as attractive.
· Said the open space is not dedicated, but made available to the public; the advantage is that we
don't have to maintain it, we can use it and not maintain it. The property owner will maintain
it and also pay a portion of park fees so that the monies canbe used to build parks or repay the
general fund for parks already built.
· Answered questions from Planning Commissioners relative to the proposed project and the
information contained in the staff report.
· Said that relative to the proposed residential in place of the light industrial, they should be
more flexible as a community and allow the necessary uses to go well designed into other
areas.
· Said he would not suggest rezoning the area as CG from light industrial, as there is likely life
remaining to the buildings of 20 to 30 years. It would presumptuous to make them legal non-
conforming when they still have a viable use and can still be part of the Bubb Road industrial
park.
Phil Mader, Taylor Woodrow Homes:
· Subject site is 12 acres, and is a well situated site for residential; contiguous with residential on
two sides; has good access to Stevens Creek and Highway 85 transportation corridors.
· Illustrated photos of the existing building, which is an industrial building designed for
industrial uses, does not have many windows; not designed for current office R&D space.
· The interior photos illustrated the graffiti and vandalism, a skateboard ramp. It is not a slick
R&D building that a new fIrm would want to occupy.
· What will converting the existing building to residential accomplish?
o It complies with the city's conversion policy.
o It helps to improve the jobslhousing balance for the city.
o It creates over 3 acres of public parks and trails, and creates a high quality
neighborhood for the community.
o It also creates 14 affordable housing units that will be the same quality as all other
homes built. The BMR units will sell for $299,000 for teachers, fireman, librarians,
and could be a positive attribute to the community.
· The applicant went to the community, held focus groups, one-on-one meetings with
individuals; they heard the issues, and believe they have responded to the issues.
· What was heard and what was done:
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
June 28, 2005
o Creating open space was important; there are almost three acres, a tot lot, a volleyball
court, neighborhood gathering place with a fountain.
o No neighborhood park exists in Monta Vista; this is something the Monta Vista
community could use and benefit from.
o The project has almost 4 times as much landscaping as the current use; currently none
of that landscaping is open to the public.
o Trails are important; connecting to schools, the neighborhood, that is why there is the
Union Pacific Trail and McClellan Trail.
o Saving Trees: no specimen trees will be cut down; more than 300 trees will be planted.
o Safety: houses are oriented around parks, trails, so eyes and ears are on the public
spaces.
o Density is an issue. We have created a project with an average density of 7 units per
acre which is very similar to the Monta Vista average density which is around 6 units
per acre.
o Walkability: This project is walkable with sidewalks, trails, paseos, and parks.
o Property tax: Existing $6,780 is generated from the existing use. Our proposed project
would generate over $42,000 in property tax; sales tax $41,000, totaling over $83,000
annually to the city.
o Schools: Schools are important and we want to be there to strengthen the schools. At
the Cupertino elementary/middle schools, 50 students are generated; at the high
school, 20 students are generated. You will see that our standard developer fee of
$282,000 is what we are required to pay by state law. We understand there is a deficit
to cover the facilities and the operational expenses which we voluntarily agreed to
compensate for; a one time facility charge of $192,000 and operational charges for 10
years of $274,000.
o High Schools: we are legally required to contribute $190,000; we are going to cover
facilities of $299,000; if there is any shortfall between the time the students come on
line which is about 2 to 3 years from now and if there are any capacity issues;
$160,000 for logistics.
o Over $1.3 million total which will be given to Cupertino for education; which will be
paid at the time we pull our building permits, approximately 2 years before the first
student would enter school. If certain things need to be changed, the funds would be
available to do the planning.
o Timeline: The students will come in phases; it will be mid-2007 before the first
students come to the schools. It will be gradual, the money is provided early to
compensate for any issues that need to be resolved at the schools.
o Traffic: Traffic is an issue in the community; the project will create less traffic than if
the existing building would stay and be leased out. We have incorporated traffic
calming features into the project; the main road connects Imperial to Bubb to relieve
traffic from adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, Taylor Woodrow will fund as
conditioned in their staff report, traffic improvements to the Bubb/McClellan
intersection area and crosswalks to schools.
o Affordability: 14 BMR units would be generated to the city, selling for $299,000.
Alan Chamorro, Grosvenor USA Limited (property owner):
· Owners of the Results Way property since 1998; the site has been vacant since 2003.
· Several studies have been conducted on the functional obsolescence of the property. The
buildings are not office buildings, but manufacturing buildings, with few windows.
· Class A office requires significant window lines, new systems, HV AC plumbing mechanical,
seismic upgrades, roofs, etc., all of which contribute to the functional obsolescence of the
buildings.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
June 28, 2005
· When the buildings were purchased in 1998 it was important to know that housing was
available from the General Plan in the event the market deteriorated, which has happened in
Silicon Valley. It is important to know that housing was in that time a downside option for us.
· We think that the Taylor Woodrow plan is a good plan, it meshes with the community well;
we will continue to own the existing office park. It should be noted that it is an office park,
not a manufacturing park; there is really no manufacturing in Cupertino. The existing tenancy
is 100% office. We urge you to support the plan.
· Said they had not considered tearing down the buildings and building office/industrial condos
similar to Morgan Hill and Edenvale.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that they could apply for office condo, but did not feel the building was set up that way,
and likely could not meet the codes for office condos for the particular site, and would not
necessarily be a good thing from staff's standpoint.
· Asked Mr. Chamorro about the buildings in the front of the site and why they didn't look at
that as being a likely site to sell off. Why not build the residential on the McClellan Road
frontage now?
Mr. Chamorro:
· The buildings in front are functional office buildings, fully leased except for the front building
which had significant capital invested; it is currently on the market. The other buildings have
been converted and they are functioning office buildings. The buildings in the back are
different shape than the those in the front. The front are effectively newer buildings on the
inside.
· The buildings that are proposed for removal have been on the market for several years; two
teams of leasing brokers have been handling it with significant concessions to try to lure
people. We have not directly solicited individual companies, but it has been on the market for
some time, widely known.
Com. Giefer:
· Has your marketing primarily been targeted at tech companies to come in and do the same
type of manufacturing or business in those buildings?
Mr. Chamorro:
· For office use, but we are prepared to entertain any economically viable investment for the
property.
