Draft Minutes 01-24-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:00 P.M.
JANUARY 24, 2006
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 2006, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Chair Wong.
Chair Wong said it was an honor to serve as Chairperson of the Planning Commission the past
year in the new Community Hall. We did a lot in 2005, passed the General Plan and I think that
this is one of the longest Planning Commission that has had consecutive meetings because there
have been so many development projects.
Election of Chairperson:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati second by Com. Giefer, to nominate Com. Miller to
serve as Chairperson. (Vote: 3-0-1, Com. Miller abstain.)
Election of Vice Chairperson:
Motion: Motion by Com. MiUer, second by Com. Saadati , to nominate Com. Giefer as
Vice Chair. (Vote: 3-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain)
Environmental Review Committee Renresentative and Alternate:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to nominate Com. Miller to
serve as Environmental Planning Commission representative. (Vote: 3-0-1, Com.
Miller abstain)
HousiDl! Commission Representative:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Chen, to nominate Com. Wong, to serve
as Housing Commission representative. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Wong abstain).
Desil!n Review Committee Chair and Member:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to nominate Com. Saadati to
serve on the DRC. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Saadati abstain)
Economic Development Committee Representative:
There was consensus to hold nomination for the committee representative until a new
Commissioner took office as the meetings are held quarterly.
Attendance at Mavor's Breakfast:
Marty Miller - February 1, 2006
Lisa Giefer - March 1, 2006
Taghi Saadati - April 5, 2006
New Planning Commissioner - May 3, 2006
Gilbert Wong - June 7, 2006
Repeat Order
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
January 24, 2006
Chair Miller resumed chairing the remainder of the meeting.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Gilbert Wong
Taghi Saadati
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Associate Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Dennis Martin, representing Home Builders Assoc. (HBA) of Northern California:
· Said he was present to reinforce the city's decisions and actions to favor industriaVresidential
land use conversion enabling the product reuse of land in locations where infrastructure
already exists. He congratulated the city and Planning Commission for their support of the
policy, and said they believe that the smart industriaVresidential land use conversion policy
allows for an adequate housing supply for Cupertino's workers and their families, and is a
linchpin of the future economic growth for the community.
· Demand for housing is high and consumers are choosing to live close to their work which
benefits the community. Interest rates for builders and for home buyers are still at historically
low levels. Home builders are willing to construct infill housing rather than support sprawl,
and communities are encouraging the more productive reuse of land in locations where
in!Tastructure is already in place.
· The HBA of Northern California reiterates its support of industrial/ residential land use
conversion in the City of Cupertino and hopes that the city finds the policy to be productive
and beneficial for the community.
Richard Madden, Imperial Ave., Cupertino:
· Requested that the Planning Commission study the traffic flow on Imperial Avenue. Presently
there is a 35 mph speed limit; we have 59 new units across the street !Tom my house that have
children !Tom I to 3 years old; in a few years when the new development will be done those
children will be 5 and 6 years old.
· Suggested that the Planning Commission look at adding a four way stop sign at the comer of
Imperial and Granada and then another one down the street; and perhaps change the speed
limit to 25 mph for the safety of the children.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
January 24, 2006
Kathy Halvorsen, Dunbar Drive:
· Asked the Planning Commission to look into checking on companies that have their facilities
in Cupertino and finding out about the permits they have for their buildings; for example
Apple Computer has I I buildings and there is permits that go along with the buildings. I
understand the Planning Department has nothing to do with that and what is in the buildings
such as chemicals. It is very alarming to me.
· The other one is the Hansen Permanente Cement Factory. I have been monitoring it and it is
polluting the whole valley. I have called the Planning Commission and the city and they are
not involved in keeping permits for these buildings and these companies and regulating at least
seeing what is going on with the air being emitted into our community.
· Hopefully the Planning Commission can do something. Patrick Kwok is on the Bay Area Air
Quality Control Board, and so is the Mayor of San Francisco, and they are the ones who are
supposed to be looking out for us.
· I would like the Planning Commission and the Council members also be looking out for us and
that is not happening.
