PC 06-23-05
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
C1TY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:00 P.M. June 23, 2005 THURSDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The special Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Gi1beR Wong
Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller
Commissioner: Angela Chen
Commissioner: Taghi Saadati
Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Staff present: Community Development Director. Steve Piasecki
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
City Planner: Ciddy Wordell
Assistant City Attomey: Eileen Murray
WRITTEN COMMiJNICATIONS: Chair Wong noted receipt of an e-mail from Mr. Mike
Bullock relative to the General Plan.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. GPA-2004-O1 General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan.
EA-2004-17 Subject: Preliminary recommendaNous
CiTy of Cupertino Tentative City Council date: July 19, 2005
Citywide IocaHon
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
• Presented a brief update on the progression of the special General Plan meetings. Tuesday,
June 28`" will be the last night the Planning Commission will be discussing their recommended
changes as well as certifica[ion of the draft environmentai impact repoR. The City Council
will consider the recommendations at their July 19`~ meeting.
• Suggested that the references to changes not approved be removed from the final document
because not approved items need not go to the next meeting. Also take out any references to
which commissioner recommended it as it is not relevant.
PAGE 1:
• Wording is changed from "encourage" to "consider"
• Removing "mixed use" in No. 2
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 23, 2005
PAGE 2:
• Vice Chair Miller wanted more discussion on Policy 5; not certain what we are saying.
Ms. Wordell:
• Discussion was that Chair Wong was the most interested in promoting the idea that if you get
new multi-family apartment developments, it is not just the density or the number o£ units, but
the FAR of the projects that you need to look at. They also need to fit in with the
neighborhood; which is what it is trying to convey.
Vice Chair MiRer:
• It is very general and there aze no specifics; is it intended to leave it that way as general
guidelines?
Ms. WordelL•
• I don't think you would want to propose a specific FAR; in that sense it is general.
Vice Chair Miller:
• No. 6: Last sentence, I suggest that we change the word "may" to "will"
Chair Wong:
• I support that.
Com. Chen:
• I suppott to ensure that the FAR is compatible with the surrounding buildings, but what FAR
are we referring to; is it general?
Ms. Wordell:
• FAR is the total squaze footage of the building ratio. As to lot size, it wouldn't matter; it would
be for whatever the lot size is that the total square footage of the building is not incompatible
with the rest of the neighborhood.
• It is a good thing to have; because if you just have density or number of units, if you had large
units, then you would have a very high FAR' it is good to include the element of the FAR as
something to look at.
Com. Chen:
• I would like to encourage the smaller units; when the square footage is too small in comparing
with the neighborhood units, would that be a problem; I wouldn't want any large units in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Wordell:
• Do you want to convey here that it would be overly large that you aze concemed about, that
they are not overly lazge, do you want to convey that somehow?
Com. Chen:
• Correct; any suggestions?
Chair Wong:
• That was my intent; a lot of the multi-family units were getting too large. Our Rl ratio, we
have a 45% FAR and for second story we also put an FAR as well. I asked staff to bring back
language on multi-family residential and how we can get smaller units, but I didn't have the
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 23, 2005
language. Staff made an attempt at it by using the word "compatibility" but I think what Vice
Chair Miller said was too vague.
Ms. WordelL•
• You want to convey that they shouldn't be too large and they should have a mix of units; are
those the two concepts you would like to get in there.
Chair Wong:
• Mix of units sounds appropriate because that will ensure that we have ones, twos, threes and
fours bedroom counts.
Ms. WordelL•
• It is not specific, but is general; it would be any squaze footage of any size of lot should be
compatible with the surrounding azea, and you might want to use the word "excessive" to
ensure that FARs aze not excessive in compazison to the surrounding azea and that there aze a
mix of unit types, particulazly one and two bedroom units.
• If you want to come back with an ordinance, that should be a strategy; I think the caveat about
having a strategy is that we do have an R3 ordinance that doesn't have a FAR but a lot of the
apartments are not R3 zoned. In a planned development you could use it as a guideline but
you wouldn't have to impose the FAR of an R3 apartment on a planned development; but you
could still say that the strategy would be to consider an ordinance to address FARs.