· We have not had any offer come close to justify the capital required, which is on the order of
$150 to $200 per square foot of investment.
· The buildings are contiguous and do not break out to small tenants which is the marketplace
now; they are set up for big users.
· We spoke with Costco at one time. The site is a challenging site from a retail standpoint, with
no visibility to any major arterial.
· Said the remaining useful life of the buildings that will stay on the site is likely 15 to 20 years;
they have new systems, roofs, HV AC systems, new restrooms. As long as high tech remains
in the valley, the buildings will stay functional for quite some time.
· Has not considered senior housing for the site; Taylor Woodrow would be more in line for
considering such a concept.
· Because of the proximity to major arterials, the site was not considered for a retail site.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
June 28, 2005
Mr. Mader:
· In response to Chair Wong's question why they considered cluster homes for the project and
not R I housing; he said open space was a priority with the focus groups; there isn't a
neighborhood park in Monta Vista. What the cluster concept allows is, they have smaller
lots, slightly smaller homes, and they are able to create the open space which is a benefit over
the standard 5,000 square foot lots with no open space.
· The open space is needed and is desirable for the community.
· Said that the project consists of 3 bedroom units and 4 bedroom units, with 12 floor plans, 15
different elevations to create a quality environment.
Jim Ewe, Dahlgren Group:
· Reviewed the site design including the percolation pond, open space, walkways in various
areas to provide linkage throughout the site. He also illustrated the 15 different elevations.
· Illustrated a video presentation illustrating the proposed project.
Beau Radonovich, Real Estate Consultant working with Grosvenor USA:
· Worked with the property owner to determine the highest and best use for the property.
· The project is well located for the proposed residential use; adjacent and contiguous to the
existing residential uses; easily access to typical residential needs such as schools,
transportation corridors, and services.
· As pointed out by staff and addressed in the staff report, the project goes well beyond the
city's own conversion policies for these type of opportunities; and would meet any city's
existing conversion policies set out. It respects the existing neighborhood, addresses the
school and fiscal issues that become so important on these kind of opportunities. This type of
development will set an excellent example for all projects that follow it, as you consider
projects that are coming down the line.
· I do hope you support it; I am proud to be associated with it.
Chair Wong:
· Noted that the conversion policy is only a recommendation to the City Council, passed by the
Planning Commission 3:2. The City Council needs to approve the policy.
Mr. Mader:
· Expressed appreciation for being able to present the project. Said they have worked hard on
the project for over 9 months with the community and staff and think there is an opportunity to
do something that can serve as a model infill site for Cupertino and the Bay Area.
· There are qualities in this project not replicated in other projects; it is a unique opportunity to
do something great and we hope that you will consider it favorably and approve it.
Com. Saadati:
· Relative to the schools, the information from the superintendent shows that the schools are at
capacity; Page 54 there is a statement "the capacity... .new students generated by the proposed
project." The school concern is the deficit and is not going to be corrected for 5 years; I am
not sure if that is accurate.
· Your schedule shows that you would complete the construction sometime in 2008 by phasing
these projects, and I am not certain that the completion of this coincides with the time that the
student registration will go down.
Mr. Mader:
· In the staff report there is a condition about logistics; I wrote a letter to the Planning
Commission which outlined what our contributions are. There is a logistical contribution to
cover the years, we are going to be bringing our first students online in 2-1/2 years and they
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
June 28, 2005
are saying that they will have capacity in 4 to 5 years, so between years 2-1/2 and year 4, that
1-1/2 year gap, there are logistics to cover that. It is 20 students spread over 4 grades, 5
students per grade, and in addition there has been the purging of the students that don't live in
the school district, so what we think we have done with the logistics mitigation is cover any
potential issues between years 2-1/2 and years 4; it is about 1-1/2 year potential issue there for
20 students spread over 4 grades. The other issue is with the phasing; it is being done slowly
over time and the mitigation is provided at the building permit stage so there is ample time to
plan for and make any improvements needed.
Com. Saadati:
· Would you be willing to stretch the schedule if it helps the situation.
· Is there any reason why you did not consider two bedroom homes?
Mr. Mader:
· We may be able to consider that; one of the issues is when you have a project like this, there is
a sequencing of how we go about the building, demolition, grading, streets, infrastructure, etc.
and this seems to be a standard way that we conduct our business and it works well. At this
point we think this framework works for us and we think that we are closing the gap with any
issues with the school.
· In the marketplace a 3 bedroom, or a 3 bedroom with a den or 4 bedroom is what the market in
Cupertino wants. We are building to a direct response to the marketplace; we have an outside
marketing consultant who has done a series of reports analyzing the Cupertino market, that is
how we achieve the mix of 3 and 4 bedroom units. The 2 bedrooms are typically found in
stacked flat condos or some limited amount of townhomes. We build townhomes also and a 2
bedroom townhome does not sell very well.
Com. Saadati:
· Is there any pollution in the vacated industrial buildings.
Mr. Mader:
· There has been a phase 1 environmental report and there has been listed that there is some
asbestos that needs to be abated which is commonplace for this type of building, ceiling tiles,
drywall tape, etc. There is no other contamination or environmental issues.
Com. Saadati:
· Relative to noise, on Page 43 in the report, it indicates that one of the shops creating noise at
70 decibels, the maximum noise level being 65 db during the daytime.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If we find that there is potentially a violation of a noise ordinance we can act on it. They may
be noting that it is at the property line and when you get into the site, it may reduce down
where the unit is going to be located.
· We would talk with the attorney's office to find out who is responsible. Given the Title 24
requirements for these units, there will be double pane glass, the sound transmission reduction
from exterior to interior will be considerable.
· There will be some opportunity to have quiet in the unit and hopefully not too many units
would be affected by that. We will look into that.
· Relative to a letter from a resident regarding speed bumps, given the circuitous nature of the
route, we don't think it is necessary; we have a process for neighborhoods to request them; we
have some on Burn Avenue; but it is something we would look at later.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
June 28, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked what the plans for the materials from the demolished buildings were.
Mr. Mader:
· Typically for the demolition, what we do is we apply for the demolition permit from the city
and a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If there is a recycling
component, the scrap metal will likely go to Zanker Road, and some of the material will get
recycled and some will go as construction debris. The asphalt, steel, concrete and drywall are
separated and go to various places; some of it will be recycled.