· I will bring it up with the City Council as well.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to the previous speaker's concern, he clarified that Hansen Cement Factory was not
under Cupertino's jurisdiction. He said it did not preclude them from working with the
County or the Air Board to check things out. It is appropriate that she brings the concerns to
the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
TM-2005-14
Jitka Cymbal
(JinIing and Roger
Low residence)
21988 McClellan Rd.
Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two
parcels, 10,418 square feet and 1,385 square feet respectively.
Continued from the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a half acre into two large parcels
on McClellan Road. The flag lot subdivision is consistent with the neighborhood lot pattern.
He referred to the site plan and illustrated the Monta Vista High School parking lot to the east,
Madrid along the west side and McClellan Road; the tree locations.
· He noted that flag lots are not routinely approved in the community since they tend to get the
appearance that the buildings are looming over one another, except in cases where there is no
other viable option.
· The recommendation is to go with the tentative map application as submitted, or you can
request that the applicant. and we believe the applicant is amenable to filing a variance
application for lot width, possible variance findings that would be extraordinary is that first of
all the lot width is close to the 60 foot minimum, conventional lots may preserve the
significant trees; the fact that the property has ftontage on two streets allows for the driveways
to be separated so you don't have carS backing into one another.
Com. Giefer:
· With regard to saving the Heritage Oak on the site, if we did the flag lot, that was my concern;
is that the tree would be encroached upon in this configuration. Did the arborist have an
opinion with regards to this.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
January 24, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· If you specify that the tree is to be retained under either scenario, they could retain the tree. It
looks like with the flag lot, it would be in the front yard of the back parcel. In the case of the
conventional lots, it is to the rear of the front house and to the side a little. Either way, you can
ask that the tree be retained.
· Said that sidewalks would be installed along McClellan Road; I don't think there has been an
exception granted for Madrid, so probably along Madrid. Along McClellan Road, there would
be the need to install sidewalks.
Jitka Cymbal, Civil Engineer for the project:
· Said the application divides the property into two parcels; both of the alternatives would be
acceptable; howéver, we feel that the flag lot is better in a sense you are creating with the
standard subdivision, very deep lots, which aren't as usable for the homeowners.
· She said her preference was for the flag lot.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· I hope that everything can be done to protect the oak trees on the property, and bond money
will be set up for the developer so that the trees will be protected.
· You can take appropriate measures to ensure that during construction the trees are adequately
protected, and they will be there in the years to come for everyone to enjoy.
Shaldon??
· Said he lived next to the lot and showed a photo of his backyard. He said he needed to
understand what they were going to build before they do the subdivision.
· He said he did not have any privacy any longer.
Chair Miller:
· Asked why the story poles are erected for a subdivision.
Mr. Piasecki:
· In response to Chair Miller's question why the story poles were erected for a subdivision, he
said he did not know why the story poles were erected. Presumably the applicant was told if
they wish to pursue the application, they were optimistic that they would get your approval
and probably went ahead and did the story pole component of it.
· Relative to the speaker's concerns, the allowable FAR and number of stories and height of
buildings is regulated by the Rl ordinance, the rules that apply to this site apply to everybody
under that same zoning district in the city of Cupertino. We go through a process to ensure
that there is a reasonable privacy protection with the planting of trees, but it doesn't always
satisfy folks, because it takes long time for trees to grow. The rules are the rules and we have
gone through an Rl ordinance amendment; there was a lot of testimony and a lot of debate
about the whole issue and building heights are limited to 28 feet. It would be good to talk to
your neighbor and find out if they would be willing to work with you to orient windows in
other direction, or the Commission may find that one option is better than the other in tenns of
massing, building massing and relationships to neighbors.
Chair Miller:
· This is a public hearing on the subdivision, not on the houses that might be built on the
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
January 24, 2006
property. The appropriate time to express concerns is when they are presenting plans.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Reiterated that it would be beneficial for them to talk with their neighbors, since often they
could come up with some solution.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he supported the layout which would have the least impact on the trees. If the lot is
proposed to be 58 feet, two feet doesw not makes that much difference as long as the trees
have their areas to stay healthy.
· He said either way was suitable with him
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Agreed with Com. Saadati; initial concern is how to give the trees enough breathing space so
they will remain healthy.
· It looked like the conventional split down the middle does a better job of retaining the trees; it
may also help the neighbor who expressed some concern with regards to where the placement
of the home near his home would be in the long term.