• You could do a strategy on a planned development.
Com. Chen:
• I suggest that we say "ensure the FARs of multi-family residential developments aze
compatible with similar buildings in the surrounding uea to encourage a mix of units and not
excessively large units."
• I support Chair Wong's intent.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I think it is a good idea to talk about not excessively Large units; however, I want to be cazeful
about the mix of units because we don't want to force people into doing one bedrooms if there
is no mazket for them; you can have small two bedrooms that provide more utility or more
functionality.
• If we stay with keeping the sizes down, I think it is better than restricting the market in terms
of the types of units.
Com. SsadaH, Chair Wong concurred.
Com. Saadati:
• I don't think it forces people to build one bedroom, but it would be a smaller unit in square
footage.
Chair Wong:
• I wanted to add a strategy of what Ms. Wordell said, that an ordinance regazding planned
development is also good.
Ms. Wordell:
• You might want to say planned development and R3.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 23, 2005
Chair Wong:
• It got approval from Com. Chen, Vice Chair Miller and Com. Saadati.
TRANSITIONAL BOX NO. 6:
Chair Wong:
• Asked Com Chen if she approved of the wording Vice Chair Miller and Chair Wong said that
"will be considered".
• The reason why I support this is because there aze a lot of neighborhoods that aze in transition
and that gives the flexibility for those particular neighborhoods.
Com. Chen and Com. Seadati:
• Said they suppoRed that.
PAGE 2:
Chair Wong:
• I have some concerns which Com. Chen covered as well as Vice Chair Miller. On Box No. 7, I
talked eazlier with Ms. Wordell and wanted to get clarification that when we talk about
neighborhoods from Monta Vista, Oak Valley and Fairgrove, the other areas will be applied to
justthose neighborhoods.
Ms. WordelL•
• It is not just those neighborhoods; it is all the neighborhoods; it is not the commercial areas,
the employment azeas, but it is the neighborhood areas, on the land use map all the
neighborhood streets we only have these three special planning centers that are called
neighborhood special azeas and the rest aze just general neighborhoods. It is the general
neighborhoods or the other azeas.
Chair Wong:
• I also asked for clarity, the Bubb Road and the employment center is not included in the Monta
Vista; it is sepazate.
Ms. Wordell:
• Bubb Road is not in Monta Vista; it is in its own area.
Chair Wong:
• There was a good project on the Bubb Road employment center, there is fle~cibility in this plan
that from the other azeas, they can be pulled into the Bubb Road.
• ff there aze other areas in the employment center, or commercial centers or neighborhood
centers, they only stay within those centers, they ue not interchangeable.
Ms. Wordell:
• The General Plan policy says this table is flexible, so it could be pulled from area to area; it
could move azound from employment to commercial.
Chair Wong:
• My concem is, as an example, Vallco Pazk South in a commercial center that the 311 for 2005
built, how you got those numbers 204 from the Vallco Pazk Rosebowl and 107 from Menlo
Equities; then an additional potential of 300 for a total buildout in 2020 of 611. There is a
potential application in the Hewlett Packazd property of 400 and another potential at Vallco
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 23, 2005
Fashion Park fazmers market of another 100. Then there are other projects as well in the city
that this 1,903 can be depleted very easily within 2 or 3 yeazs; [hey would have to wme back
for a General Plan amendment and we wodt review this table until 10 years from now.
• How realistic is this table?
Ms. Wordell:
• Some of the azeas might start getting tapped right away, and some won't. The wording on
Page 2-17: Flexible allocations is very flexible and if you aze thinking that some areas are
going to get depleted in a fairly short period of time, they have the ability to draw on other
azeas and when we talked about that before, it is just that you will be awaze that you are taking
it from another area, which means that that area would riot have the potential that it would
have otherwise and we would have to evaluate the impacts from that transfer.