· Recycling some materials to be used in the proposed project would slow down the efficiency
and stretch out the time; but it could be done.
· The homes comply with the California Energy Code Title 24. The homes are energy efficient.
· The 20 by 19 foot garages were designed in accordance with the standard garage dimensions
forthe city.
Mr. Ewe:
· In a 20 by 20 foot garage, the cars are generally in the range of 16 to 18 feet; typically you go
into the garages and it mostly storage; in this case we are balancing the needs of the
homeowners with the depth of the garages to accommodate the cars and the sides of the garage
for storage. Some communities have 18 by 18 foot garages for single family homes.
· Said he would prefer not accommodate the extra one foot to make the garages 20 by 20 feet;
and that he felt the 20 by 19 was adequate.
Mr. Mader:
· Clarified that the garages were two car garages and the CC&Rs for the project would require
that the garage is used for parking cars; the onstreet parking is for guest parking.
· Summarized the major concerns of the June 21 meeting with the community:
o Safety of the parks and open space.
o Issue of vagrants on the project.
o Density: is the project denser than Monta Vista? We are comparable at 7 units; Monta
Vista is at 6 units.
o What is going to happen to the existing trail along the railroad tracks. We will enhance
that and bring it into the project, bring it by the open space and we think create a better
linkage.
o Open Space - Is it private or public open space. It is public open space, maintained by the
homeowners association.
o Schools - How many students would be generated; when would they attend the schools.
o Traffic - people asked how many cars would be generated from this; what were the traffic
impacts.
o Affordability - How many BMRs will be created; who would they go to?
Com. Chen:
· Referred to an email for discussion.
· The question about the trail being used during construction and demolition stage; will you be
able to accommodate that and keep the trail open.
· Will the trail be separated from the major traffic area?
Mr. Mader:
· There will always be a trail connection; we will relocate that trail, but there will never be a
point in time when there is no trail; it may stay where it is for a while and we may have to
relocate it during construction temporarily. Astoria and the remainder of the neighborhood
will always have a trail; we may have to put up temporary trail with some temporary fencing
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
June 28, 2005
to accommodate the time we will be working in the area of the existing trail. The new trail
will be open to the public.
· The trail has a park strip for a majority of it, once we get out by the existing office building, in
front of the tot lot, right now it is a monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk, but we did that to try
and preserve the existing trees. An option would be to take that monolithic curb, gutter,
sidewalk and move the sidewalk to the outside edge of those trees to create a separation of that
part. The rest of the sidewalk has a detached sidewalk separated from the curb by a planting
strip. The reason this is monolithic is to preserve the existing trees in back of it.
Com. Chen:
· Are there any other traffic calming measures being considered for the project?
· Another suggestion was to add a signal light or stop sign at Results Way and Imperial Avenue
and also Stevens Creek and Imperial Avenue. Has that been considered in the plan for traffic
safety?
Mr. Mader:
· What we have done in this design and one of the reasons the park isn't centrally located, it is a
one way street around the park, you have to drive slower to maneuver around; we also have a
traffic circle at the entrance with the office space to slow cars down.
· We have taken care to do the site planning things to try to slow down the traffic; we have
pavers, plus there will be onstreet parking which helps slow down the speed of traffic.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to a traffic signal at Imperial and Results Way, it would not meet signal warrants; the
volumes would be so low. It will be one of the entrances but not likely the main one; most
people would come off Bubb Road.
· Imperial and Stevens Creek is too close to the railroad tracks to function as a separate signal
and probably wouldn't be the best thing to do in terms of sequencing signals.
Com. Chen:
· Will walking traffic on Results Way and Imperial be used by the students to walk to school?
Mr. Mader:
· We hope that the trails we are putting in will be utilized for the community, and in particular
with the three schools in such close proximity, we are trying to encourage walkability of the
project.
· We put in the McClellan trail because there was a perceived impediment to coming down to
Bubb and coming around. We worked with the land owner to be able to have the trail come
straight out and leave you directly across from Lincoln elementary school.
· He illustrated where the Astoria residents would enter the trails.
Com. Giefer:
· In the EIR and other documents, crossing guards is discussed and traffic guards at the school.
Who funds those positions.
· What is the peak of the roof height for the development.
· In the project description it states that the optional loft could be added not to exceed 36 feet
high; are there plans to go to 36 feet in height.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the city is funding crossing guards in some locations.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
June 28, 2005
· Funding the crossing guards is not part of the project; we have talked with the school district to
help fund the positions, and the status is unknown.
Mr. Mader:
· Said the roof height is 27, 28, 32 and 34 feet, which includes the 10ft.
Chair Wong:
· I am confused, on Page 3-1, the maximum height of this is 31 feet and if lofts are included, it
would be 36 feet.
· Taylor Woodrow suggested for mitigating factors to have crossing guards. Mr. Piasecki said
that the financing would be up to the city, or condition of approval?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that he would have to bring back a response about the fmancing of the crossing guards.
· The applicant could be asked to fund it as well for a specified period of time.
· The city cannot fund it indefinitely.
Ms.Gil:
· It is 34 feet with the 10ft.
Chair Wong:
· In the current General Plan, walkability is strongly suggested, it would be nice if the school
aged children could walk down the McClellan pathway.
· It is ironic that if Lincoln is impacted, they will be sent to Regnart and the walkability aspects
that you have would not benefit the elementary school children. I do have a concern about
that.
Vice Chair Miller:
· If the park is public space, wouldn't it be more appropriate from a goal congruent standpoint to
have the city maintain it, instead of the homeowners association?
Mr. Piasecki:
· We would prefer from a fiscal standpoint that the homeowners association maintain it with the
CC&Rs on them so they know what that burden will be. Ideally if we had unlimited funds, we
might be willing to take it on.
· We feel it will still primarily serve the project and for that reason they should be responsible
for maintaining it.
Vice Chair Miller:
· There could be a mechanism to transfer the funds to manage the park so the city wasn't
fiscally impacted but still have it the responsibility of the city to manage the park. I think there
is more of a chance the park would stay in a desirable state.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is a good suggestion; because it probably would have no net difference from the
homeowners' standpoint.