· Said she was more inclined to go with the split down the center as opposed to the flag lot
configuration. Asked that conditions be added regarding tree protection.
Com. Wong:
· I agree with Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Giefer that I believe a conventional lot will fit better
in our General Plan; we encourage lots facing the street, vs. flag lots. In unusual
circumstances a flag lot does make sense, but because it is on the main street, I want to have
the mnge of homes facing McClellan Road that will give a more community aspect toward
this project. Also, by having a conventional lot, it does preserve the Heritage Oak trees that
are on the sites.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that if you are going with a conventional subdivision motion, you would ask the
applicant to take a continuance for one month so they can file the variance application, then
would come back and you would then apply conditions to that.
· It has to be duly noted so that everyone knows they are asking for a variance ITom the rules to
allow the lesser than the 60 foot lot width.
Ms. Cymbal, applicant:
· Said that a continuance for one month was acceptable, to apply for a variance if the Planning
Commission feels it is the better alternative.
Motion:
Motion hy Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to continue Application
TM-200S-14 to the February 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0)
2. U-200S-09, ASA-200S-06,
(EA-200S-06) KCR
Development, Inc.
(Evershine) 19620 -
Use Pennit to demolish approximately 15,267 square feet
of existing commercial space and construct a new
37.250 square foot two story building at an existing
shopping center (Marketplace) Architectural and Site
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
January 24, 2006
19780 Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
approval for demolition of approximately 15,267
square feet of existing commercial space and
Construction of a new 37,205 square foot two story
Building at an existing shopping center
(Marketplace). Continuedfrom the December 20,
2005 Special Planning Commission meeting. Tentative
City Council date: February 7, 2006
Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the background of the application for Use Permit to demolish existing commercial
space and construct a new two story building at an existing shopping center; and architectural
and site approval to demolish existing commercial space and construct a new two story
building at an existing shopping center, as outlined in the staff report.
· The application was continued rrom the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Gary Chao, Associate Planner:
· The Planning Commission's direction at the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting was for the applicant to work with staff to resolve the issues of parking, architectural
and neighborhood concerns. Stafffeels the applicant has done that.
· As part of the project, ten new specimen ground palm trees will be planted along the entry
driveway; responding to neighbors' concerns that ten previously existing palm trees were
removed without permits. The details landscape plan will be reviewed by DRC as a condition
of the project.
· Odor filtering systems will be installed as a condition of the project on all existing and new
restaurants, responding to the general neighborhood's concerns about the odors.
· Concerns about operational issues related to trash pickup, activities and hours of operation
were raised previously. Based on the ordinance, garbage activities adjacent to residential
properties will be limited to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekends and
holidays. The applicant will adhere to these ordinance regulations.
· The onsite pedestrian paths and crossing enhancements have been provided by the applicant.
As part of the conditions of approval, the detailed plan will be reviewed and approved by the
DRC.
· Relative to building design, although the applicant has made substantial changes to the
building to be consistent with the recommendations rrom staff and the city architect, the
building still remains as a wide building along Stevens Creek Boulevard with over 200 feet of
rrontage. The city architect recommends that the building be reduced 20 feet along Stevens
Creek. Additional details still have to be looked at by the DRC when the final architectural
plans are submitted, and will be a condition of approval of the project.
· Building C was reduced by 3,000 square feet, reducing the requirement for parking stalls to
630 stalls. Since the footprint of the project was reduced, they were able to provide 17
additional stalls, so they gained rrom 583 to 600 of onsite stalls and the deficiency was
reduced to 30 stalls. As a condition of the project, TDM measures are required to reduce the
demand equivalency by 5% or 30 stalls. The TDM measures include parking cashouts, rree
bus passes. carpool or shuttle programs for the employees. In addition, as a condition of the
project, the project shall implement parking monitoring programs including policing the
residential streets and the shopping center for inappropriately parked cars, signage to advise
commercial patrons not to park on residential streets, and potentially a preferential parking
system where passes will be given to residential owners, only to park in rront of their houses
on their residential streets.
· An additional parking demand survey is required to be performed when the center is 70%
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
January 24, 2006
occupied or when Building A is occupied. The applicant also has the option to provide valet
parking which requires returning to the Planning Commission for review in terms of the
logistics and potential offsite employee parking program where the property owner could enter
into an agreement with an adjacent property owner to have employees park offsite and be
shuttled to the project.
· Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Use Permit, and
architectural and site approval subject to the model resolutions.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding parking
Wayne Akuba, Evershine Group:
· Said they worked through the parking issues with safeguards; he noted that one of the tenants
changed from restaurant to retail which reduced the parking by 10 spaces. Depending on the
tenants coming into the center, it will change the mix as far the parking demand on the center
itself. I think the question that came up was how much parking would be required under the
shared analysis. What we did was a shared analysis that showed 565 parking spaces that would
be required on the weekend and 550 during the weekday. There is a shift because there is a
tremendous amount more of retail that is being added to the center which changes that mix;
that is the reason why the way it is allocated as far as parking changes when that peak period
hits. We want everyone to know that we are open to working with staff. They have come up
with some good ideas as far as how to make everything work and with some buffers and
Public Works has put together some recommendations for City Council. In the interim, we
have asked for encroachment permits so we could begin some of the work so that some of the
neighbors would be happy that we are at least progressing with our work. I think we have
addressed all these things all these things; we have issued newsletters and sent them to the
neighbors and had a neighborhood meeting last week.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Alan Rubell:
· It would help to understand the parking situation better; while there is a great deal of detail
about going ahead and doing the revised actual studies when Building C is occupied, and when
50% of Building A is occupied, it is unclear how the ongoing parking monitoring program, if
that is put into place, would respond if change in the mix of tenants or change of popularity
with tenants ends up resulting in a lack of parking spaces which the fear of the neighbors
around there is that will then overflow into the neighborhood, so I would be interested in
understanding that further.
· One of the alternatives mentioned was valet parking; if we go through all these gates and it
becomes necessary; while something such as valet parking might be acceptable in a place
where there is not a nearby residential alternative for parking, such as BJs situation; having
valet parking when there is residential parking for people who aren't in the mood to give up
the keys of their car, is something that residents in the nearby area wouldn't be very pleased to
have as an alternative there.
· The developer mentioned there was a neighborhood meeting Thursday; it was a good meeting
and it was helpful to go ahead and show the revised proposal, unfortunately at that meeting
there was not any mention of all the studies and difference between the revised parking space
numbers as to the 5% deficit and all the TDM and parking monitoring programs that were
going to be in place. It was presented in terms of the statement that they have worked with the
city and it is now fine. I think as a result of that we did not get an opportunity as a
neighborhood to provide feedback and have as complete a discussion as we would have liked
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
January 24, 2006
to have had about the impact on the neighborhood of the revised proposal.
Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive:
· Read her comments into the record: "As of today, this is a statement of thanks. The Planning
Department staff, especially Gary Chao, should be complimented for their handling of this
project. Gary Chao has worked very hard and has brought the plans for the Marketplace to a
successful conclusion. It is my hope that the plans will be finished as proposed in a timely
manner. The KCR Development, the owners of the Marketplace, should be complimented as
well, because they have listened to the concerns of the neighbors and have promised to take
steps to alleviate any issues such as cooking odors which have been major, of traffic problems
and operational procedures. The neighbors in the area have attended meetings with the owner
and the staff of the Marketplace. As a result we have all profited. We hope that the plans as
outlined are implemented as stated and that any parking problems will be solved because that
is a major concern. I think we have made great progress and let's hope that all the promises
are met. Thank you very much."
AI DeRidder, Ann Lane:
· Questioned why they were going through the exercise of trying to rebuild something; there is
the Gateway Computer Store that has been standing vacant for the last few years, and can't
rent it out, and now the idea of tearing it down and tear down the US Bank Building to make
more space that cannot be rented.
· Relative to parking, it was said that surveys will be done after it is built; isn't it too late to do
the survey after it is built?
· Relative to retail and office space availability, I challenge people to go down Stevens Creek
Boulevard and look at all the available places such as Drexel Heritage, Blockbuster, Bank of
America. I wonder how long the property owners are wiIling to have that property stand
vacant. It creates some interest that I would like some answers to.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Please make sure that the shopping center has adequate parking for all the shops that will go
into the center.
· Pleased that the eastern perimeter of the property had additional space taken off the proposed
building so that the exitway would be wider; it appears that the developer wishes to put
parking along the exitway out to Stevens Creek. Having the additional 20 feet available is
important because if this is not put into that corridor, it is a very narrow exit and entry point on
the eastern part of the property and it would be difficult to put parking along that.