Chair Wong:
• I thought the reasons why we were putting limits on additional potential buildout in certain
special azeas like Vallco Park South or City Center, is we wanted to control how much is being
built out in the next 20 yeazs.,
Ms. Wordell:
• That is true and I think that if you go beyond those categories then you will be very awaze that
you have exceeded what your expectations were for that azea, but if there were some
compelling reason to go to another area and draw from it, then you would have that
opporhmity.
• It would be a use permit.
Chair Wong:
• It is noted that we took it out of the commercial center's other areas, for example Vallco Pazk
South, and then when we exceed the 300 and it was taken out of employment centers, other
azeas or neighborhood other areas, staff will then come up with a finding why it was taken out.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Part of the reason is that currently you don't have this flexibility; we are one of the very few
cities that defines our areas so specifically and limits ourselves so much in tlus regard. You
won't find this in San Jose or in Santa Clua to this level; we aze trying to give you more
flexibility and think it is a prudent thing to do. We have run into a lot of problems in the past
with being so detailed.
Com. Chen:
• We talk about language to encourage a master plan and I think that can be a language to allow
it to be used as the guideline to allow building more units.
• Where can we add the language to encourage a master plan for Vallco area?
There was a consensus that there was a majority.
Com. Chen:
• Clarified that it would be in that language; around Page 2-17.
Chair Wong:
• For the record, I am not enthusiastic about the flexibility on the aliocation; and would like to
bring it to my colleagues' attention.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 .rune 23, 2005
PAGE 4:
Vice Chair Miller:
• No. 8, delete the strategy if the intent is not to allow FARs to be exceeded; FARs for non-
residential uses may be exceeded through the development review process.
Ms. Wordell:
• We will need to delete that strategy because we don't have FARs.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I would like to make a distinction between FARs for commercial and FARs for office.
Ms. WordelL•
• This is non- residential.
Vice Chair Miller:
• There is still a difference to be made between what we allow for office and what we allow for
retail.
Ms. Wordell:
• We dodt have any FAR for either now.
• There is FAR for office in the General Plan, but not in your changes; the changes that you
approved removed the FAR for office and industrial.
Vice Chair MiRer:
• I think the idea here, based on the feedback that we got from the landowners and developers
was to be flexible, so if we take it out, that is flexible as we can get, I assume.
Chair Wong and Com. Chen:
• No comments on Page 4.
PAGE 5:
Com. Saadati, Vice Chair Miller:
• No comments
Chair Wong:
• No. 11 - Suggested deletion of the word "small" from "electronics store"
Vice Chair Miller, Com. Chen:
• Agreed to change.
Com. Saadati:
• I think reason we talked about that was to encourage the smaller stores so we don't get a lot of
bigger shops enforcing the smaller stores to move out. That was the reason the word "small"
was included.
PAGE 6:
Com. Saadati:
• No comment.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 23, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
. Nos. 13 and 14: under "development intensity shall be determined in conjunction with specific
development review" - that is appropriate.
• However, "higher FARs may be allowed for well designed mixed use developments" - I
thought that was the old wording we were taking out; this emphasizes residential and I thought
we were trying to emphasize commercial.
Ms. WordelL•
• We removed the reference to the FAR and the wording after the strikethcough related to FAR
beginning with "development intensity is just a.... specific development review" - this text is
that you could have higher FARs if the development is well designed and mixed use.
Vice Chair Miller:
• We aze talking about FAR for commercial; and what you aze saying is you aze conditioning
higher FARs for commercial on a well designed mixed use; implying that you aze adding some
residential.
• The discussion we have had is the market right now wants residential and not commercial,
therefore it is almost not an incentive to build more commercial; at least at this point it doesn't
do anything except emphasizes the residential when we want to emphasize the commercial. I
thought the reverse was true that we wanted to have a statement that said if you provide higher
amounts of commercial, we will allow you as a courtesy to have some residential, and this is
the reverse of that. We aze trying to encourage commercial, not residential in these statements.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Page 5, No. 12: If the remainder of the Planning Commission agrees, you can strike the
wording "development intensity shall be determined in conjunction with specific
developmenY'.