Com. Giefer:
· Part of the EIR there is some hazardous waste within 1/8 mile of the proposed development as
well as LUST (leaking underground storage tank) site. If the project is approved and built, is
that disclosed to potential owners of the new homes.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
June 28, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is brought up in the public document and will have to be disclosed.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the audience for attending the meeting and their patience.
· Notification was provided citywide.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Deborah Hill, resident:
· Oppose the project because it is on McClellan Road and Bubb Road which is a very busy
street.
· You are going to build 94 homes between the railroad tracks and the street; it will impact the
schools and students.
· I disagree with the traffic impact; it will be dangerous for bike riders, and walking across the
street will get worse.
· We do not need more homes in Cupertino; instead of having homes, put in a bookstore.
Rich Parker, resident:
· We have seen the city grow and the businesses shrink.
· The underlying decision is do you want to replace irreplaceable business potential with more
homes. Once businesses are replaced with homes, we never have the opportunity to create jobs
for our local people.
· I disagree with the net decrease in traffic at the intersection of Results Way. To try and go
through Results Way and Bubb Road and McClellan during school times, is different than the
business hours. In the morning it is fairly close, but when that was a busy intersection with
Results Way, the traffic tended to come in and go into that complex, now you are looking at 94
families with one to two cars coming out of that complex into that intersection; if that light
goes red on Results Way it messes up traffic worse than normal.
· I would caution your thoughts on that intersection and the traffic going through there.
· I like the project, it is well developed and well done; I think if you are going to do something
like this, it is a good idea. However, I oppose it because I believe we still need the industrial
space potential.
· I do not think it is the city's responsibility to bail out a developer who in 1998 purchased the
property for industrial use and now wants to convert it.
Dave Rodriquez, resident:
· I have heard many comments, but heard more concerns about sizes of garages and bedrooms
vs. green space, tax benefits, or income and revenue it is going to bring the city, and benefits
for the children and community.
· If I look at this drawing, it is creating a community which is lacking everywhere else in the
area. You are taking the area that is a non-income area, buildings that are not creating revenue
for the city and creating revenue by tax income by the housing, allowing open space, and
allowing to have an open community.
· Taylor Woodrow is a wonderful builder, nobody has asked about the qualifications or
mentioned how many communities they have built, how many developments they have
installed, how many family communities.
· In my opinion it is a good project and I have heard some concerning comments from the
Planning Commission in my opinion that I think some of the focus is in the wrong areas.
Areas like this need to be developed, and in ways that benefit both the community, housing,
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
June 28, 2005
business, planning. These are the kind of situations where the Planning Commission and
builders work together to create the best possible project that you can with good architects,
good designers, good plans and come up with a solution for everybody.
· A gas station, a Starbucks, they are not going to help our children, and will not help some of
the benefits you are going to get as a city. The comment was made that it doesn't bring any
revenue or jobs. The project would have at least 30 people employed, and the job would
create jobs and revenue, so it is not just creating office space or warehouse space; you are
creating revenue and creating jobs by construction.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Mr. Griffin feels that the tech park should be maintained.
.. The Measurex buildings are part of the Bubb Road industrial tech park complex which has
been an active industria] tech park in Cupertino for many years.
· I was pleased that many of the buildings along Bubb Road are presently occupied. It is
appears that the Measurex building is an integral part of the complex along Bubb Road; it is a
necessary part of the complex.
· I don't support converting it into residential; it sets a dangerous precedent for the remainder of
the city, particularly since we have been in down economic times. I think we need to look to
the future and hold onto our tech buildings.
· I am also concerned about the high density of the project; the current building heights being
over 28 feet is very worrisome to me; 28 feet is the current residential for Cupertino; we have
a great variation in heights on the roofs that are well over 34 feet. We have some 3 story
elements also. I also did not see much of second story setbacks; it looks like there is a big
privacy issue, you have 4 bedrooms, are they all upstairs, is there one downstairs, are you
going to have people looking into each others bedrooms.
· I am also concerned about the number of trees that are going to be removed. This is a site of
mature landscape and it is important that we retain as much vegetation as possible.
· I don't think the city should approve the conversion.
Chair Wong:
· Noted that it was a planned residential development and does not follow Rl rules, and is a
cluster home development.
Radha Nagarajan, CreekIine Drive:
· 94 homes and 71 students; there is something wrong with the math; I am assuming people
have 2 children; and you said there are seniors moving in, but if you look at the profile of new
families moving into Cupertino, that is not the profile.
· 94 homes, 188 cars if you are lucky; some homes have more.
· I don't think these things were considered, these are specific numbers to address.
· The city at the opening presentation said they approved the plans. I am disappointed because
almost all the questions subsequent to that, the city did not have answers. It is disturbing that
they have not come prepared with answers or have looked into the details of the revenue plan.
The answers were no to the question if somebody checked the numbers or looked at the
revenue impact plan. The only letter on file is a letter from the Fremont Union High School
District in opposition to the development which was disregarded.
· I appreciate that the developer is contributing to the local schools, but without knowing how
many students, I am not sure I can comment on the $1.3 million, except that it is the price of
one home and in 94 homes is 1 % of the development cost, which I as a builder would bear.
Grace Morioka, homeowners' association manager:
· Managed the Seven Springs development when it was built and have experience with high
density cluster homes in the Cupertino area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
June 28, 2005
· I speak only as an individual and not a representative of Astoria, Astoria is a beautiful
complex; the homes are beautifully made and the product is excellent.
· My concern is about the traffic.
· I like the fact that Corns. Miller and Wong suggested possibly closing off Imperial Avenue; I
am in agreement that this development should be a part of the community. Could Imperial
possibly be turned into a pedestrian walkway as opposed to a vehicular access way. This
would also help preserve the streets which the association members of this new association
would be paying for as well as the insurance. Both would be severely impacted if the public
was using their streets. In addition, the park area would be very difficult for the association to
maintain. I could see a maintenance easement of some kind or agreement between the city and
the association being the best way to resolve that.
· I do like what Taylor Woodrow has done; it is a gorgeous property that resembles a property in
Florida has become a showcase for all realtors and developers in the US.
Rattehalli Sudesh, CreekIand Drive:
· Expressed concern about the number of students entering the schools and the traffic impact as
previously mentioned.
· Weare 'talking about over 200 cars and over 200 students joining the schools, which is my
estimate because I moved into a new residential development in the area, where every house
has at least 2 cars and at least 2 children.
· When we moved into the area, one of my children in elementary school was being bussed out
because there was no place in the local elementary schools. I cannot imagine how the schools
are going to cope with the impact of 200 children and I think that all of these homes will be
occupied by families looking for good schools.
· An area of this size would be much better utilized in developing local businesses so that it
could provide walking or biking opportunities for people to work in these places.
Ted Wolber, Scotland Drive:
· Expressed concern about the number of students entering the schools; we have the finest
schools in the country, and the high school superintendent today indicated they would not be
building more high schools.
· The three and four bedroom homes are going to be occupied by families with children.
· The area is in high demand for parents who want their children to do well and move onto
higher education.
· It is not possible that there are only going to be 20 new students going to Monta Vista and
Monta Vista cannot accommodate any more now.
Jan Kucera, Oakview Lane:
· Experienced the traffic congestion frustration when dropping my son off at Kennedy every
day.
· Imperial backs up because of the new Astoria development and Bubb Road backs up
tremendously.
· People have talked about Kennedy; my son went to Stevens Creek elementary; he had to be on
a waiting list to get to Kennedy even though we were residents. We have just completed the
application process for Monta Vista which is very crowded and I was asked to present property
tax bills, registrations, no more PG&E or AT&T bills, and the school district threw out about
200 to 300 students who were not entitled to attend the schools because of boundaries. Monta
Vista without those students is still impacted
· There are no more soccer, baseball or football fields in Cupertino; it is totally impacted and
new teams cannot find a field to play on in Cupertino.
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
June 28, 2005
· This is a wonderful development for somewhere else like Paterson, Turlock or Modesto; it is
not the right thing for Cupertino.
Willie Liu, resident:
· This proposal is not helping the community; but is damaging the community.
· There are many students walking to and from school, and the traffic issues are most important
issue there. The layout is a very bad layout because if you look at it very simple, the
driveway, and then you have 16 cars in the morning coming out and within narrow driveways,
it is congestion; it is a serious problem there.
· If this is going to happen, city hall will get a lot of complaints what is going on in the morning.
My car cannot move; if you are looking at Bubb Road, the north part of Bubb Road, the south
part of Bubb Road, the same house the price can be different 15%, why, if you ask the people
there, the answer is simple because I don't like the south part of Bubb Road because it is too
crowded. The north part is very quiet. If the proposal goes through, it will not improve the
situation; it is getting worse.
John Marshall, resident:
· The schools are overcrowded; it is a fallacy that 94 homes will only have 30 children.
· Twenty years ago in the school districts, there wasn't enough forward thinking at that time by
the planning body and they closed numerous schools and built houses; they at least left some
parks. We have no more schools.
· The same applies to the industrial/commercial buildings we have; if we lose them, they are
gone forever.
· We heard when Rancho Rinconada and Monta Vista areas were going to be annexed, that
residential property won't provide income.
· Relative to the Supreme Court ruling on the eminent domain, perhaps they should consider
putting a school where they are thinking about putting this property.
· Developers seem to be the beneficiary here; the city won't benefit from non-producing homes.
· Students may be moved from one school to another, circumventing why they purchased their
home in the first place.
Glen Lynch, owner of Cupertino Supply:
· Not here to object to the project, but want to address the traffic issues on Imperial Avenue.
· Much of the traffic attention has been focused on the tri school area and it seems to me that the
numbers put out that there are going to be fewer trips total may be true if that office complex
was occupied. Right now there is no communication with Imperial Avenue; even one
additional trip on Imperial Avenue will be a negative impact.
· I think we will see at least 100 more cars during commute hours coming and going down
Imperial.
· I would like to offer three possible solutions:
o Close off Imperial A venue where it connects to Results Way.
o Separate Results Way in the middle of the community similar to how Imperial Avenue
is separated now.
o The biggest problem on Imperial Avenue getting out to Stevens Creek is making that
right turn. When you go out Imperial, you can only turn right onto Stevens Creek and
Stevens Creek eastbound traffic is in a single lane and at Imperial it separates into two
lanes.
Maureen Schneider, Jeannette Court:
· Opposes the application.
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
June 28, 2005
· Expressed concern about schools and traffic; I agree that .75 children per house is not
reasonable; we moved into our house 20 years ago and that was a new development.
· In comparing developments, there will be more younger children in a new development.
· I am concerned that if it turns out that there are 188 children instead of 71, that my children
will get zoned out of our schools; my kids can walk to school and I like that. I don't want to
send my kids to Collins because suddenly there are more kids going to Kennedy that expected.
· The BubbIMcClellan Road is a 20-25 minute backup times the 3 different times the people
drop off, because the Kennedy drop off is different than the Lincoln drop off, which is
different than the Monta Vista drop off. It is really 1-1/2 hours from where I live when I take
my child to Monta Vista; it takes 10 minutes to turn left onto McClellan because of the backup
at the light.
Becky Smith, Burn Avenue:
· Opposes application.
· Expressed concern about the children in schools and traffic.
· Was surprised at the numbers used relative to the students in the schools. In the past,
calculations were based on 1.8 children per household. Asked what the mix was for the recent
development on Imperial Avenue.
· All the comments about traffic are true; my children walk to school.
Terry McCaffrey, La Paloma Drive:
· Opposes the application.
· When the Measurex facility was fully occupied, it did not appear to be a major problem; I used
the road every day.
· The school system is a problem; we don't need more houses in Cupertino; we don't need to
clutter up the schools with more students; we should try to maintain it as a technical park or
else some other industrial or shopping center.
Xzaudong Zhau, Cupertino resident:
· Opposes the application.
· Does this match the community? As far as I know the houses here are RI zone, do not recall if
there were any cluster homes in this neighborhood.
· Compared the difference between the RI home and the cluster home, relative to lots sizes,
second story restrictions, height, and FAR.
· It would be nice if Taylor Woodrow donated some open land to the city.
· We keep hearing how much revenue can go to the city; the housing price is no guarantee.
· I would like to see more versatility; why can't we build a bookstore, a museum or a music
house.
· Based on what I said, I am against this plan, unless I see further revisions.