• It could say "higher FARs may be allowed for well designed mixed use developments" (higher
FAR meaning commercial).
Ms. Wordell:
• I agree with Mr. Piasecki's recommendation, and the Heart of the City captures what your
intent was and you could strike the higher FAR statement and it would be conveying what you
want.
Vice Chair Miller:
• That applies for Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Chair Wong:
• The reason I suppoR it, again what Mr. Piasecki said, was on Page 5, Box No. 12, "mixed
commercial and residential development may be allowed if the residential use provided
incentive to develop retail use if the development is financially beneficial to Cupertino and
provide pedestrian oriented etc.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Is that a consensus of at least three of the commissioners?
Com. Saadati:
• I thought we went over this language and this version is exactly the same as what we had last
time and we all approved it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 23, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
• That is correct, but I think this is your next to last chance to see if this is what you want to say.
COm. SaadaYi:
• My concem is next week we will try to change it some more. When we approve it we should
go on and not go back to it.
Vice Chair Miller:
• My intent was what was captured in No. 12; if we go back and read No. 12, it says "mixed
commercial and residential development beneficiaP' I thought that was what we were
trying to achieve, and I would just duplicate that language in all the others.
Com. Saadati:
• I will concur as long as it provides the same results.
Chair Wong:
• We can keep in the word "well designed" mixed use.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Add that language from No. 12 into the policies through 18, and strike the language "higher
FARs may be allowed" but leave the language "well designed mixed use developments"
Ms. WordelL•
• Do you want to leave in the words "mixed use"
Vice Chair Miller:
• I think the one area that was most sensitive and that we talked about having very limited mixed
use if any was in the Crossroads; the other areas are appropriate.
Chair Wong:
• For the other azeas, it is appropriate. Remove the words "mixed use" on the Crossroads,
because we had limited housing and that was the worst that we all agreed on.
Ms. WordelL•
• That is a majority; except for Com. Saadati
PAGE 7:
Ms. Wordell:
• The master plan language is on Page 7.
Chair Wong:
• On other paRS of the policy it did have the word "hotel" but it wasn't in here, so we may just
have left it out.
• Where it says "retain enhanced Vallco Park South .........supporting residential development."
I want to add the word "hotel" in there; because on that master plan there was a hotel there.
Ms. Wordell:
• That is commercial.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 23, 2005
Com. Saadati:
• Do we have to spell out other type of commercial; commercial covers everything.
Ms. Wordell:
• You could put "commercial (including a hotel)" to convey that commercial includes hotel.
Vice Chair Miller:
• This is like the ones on the previous page, where we are replacing the higher FARs.
PAGE 8:
Com. Saadati:
• No change.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Just replace the higher FARs.
Com. Chen and Chair Wong:
• Agree.
Pase 9:
Com. Saadati:
• Agree.
Vice Chair Miller:
• We aze going to change the higher FAR here again; and I thought we reached consensus on
that we would speciFically take out residential zoning from the two major campuses in town;
and North DeAnza refers to the Apple campus.
Ms. Wordell:
• Refer to Table 2A and see if they have some residential. North DeAnza has 100 units and
Vallco Park North has 200 units.
Vice Chair Miller:
• We are only excluding the two campuses, not the surrounding.
Chair Wong:
• I am not sure how many employees Apple or Hewlett Packard have, perhaps 5,000 or 10,000.
I think Mr. Piasecki said that if it exceeds 5,000 employees we will not have housing located
on that piece of zoning.
Mr. Piasecki:
• You can say that the two major corporate campuses of Hewlett Packard and Apple aze
excluded from the housing option. We will find some words that make it more generic.
Ms. WordelL•
• There isdt a housing requirement so what are we really saying.