· I want to know how many residents favor it and how many are opposed to it.
Judy Schroeder, Wilkinson Avenue:
· Opposes the application.
· At the schools they talk about numbers; the school was built for 800; Monta Vista built now
has over 2400 students' what were they built for?
· I am concerned about traffic, it takes 10 minutes to get from Columbus to McClellan in the
morning, which is only 2 blocks.
· People are using the back streets and creating more backup at the intersections.
· I suggest that if you chose to proceed with the project, if you would look into perhaps the
difference between the owner-occupied and rental properties; is there a way we could
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
June 28, 2005
encourage people to not use these as income and renting them out to families for people who
chose to come for the schools; and use it as an owner-occupied house.
Rhoda Fry, resident:
· Opposes the application.
· If you want to conform to the neighborhood, you need to conform to the rules; 28 feet, 20 x 20
garage. I need a pickup truck for work, so I guess I would not be allowed in there.
· 7 units is not approximately equivalent to 6 units; it is about 16% more and that is a lot.
· I am confused about the history of the site. As I understand it, Measurex was allowed to
overbuild on the condition that they leave the other half empty. This was when the buildings
were built decades ago.
· How did Astoria happen? Seems that the other side should be left blank. Could this be the
Symantic fiasco all over again?
· Schools and traffic - I cannot see how you can get emergency vehicles through there. Did the
traffic consultant consider the addition of Blackberry Farm change of use to 800 capacity year
round. In good faith the school district sold off school properties with the city set expectation
that the population was not going to grow.
· It is against the premise in which the city was incorporated to control growth.
· Read the plaques on the crossroad parks, 70 students in 94 four bedroom units, that is
walking distance to school; I don't buy it.
· Providing affordable housing, a recent NAHB Wells Fargo study shows that the
community such as Santa Cruz, Salinas are by far less affordable than here.
· Let's look at the jobslhousing imbalance reporting by ABAG; I would like to see them
sharpening their pencils; housing starts are increasing at alarming rates whereas local jobs
are decreasing. Look at Hewlett Packard, empty Measurex buildings, this project could
trigger a housing bubble that everybody is talking about. Most importantly the creeping
gentrification of the Imperial neighborhood will threaten small businesses which are the
fabric of our community. Small businesses aid in economic recoveries; we need diversity
in order to survive as in the animal kingdom. It will cause the extinction of businesses,
many of which have already been displaced; they have nowhere else to go.
· By approving this project, you are saying that we don't want your businesses; that fix your
cars, remodel your homes, feed your families and clothe your children; this project could
turn Cupertino into a ghost town.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong:
· Asked the city attorney to address the school issues.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· It is normal that we would be concerned about the schools; all of the cities are concerned with
the impact on schools and overcrowding. This is a problem. However, that is an area that has
been preempted by the state. They are very clear in the state law that local governments don't
make decisions regarding development based on school impact. Traffic, yes; the conversion
yes; I would like you to limit your discussion to the issue that are in your purview. While we
are all concerned about the impact on schools of overcrowding, that is not our purview here.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to address concerns relating to traffic, not having it become an income property
and owner-occupied.
Cupertino Planning Commission
34
June 28, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to the issue of not allowing it to become income property, I think just the market
forces at $1.2 million, you are not likely to rent that out to somebody, and somebody is not
likely to spend whatever it might be, $6,000 or $7,000 a month to pay the return on that.
· I don't think there is much chance of that; also we are a free country, we don't regulate
whether somebody has the ability or right to rent out their homes any more than anybody has
that right. I don't think there is much to fear there and there is nothing we can do to control
that. I don't think that is a major issue.
Com. Giefer:
· Don't we have a policy in townhouse and condo developments where there are CC&Rs that no
more than 20% can be rental properties as opposed to owner occupied.
Mr. Piasecki:
· I am not aware of such a policy; perhaps a private homeowners association would try to set
that up.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Clarified that the developer will set up the CC&Rs to begin with and the homeowners
association takes over; the developer can put it into the CC&Rs or the homeowners could redo
them at a later time. It is easier if the developer does it. If the homeowners do it, then you
have to get agreement between 94 homeowners.
Chair Wong:
· Asked the traffic engineer to address the suggestion of closing off Imperial and Results Way;
what the impacts are and mitigation would be also?
Sohrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers:
· One issue is trip generation for the site. I think members of the public correctly pointed out
that the way the traffic study was done was that we looked at existing conditions to add traffic
from approved developments in the area of which the occupation of this site was included; and
then look at the trip generation of the new project removing the industrial, and that is where
that negative trip generation comes from. Just for clarification, I don't think anybody is
indicating that by adding the homes, the traffic you see out there today is going down, but it is
really what has been approved in the area.
· A note about trip generation and the number of vehicles that would be generated by the
residential project; I know it is sometimes hard for people to conceptualize, but national and
local studies have indicated that the trip generation for single family homes during the peak
one hour time frame, is one trip per unit. That doesn't mean that the unit doesn't generate
multiple trips in the morning, in the evening or during the day; but during that peak one hour
that is what happens.
· There is no question when we did our observations as part of the traffic study, there was
definite congestion during the morning and afternoon peak times that is generated by the
schools; traffic is very heavy for a concentrated period about 20-25 minutes; we were glad to
see based on the bell schedule that things were separated as much as they are. I wouldn't want
to imagine conditions if the bell schedules were any closer.
· School traffic is always an issue; we have served as the city traffic engineer for the city of
Saratoga, the most successful changes in traffic were coordination between the city and the
school district; the school district is their own entity and they do control a lot of different
aspects of their circulation and we have worked successfully with the city and the school
district, and parent behavior.
Cupertino Planning Commission
35
June 28, 2005
· Weare talking about a lot of the traffic generation by parents driving to school, in some cases
when they don't have to. Carpooling, volunteers on site to help expedite the flow of traffic;
those are issues Steve mentioned that the project sponsor is going to be looking into in terms
of improving traffic circulation.