Mr. Piasecki:
• They wodt have an option; they can't have housing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 23, 2005
Chair Wong:
• We are suggesting it is because they dodt feel comfortable having housing on [heir premises.
Mr. Piasecki:
• The other reason was it is consistent with your cohesive tech park policy that you adopted.
• If Apple or Hewlett Packazd comes back later and opposes that, they would have to ask for an
amendment to the Plan.
Com. Saadati:
• That is fine.
Vice Chair Miller:
• The feedback I received is the stakeholders are unhappy with the fact that it shows they may
have to do housing on their campus, and they say it doesn't really make sense from a business
standpoint to do that, so this is just an attempt to keep our corporate citizens happy.
Mr. Piasecki:
• I did not say they may have to. There was some eazlier discussion about having a requirement
for housing if you added additional space; this would remove that; this is a 20 year plan and if
somebody else occupied a portion of the Hewlett Packard site, their attitudes may be different.
It doesn't matter; they can still come in and ask for a General Plan amendment; so I think you
are fine.
Chair Wong:
• One thing I wanted to bring up was Box No. 18, [here were two commissioners who felt that
the Apple campus could go up to 60 feet and a lot of other azeas that there were some 3-2
votes or 4-1 votes; and I want to ask the commissioners if votes that were controversial or
there was disagreement, staff doesn't necessarily have to explain why; the Council could
always go back to the minutes that show the controversial votes.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I was one of the two who supported allowing Apple specifically to go to 60 feet; they aze
already at 60 feet.
Chair Wong:
• In general, I am asking if I can get agreement from the Plauuing Commission that if there were
votes 3-2, I am asking to change it; I want the votes to be shown in the note part.
Vice Chair Miller, Com. Chen, Com. SaadaN:
• Said they would support that.
Com. Chen:
• I am okay.
Com. Saadati:
• That is fine; they have the minutes.
Ms. Wordell:
• I would expect to get those from the minutes.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 23, 2005
BOX NO. 18: was a 3:2 vote.
No. 10:
Com. Saadati, Vice Chair Miller, Com. Chen:
• No comments.
Chair Wong:
• Box No. 20, it says the Hewlett Packard development agreement; I don't recall the agreement.
Ms. Wordell:
• They got the 1993 General Plan squaze footage potential locked into the development
agreement; office, so they built a building and they got less than 20Q000 square feet that they
could still build out so they have the ability to do that. I think it is over another 10 yeaz period.
Mr. Piasecki:
• They have also talked about demolishing one of their functionally obsolete buildings; they
would want to retain the ability to rebuild that space in addition to the space under the
development; or the development agreement would enable them to retain that space. They
may take down 100,000 and rebuild 100,000 in a new format.
Box No. 21:
Chair Wong:
• Need clarification on the "Bubb Road development....shall be determined in conjunction with
specific development review".
Ms. Wordell:
• That is the wording we have used in every center; and that was substituted instead of the FAR
to give flexibility to all the specific azeas.
PAGE NO. 11:
Com. Saadati:
• Under Economic Development, the wording I know was "encourage economic development if
budget allows."
Chair Woug:
• That was the exact wording I suggested.
Com. Saadati:
• My notes says encourage if the budget allows; it won't get created is there is not enough
budget.
Ms. Wordell:
• It would have to become a part of some sort of a work program and then, I dodt think the
General Pian forces you to do it, it is just the intent of the General Plan to do it.
Vice Chair Miller:
• It is a question of priorities and what the Commission is saying; my interpretation of what the
Planning Commission is saying is that a development budget and a development staff would
_ _ _
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 23, 2005
be beneficial and is worth putting money into. We know for example Sunnyvale has three full
time people doing economic development and we currently have none; their finances are
benefiting from that resource. We are making the suggestion that perhaps we should find some
money to do this, because the payback will be worth it.
Chair Woug:
• The reason why the language has to be strong for economic development is that we are in a
slump now and this is the best time to create an economic development staff and budget.
• Box No. 23 regarding conversion - indicate a 3:2 vote that it was not unanimous.
PAGE 12:
• All Commissioners had no comments.
PAGE 13:
Com. Saadati, Vice Chair Miller:
• No comments
Chair Wong:
• There was no unanimous vote on the suggestion that Vice Chair Miller made regarding urban
trails to get 66%. I know staff has strong concerns on that suggestion but I want to show that it
was a 23 vote of non-support and I want to bring it up to Council and let them be awaze of
that.
Com. SaadaH:
• I also reconsidered my vote when I thought about it. We need to look at the whole
community.
Chair Wong:
• I am not changing the vote; it was just a large constituency from urban neighborhood and I
want Council to be aware of this concem.
Ms. Wordell:
• Chair Wong would like to put a note in there about that vote; is that agreeable to everyone?
Com Saadati, Vice Chair Miller:
• Both support that.
Com. Chen:
• That is a policy that never existed, it was proposed but not passed; and it will be indicated that
it was proposed. No comments on Page 13.
PAGE 14:
• All Commissioners had no comment.
PAGE 15:
Coms. Saadati, Cheu, Miller:
• No comment
Cupedino Planning Commission 13 June 23, 2005
Chair Wong:
• Box No. 40 regazding new construction - what ue [he numbers? I noticed from 1, 2 and 3 you
did not change those numbers; therefore for Table 2-8, is that number reflective or not?
Ms. WordelL•
• Those aze the numbers that ABAG gave us for through 2006; my recommendation is that you
retain this nutnber because I got it from ABAG.
• You have exceeded tlus number by 600+ units, which is acceptable; you can exceed what
ABAG said our five year adequate sites was. On Table 2A you have 1900, three units over the
2000 build. I don't have the calculations used to come up with the 600 on my notes here.
Mr. Piasecki:
• For the record it is not 2201, it is not a 200 yeaz period. The year should be 200.
Com. Chen:
• The revised estimates for adequate sites are needed for 2325 units.
Ms. Wordell:
• That is what was approved in 2001 when we revised our housing element.
Com. Chen:
• 15 is acceptable.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Correct the typo.
PAGE 16:
Com. Saadati:
• No comment
Vice Chair MiRer:
• Perhaps staff could have some discussion on No. 44; the city will evaluate the possibility.
I don't think we talked about this.
Ms. WordelL•
• I didn't put the word Consent by it, but I believe you just moved on. I considered it consent.
• The idea was that if you want mixed use, this wording was struck before and you could add it
back to provide more support for mixed use.
Vice Chair Miller:
• It sounds like we aze cramuiing it into every nook and cranny here, and I would just as soon
not. There aze plenty of good opportunities for good mixed use projects without having
wording that suggests we are going to put a few units here and there to even covering some
pazking areas. It doesn't sound to me like good design.
Chair Wong:
• I also support it because by putting on existing pazking azeas, we never dreamed of having
housing on top of that; and again it is putting on every single azea and there aze other potential
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 23, 2005
azeas that since it was chosen by the Planning Commission to do conversion that is another
azea to do it.
Com. Chen:
• I am not opposed to the general idea to add housing units to sites that there is a potential to be
redeveloped; is there any reason why we would specifically mention existing puking areas.
Mr. Piasecki:
• This is a strategy in our current housing element, we aze trying to keep the current housing
element in tact so we dodt have to have the state re-evaluating these kinds of aspects and they
will draw red flags if you pull it out.
• An example is the Menlo Equities metropolitan development, that was a pazking azea and they
were able to come in and build residential over it because they demonstrated that there was
excess pazking on the site and they were rebuilding some of the pazking to accommodate that
residential development. It is a way to tell the state that we are flexible and will try to do what
we can to provide adequate sites. We suggest you leave it in just as it is.
Com. Cheu:
• I would support this language.
Com. Saadati:
• I support it.
Chair Wong:
• Can we bring it back next Tuesday to reflect the 2:2 vote and then get some further input.