· The question of Imperial and the connection between Imperial, you will hear the term a lot
"neo traditional planning". The ideal transpiration system from a roadway standpoint is a grid
system; what that does in terms of distributing the traffic, that is exactly what you want so that
you don't overload given facilities. The example is what I would give here by giving the two
opportunities to travel to both Bubb and to Imperial better distributes the traffic, would allow
some people one more opportunity to another access point instead of potentially using both
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb and Stelling. We would recommend maintaining both
entrances; there is no question from a traffic impact standpoint that you could make it work as
a pedestrian only access but again from a connectivity standpoint, from a traffic distribution
standpoint, we strongly recommend you maintain the Imperial access.
· Relative to the onsite circulation and the way the site is designed, this is the poster child for
how to set up a development where you have narrow streets, you have curves in the road, no
long straight stretch where somebody is going to get to higher speeds, the narrow width of the
street, presence of parking provides friction, keeps speeds down, and again the roundabout
entrance as you come in, the character of the roadway should tell the driver what kind of area
they are entering, and this plan does that.
Vice Chair Miller:
· One of the speakers pointed out that Stevens Creek and Imperial is a major problem from a
traffic standpoint and the intersection was not mentioned in here.
· The signal light at Bubb and Stevens Creek backs the traffic up all the way past the post office.
It is virtuously impossible to come out to Stevens Creek from Imperial.
Mr. Rashid:
· The issue we heard today and what we observed, it is restricted to right turns out of Imperial.
The traffic study estimated that it wasn't explicit, but the study estimated there would be about
the addition of heavy movement as you can imagine from residential project would be 26 to 30
vehicles in the morning peak hour. That translates to about a car every two minutes; from a
traffic signal standpoint, you are not going to see the warrant met, because all the traffic is
turning right. The installation of a signal there would change the character of that; it would
not be a mitigation for this project; if somebody wanted to look at that we could look at it as a
separate issue.
· The issue with a traffic signal at that intersection is not going to solve that particular problem;
it is illegal to block the intersection, so there will be some opportunities to exit there. With a
residential project, the primary movement in the evening when it is bad, is inbound as opposed
to outbound. It will add less traffic at that time than industrial use if it had access, which it
currently doesn't.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The biggest issue although we are not permitted to talk about it is the student ratio issues. We
are talking about more than 70 students because the 70 students are just school aged students.
What is assumed for the number of children per household in this development?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The school house study did not get into that. What they did study was they counted real
projects including Astoria, Seven Springs, and they came up with generation numbers of
school aged children; some are going to graduate and some are going to enter the system and
that is where they focus their attention.
Cupertino Planning Commission
36
June 28, 2005
· I looked at the 2000 census to see how we compare overall as a city; we have under 20,000
households, with about 13,000 children under 18 years of age, resulting in .61 per unit. Unless
we doubt the census, those numbers and projections for school aged children are even higher
than the census numbers.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Assuming that the numbers 71 are incorrect and potentially it is 140; what is the mechanism
for compensating the school district to make sure they have the funds to do capital
improvements necessary to accommodate those additional students.
Mr. Piasecki:
· I can't imagine it would be anywhere near that number; because we can't talk about it, I don't
know whether there is a specific solution other than the fact that the operating revenues to the
high school district are considerably higher than the projections of their .. these consultants are
their own consultants ... Schoolhouse Services provides contract consulting services to the
high school district and they track this day in and day out; I don't think they are accepting the
numbers themselves; there is a reasonable buffer in the numbers themselves; plus this
applicant is going above and beyond and offering voluntarily to compensate the district with
considerable funds that they don't have to and we can't require. They are willing to do that
because they want to make this a positive project for the community.
· You could impose a condition that if you have a proj ect and you are hoping to encourage
walking, you could impose a condition stating the applicant will investigate and the applicant
will agree to fund crossing guards for some stated period of time. That is not an unreasonable
condition.
Chair Wong:
· The traffic consultant did talk to us; but the community is saying there is concern about traffic
and we didn't get good answers on how to mitigate it, especially on Imperial and Stevens
Creek, forcing the traffic onto Burn and Orange.
· Are there any other ways of mitigating the traffic?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The general conclusion is the idea that more access is better than less. We have to a fault
directed people into a very few streets; consequently we have these major problems when a
development like this comes along we want to shut everybody off again, and I don't think that
is the right thing to do.
· The other observation is with the residential development that if the evening peak is the
problem, then the people are coming home and they probably come home Bubb Road because
they don't want to get into any congested areas; I think the conclusion in terms of that
problem, this is probably minimal in terms of the impacts.
· In terms of the schools, it is a different issue. What has been suggested in the conditions of
approval is that this applicant fund an analysis to determine what we might do on McClellan
Road to help get the students into and out of the schools in a more efficient manner and pay for
those improvements. I don't know what the conclusions of that might be and we talked about
adding yellow zones where you can drop people off; temporary parking where you can drop
students off; I think there is some promise to that but I couldn't guarantee that would work. I
think we ought to enhance the crosswalks; if you want to add onto that it will help fund some
crossing guards, that is not unreasonable. Those are the only practical things we can come up;
I think it is a mistake, I see this with a lot of other schools as well to draw every single parent,
with every single child in their car onto the campus into this elephant train and slow everybody
down and have the congestion and ask why it is happening. We need to use our streets to
allow for the drop offs to occur, where we have the capacity and the room. It is not going to
Cupertino Planning Commission
37
June 28, 2005
solve the problem; letting your child walk to school if you are close enough is going to be a
much better alternative in this project.
Com. Giefer:
· The project is a well developed project; visually it has a nice neighborhood feel and provides
adequate green space for the residents and also for the residents of Monta Vista.
· Fundamentally I have an issue with conversion of commercial to residential and I cannot
support the project because of that. I would rather not lose the long term potential for the city
to redevelop that site for business purposes. At this point it is still unclear to me what the long
term implications are financially for the city. I have taken time to review the financial
information provided by the developer and I think it is incomplete; it is not a long term
projection. We as a city don't have a framework for evaluating that, and I think this project is
in advance of that homework we need to do.
· In terms of the development itself, I think it is a nice development.
Com. Saadati:
· Traffic is a concern, but I am not convinced based on the study and the statements made that
this project will have significant impact on what is already the a big problem related to traffic.
· Unless people carpool or use public transportation and parents encourage their children to
walk to school, the traffic is not going to change; that is what is causing the problem.
Hopefully we can work with the school to try to mitigate some of these issues.