PAGE 17:
Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Miller:
• No comment
Com. Chen:
• Agree with this
Chair Wong:
• Block No. 45, regarding conversion, it was also a 3:2 vote.
• Everything else is appropriate.
PAGE 18:
Coms. Saadati, MiRer, Chen:
• No comment
PAGE 19:
Com. Saadati:
• Vice Chair Miller brought up we discussed incentives; I dodt see it in Box 48 .
Vice Chair Miller:
• No. 47, "evaluate provide incentives" change to "evaluate providing incentives" (typo)
Cupertino Planning Commission I S June 23, 2005
Com. Chen and Chair Wong:
• No comment
Pa¢e 20:
Com. SaadaH:
• Did we capture "discuss street design with less auto centrid'?
Vice Chair Miller:
• W anted to spend some time on No. 51.
Ms. Wordell:
• I highlighted it because it is new to the table tonight and was something I noted caught where
it was with reference to FAR which we don't have anymore; and I wanted to point out that we
need to strike that.
Vice Chair Miller:
• This is the adding flexibility policy.
Com. Chen:
• I would like to understand that the city's remaining non-residential development potential shall
be polled and reallocated according to the city's development priority table.
Ms. WordelL•
• The wording is from the 93 General Plan who did a lot of reallocation; it was a new approach,
and doesn't appear to be such timely wording now because we ue used to the fact that we
reallocated, and although we aze still doing some reallocation; so I think it is okay.
Com. Chen:
• I now understand; the page is appropriate.
Chair Wong:
• Page 20, No. 49 - Staff tried to capture what I wanted and I think that it looks better. I was
looking on Page 4-7 and the last sentence, "consider reducing surface."
• I know that the trend in the planned development areas is to reduce those streets, but I think for
existing Rl neighborhoods, I think that a lot of the residents prefer to have it wide and not
reduce it. Poppy Way was one of those streets, and I wanted some discussion on that.
• That is something that I didn't catch earlier and I apologize; that policy kept changing on No.
49 and I wanted suppoR to strike that last sentence only and keep everything else there.
Vice Chair Miller:
• On Page 4-7 you are suggesting striking that last sentence under No. 5; perhaps staff could
provide some comments as to why that is there; how you would implement that without
spending huge amounts of money and disrupting the neighborhoods?
Mr. Piasecki:
• We have a large variety of street types in the community, some improved, some not, some
curbed, some sidewalks; I think the intent of this is that in some cases people would prefer to
have more pedestrian oriented azea and I think if you added the wording that "working with
the neighborhood you would probably take care of Chair Wong's concem. His concem
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 23, 2005
was in the case of Poppy Way that there was sentiment against that narrowing; that did not
come out during the public hearing process, and came out later.
• [ don't think we have a problem with that concept, but there are other areas where it is just
excessive and even in terms of a strategy for the city to minimize some of the asphalt areas
that we have to maintain, especially if it is excessive, we probably wouldn't want to have to
maintain. Stelling Road is a good example, it is a two lane road; it doesn't need to be as wide
as it is; we could probably provide an enhanced pedestrian the sidewalk sepazated from the
travel lanes and curb lanes if we somehow found a way to move the curbs out further in the
future.
• I dodt know where the funding will come from, likely in the form of grants, you could add
wording "working with the neighborhoods to ensure that there is reasonable consent there.°
Vice Chair Miller:
• If we add the words "working with the neighborhoods or with neighborhood approval" I agree
with that.
Chair Wong:
• If we can add what Vice Chair Miller said, I feel more comfoRable; it goes back to the
outreach and notification that I want to make sure we notify people.
Chair Wong:
• On Poppy Lane, if there was a new development, the public hearing notice goes 300 to 500
feet depending on the application and then the ramification for that goes well beyond that.
By adding the word "neighborhood" hopefully that will be 1,000 feet, but I want to keep it
general.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I suggest since we liked the wording "working with the neighborhoods" on this one, where we
are proposing to make a change that maybe we add that to the urban trail as well.
Chair Wong, Com. Chen, Com. SaadaN:
• That is acceptable.
Pase 21:
Com. Saadati, Vice Chair Miller:
• No comment
Com. Chen:
• Box 53, we want to maintain an LOS D so we want to give exceptions; that is new language
right7
Mr. Piasecki:
• The note covers the fact that the Planning Commission asked that we bring that policy back;
the intent was to provide a policy that says that we might actually balance the competing
demands of pedestrians and vehicles in terms of level of service.
Chair Wong:
• I want the record to reflect on Box No. 56 on the note part that I voted no on this issue.
(4-1)
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 June 23, 2005
Box 58:
Chair Wong:
• I need a point of clarification that you want to change it to future years on traffic condition.
Can you explain why.
Ms. Wordell:
• Bob Harrison, the traffic consultant, when he shows projected LOS on that figure we were just
looking at, he is putting the wording in here that mitigation is needed at these intersections to
retain a LOS D at buildout.
Com. Chen:
• The page is appropriate.
• Page 23 to 28: most of these strategies are reguding sustainability; I have no comments.
Com. Saadati: Vice Chair Miller
• No comments.
Com. Chen:
• No comments; ok with recommendations.
Chair Wong called a short recess.
Chair Wong called the meeting back to order and opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennifer Griftin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Rancho Rinconada now has a mayor, Plaiming Commission, City Council for the first time,
before we had the Boazd of Supervisors.
• Commended the Planning Commission on getting through the documentation in an orderly
manner.
• On an ongoing basis and as a resident of southern Cupertino or whatever you may chose to call
it, the corridor along Stevens Creek that approaches 280, I was very concerned about the
heights of Vallco North, Vallco South going up to 60 feet. We have a lot of empty land down
there, we have a mall that is being redeveloped; a lot of residents as have been evidenced in
the Toll Brothers public symposium, Idon't like to have their view of the mountains blocked.
• It was common public sentiment that they did not want buildings exceeding 45 feet.
• I think the new Menlo Equities building is just tall enough; I hope that we have only two
stories of that building next to Stevens Creek; the building is fine although it dces block the
views a little; I hope that you did not exceed 45 feet there; you have 5,000 residents of Rancho
Rinconadathere.
• There is need to address the concerns of the citizens in this azea of Cupertino down toward
280/Stevens Creek corridor. We aze new residents to Cupertino and we love our azea.
• I am concemed about the item on Page 2, No. 6, transition neighborhoods would be better
addressed in the RI information. I think the word "may" is strong and what we are
considering in there, what we might be building likely needs to be addressed under the Rl.
• Level of city services, traffic on the roads; please if we aze going to be building down toward
the Vallco, Hewlett Packazd, Tantau properties, leYs give special consideration to the Wolfe
and Stevens Creek intersections; the Stevens Creek and Finch intersections; Tantau and
Stevens Creek intersections; also the Stevens Creek and 280 azea is a nightmare; also Stevens
Creek and Homestead is a dangerous area. When the power went out, I saw an emergency
vehicle that was not able to get off of 280 because of the nnpacted traffic.
Cuper[ino Planning Commission 18 June 23, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
• Noted for the record that Stevens Creek and Highway 280 is not in Cupertino's jurisdiction.
Chair Wong:
• Requested that it also be e-mailed to different stakeholders wi[hin the city; General Plan Task
Force, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and other concerned citizens groups such as
ADC, CCC, major property owners and the list for email notification, and also on the website.
The Planning Commissioners thanked Ms. Wordell and Mc Piasecki for the excellent work on the
General Plan and their dedication to getting through the marathon meetings.
Chair Wong:
• Noted that the EIR consultants would attend the June 28'h meeting which would allow the
public and Planning Commission to react to their feedback to us.
Adjournment: Chair Wong adjourned the meeting to the regular meeting on
Tuesday,June 28,2005.
Submitted by: I
Elizabeth A. Elli , ecording Secretary
Approved as presertted: August 23, 2005