· The project overall is nicely done; in general it is housing in Cupertino; the BMR units are
good and will enable some teachers, firemen, etc. to live there and that is a plus.
· I hope we can put more study into the traffic issues and try to mitigate it as much as possible.
This will not add significant amount to the existing problems.
· Two OptiOBS are One option is to continue it until we get more data; edteI' another option I
am willing to support if there is a condition that more emphasis on the traffic aspect be
included.
Com. Chen:
· I support the project. It is a well design project that will put currently under-utilized land to
good use.
· The traffic issue is well addressed by putting the responsibility on the developer to fund a
traffic study and improvements to address the traffic issues.
· I would suggest adding another condition to make sure that the trail will remain open during
the construction and demolition; I see the language in there to give the trail the open access to
the public.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I agree that it is a well designed project; parkland is being provided in the area that will be
used; adding some trails; it is a walkable project; they are enhancing the percolation ponds;
and all agree that it is a well designed community.
· Traffic is a major issue regardless of whether it is used -as an industrial park or a housing
development; the traffic in the area has gone up significantly since those buildings were fIrst
put up, and I would like to see more work done on the traffic and what mitigations would be
put in place both in terms of the traffic for folks going to and from work as well as the traffic
to the schools.
· It seems like a major benefit that the schools are in walking distance to the project; one would
think that there would not be a lot of additional traffic at Lincoln and possibly at Kennedy; the
high school students can walk that distance. There is concern about that and we have talked
about possible mitigations here. I would like to see them worked on a little more.
Cupertino Planning Commission
38
June 28, 2005
· The other thing I have suggested in the past and see if the developer is willing to do this and
that is, if this was a 50 age restricted 55 community or even a mixed community, where there
was some age restriction and it reduced the number of young families moving in, and we had a
different mix, I think that the residents might be more accepting.
· The other concern I have is what might happen to the other part of the property and I am not
sure I want to be going through this again in a few years when another housing development
comes up. I think we need to have some discussions with the property owner about what
might happen there if redevelopment was done, so that we are planning for it now and not
doing this in a piecemeal fashion.
· I am not opposed to converting the industrial to residential if it is done properly; a number of
people have addressed that issue that we need to protect our tech parks; we actually have lots
of tech space in comparison to the amount of housing we have; that is a current problem we
are dealing with, and if you add more tech space, you have to add more housing. When you
generate a job, you generate a requirement for a house, and if you are not willing to put it in
our community, then you are saying that we are going to let our neighbors deal with it and they
are not going to be happy either. A responsible community doesn't do that and that is what we
have been trying to do, balance jobs and housing.
· In the right circumstances and we have some fairly stringent guidelines, we said we would
allow tech conversion, we would allow conversion from industrial to residential, but I think
that I would like to see the applicant do a little more outreach to the neighbors and consider
some other mitigating factors to reach some kind of consensus here; I understand there was
one meeting with the neighbors, and perhaps after this meeting, if there is agreement to do
that, they might schedule another meeting and some further work and discussions between the
neighbors and the applicant.
· I would like to approve this project; however, I don't think we are there yet.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked Mr. Chamorro for coming to the meeting; he is the property owner and has the right
to develop his property, but has to go through the process of the public hearing.
· Thanked Mr. Mader from Taylor Woodrow Homes for coming with a very nice project; I think
it is a well designed project that we all agree.
· I would like to see the garages 20 by 20.
· Relative to height, we just had a discussion that we would like to see the Monta Vista
neighborhood tap out at 30 feet in height and I want that at the eaves, 30 feet height; I am leery
about lofts and do not support the lofts.
· I would like to see a mixture of 3 and 4 bedroom units; I won't require you to come down to 2
bedrooms, but will allow the flexibility to.come down to 3; 50/50.
· Relative to the trails, why do we have trails going through the neighborhood; wouldn't it be
better than one day when the railroad is out of business, to develop that into a park; there was
suggestion of having a trail next to the railroad. By having the trails go through the
neighborhood, a lot of the owners who will buy into that, I can respect where you are coming
from, but I prefer to see the trail remain where it is, I do support having the trail in certain
areas shown, but I don't support it going through the neighborhood.
· Regarding the public park, instead of having it as a common area, I prefer that to be deeded to
the city. I know that you are concerned with the cost, but if this is a public park given to the
city, I think that if you were a homeowner here, you would be paying for someone else to use
it, and I don't feel comfortable with that.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Vice Chair Miller's suggestion was a good one; build it into the homeowner fees that they
would have to pay the city to maintain that park and dedicate it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
39
June 28, 2005
Chair Wong:
· No three story elements; maiøly only two stories. The applicant does have the right if we
allow conversion, that you have 94 units; it is allowed in the General Plan.
· Regarding Results Way, the exit onto Imperial Avenue, I believe there is legitimate concern
and I will not support the exit going oui onto Imperial and Results Way.
· Is this the right area to build cluster homes? It would make more sense if this type of
development was built on the vacant property on Stevens Creek and Tantau.
· Since this is abutting close to Rl neighborhood and is already zoned for light industrial, I don't
feel comfortable converting it. I am open to conversion but not this particular project; it
doesn't make sense, and my main concern is traffic along Results Way on McClellan which
we heard much input from the residents.
· Although I do not support the project, I want to provide feedback to Taylor Woodrow.
· Thanked the residents for attending and their patience with the project.
Mr. Piasecki:
· In response to a question from Com. Cieñer Giefer why they did not require a bond for tree
protection during construction, he said that they could do so.
Com. Giefer:
· As Chair Wong is reviewing different conditions and considerations, it was brought up and
made clear that if we did want to limit the project to owner occupancy as opposed to rental
property that the developer should actually include that in the CC&Rs.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said they could not require that they not allow rental of any of the units.
Mr. Mader:
· It is important for us to get the feedback and understand the issues in greater detail. What I
ask if you could afford us the opportunity to study these issues outlined, we will research
them, and next month come back with our consultant team and let you know what we found.
Hopefully then we will provide you with additional information that would be helpful to you.
· Agreed to have one more community meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to continue Application
U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 to the July
26, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Chair Wong reported the meeting focused on
the capital improvement program.
HOUSING COMMISSION: No meeting since last report.
MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS: No meeting.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Meeting was cancelled.