· Was pleased to see that 20 feet had been taken off the building that faces onto Stevens Creek
to allow for additional parking along the eastern perimeter alleyway. Also pleased that the 20
feet will reduce the bulk off the building as it faces Stevens Creek.
· The 20 foot reduction off the eastern side of the building will create a nice façade on Stevens
Creek; it won't be one long building.
· It is a nice building and hopefully there will be adequate parking in this shopping center.
Mark McKenna, Chamber of Commerce:
· Said that the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce supports the Marketplace project, based on the
Chamber's housing and business policy.
· The project located on Stevens Creek Boulevard is currently an active shopping center with
the latest edition of the Elephant Bar restaurant. The Chamber feels that growth of the
commercial square footage and updating of the center will enable the store's owner better
visibility from the road.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
January 24, 2006
· Since parking is at a premium in Cupertino, the Chamber recommends that the shared parking
scheme remain with the project.
· The Evershine Group has worked hard to make this project neighborhood friendly by
voluntarily installing an odor abatement machine, which is not required by the city and should
not be required for future developments or renovations. While understanding certain concerns
of the neighbors, we feel they have been addressed thoroughly.
· We hope the Planning Commission will agree to allow this project to proceed.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
· Said he had concerns about the parking survey. The 10% factor that was added in for the
safety, as well as the 10% for the employee, gives a misconception on parking. As an
advocate for making sufficient parking, I believe that it is distorted, and there is not a
deficiency how I read it, and I believe that the TDM plan is too aggressive. Suggest to the
Planning Commission to come back in a year after completion of the project and see ifthere is
a parking problem.
· Also, regarding the tenancy of the restaurant mix vs. the retail. In the model resolution there
are protections put in of use limitation; with these limitations it is another way of protecting
the neighborhood to make sure that there is no restaurants abutting the neighborhood, and also
the concern regarding the odor abatement. This is a voluntary action by the applicant; I don't
want to make this into a precedent for the city; there was a real concern by the neighborhood,
brought to our attention, with elephant bar and some other restaurants and the applicant has in
their newsletter, which is a good idea to keep the neighbors informed of what they are
building, and keeping the neighborhood abreast, which is what the neighborhood wants. The
other important thing I liked is the neighbor doing the research on the palm trees.
· Overall I do support the project; I don't support the TDM project. I would rather after
everything is completed, come back to the Planning Commission in one year to look at the
parking situation, if there is a serious parking situation, a shared parking analysis would work
better. I am concerned about the TDM; I know that it will not be implemented unless there is
a perceived problem. It is an extreme measure that is not called for.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· It is a nice project; pleased that the applicant reduced the size of the building.
· Expressed concern about the parking. The parking regulation requires 679 spaces and the
Planning Commission is being asked to approve the project with 600 onsite parking spaces.
She said she was uncomfortable with that number, with or without a safety factor thrown in.
· The TDM program is a good one, but I think we are below what the threshold is. I would like
to see the building reduced to conform more with the parking demand, and would like to see
the TDM offered if the site is re-surveyed. It is difficult as a city to manage to the exception
and if it is up to us as a city to verifY what type of retailers are in the site, it is too great of a
burden to verifY those uses. I would rather not have a requirement of the type of uses within
the center and us meet the parking demand at this site.
· I would not support the project unless we are able to decrease the size of the building and
increase the available parking spaces on the site. I would like to have 630 parking stalls on
site.
Com. Saadati:
· Complimented the applicant for going along with staff and reducing the size of the building
and meeting with the neighbors.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
January 24, 2006
· Reduction of the building facility. additional parking; in In any design usually there is a
contingency factor included, when you evaluate for parking, in this case 10%.
· I am not certain that TDM is necessary; somehow we need to have the meanS to address
parking problem if it is going to get worse in the future.
· Include a condition in the approval that the applicant needs to come back and we reserve the
right to put the IDM in at the time. It will take them another six months to a year to build the
building and have it occupied; a year is not too long. I would like to have that as a backup
condition.
· Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
EA-200S-06.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Suggested the recording of the palms as significant trees or heritage trees as they are being
replaced because they had always been on the site. They have historic significance to the
general population. (for Use Permit)
Chair Miller:
· Said the applicant has worked hard on meeting the staff requirements and as long as we have a
process where if there is an issue with parking, a backup plan is put in place.
· Recommended moving forward on the application.
(Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer No.)
Motion by Com. Wong, to approve Application U-200S-09 with the following
conditions. Item S - Tree replacement: inclnde the palm trees being recorded as
Heritage trees. TDM language shall be that "after completion of the project, it
will be brought back to the Planning Commission for parking review." Also, if
neighborhood generated, it may come back sooner.
Motion:
Mr. Piasekci:
. Said that if the new exhibits that have been provided this evening are referenced, it would
take care of 2A, which addressed reducing the building size. Final architectural review will go
to the DRC.
Second by Com. Saadati. (Vote: 3-0-1; Vice Chair Giefer voted no.)
Chair Miller declared a recess.
3.
U-200S-01, ASA-200S-02
11\1-200S-01,~200S-01
(EA-200S-01) Alan
Loving (Taylor Woodrow
Homes) Bubb Road and
Imperial (a portion 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. Architectural
and Site Approval for 94 single-family
residential units and recreation areas.
Tentative Map to subdivide a I2-acre site
into 94 lots + I held in common. Rezoning of
a 12-acre site from Planned Industrial -
P(ML) to Planned Residential - P(Residential)
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
January 24, 2006
Tentative City Council date: February 21,2006
Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report:
o Reviewed the use permit, architectural and site approval, tentative map. and rezoning of 12
acres, to demolish existing industrial buildings and construct 94 single family residential units
and recreational areas.
o Taylor Woodrow is demolishing the five buildings; the property owner and/or applicant can
speak to that. Their feeling is that the industrial buildings are functionally obsolete and not
marketable. There was quite a bit of evidence presented to the commission back in June.
o The site has been vacant for the last three years. The applicant contends the buildings are
functionally obsolete, which is one of the findings that is necessary to allow them to consider
an alternate use in the case of a office or commercial parcels. The City's General Plan has a
policy pertaining to what we call "Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks" and they
have to meet those criteria that talk about integrating the uses, etc. There has been no sales
tax generated rrom this site that staff can see in any of their records. The land use principles
that should be focused on is what is the best use that can be integrated, connected, attractive,
and which can make a positive contribution to the community. It has been anticipated for
awhile in the General Plan, certainly since the 1993 General Plan, these units have been
allocated to this area. Some of the options that have been discussed include: Big box retail
site, public uses such as mini storage, a church, residential. The 94 units is the maximum
amount allowed by the General Plan. The commission can suggest it be reused as a industrial
site, or rebuilt as a office site. The City has received inquiries about these above options but
no applications have been brought before them in during six years other than the one before
the commission this evening. The bottom line is with the improvements(in staffreport) that
the added trips rrom this project will be easily absorbed and they should be able to improve
the situation.
The five major changes since the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, include (1)
removal of the three-story elements rrom the homes. effectively reducing the height of the
units t less than 30 feet; (I) address the traffic impacts caused by the peak hour school traffic
on McClellan Road; reduce the bedroom sizes of the units so that the unit mix will be 50%
three bedroom units and 50% four bedroom units;
Relative to the school impacts, the applicant paid for a study, the city selected and hired the
consultant, who is the same consultant used by the school districts.
He reviewed the project benefits; they are proposing at the city's urging that they would
provide money to the landscape and enhance the adjacent ground water recharge pond. It
would give a green link to the one south of McClellan and a green link into the 2 acres of open
space on the project site. The applicant is also willing to mitigate traffic and improve the
traffic condition. One of the advantages of the plan they have developed is it will have the
affect of traffic calming during the non school peak hours.
o Reviewed the site plan with the three areas dedicated to the city. They would like to put
signage before you would enter the parks stating that you are about to enter public parks.
o Staff feels that they have met a lot of test, and Mr. Piasecki commented that he felt it was
extraordinary in his experience of reviewing projects. Taylor Woodrow has stepped up to
the plate in areas they are required to and areas where they are not required to. Staff is
recommending approval of the application.
o A video presentation was shown featuring the new elevations.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
January 24, 2006
Phil Mader, Taylor Woodrow Homes:
· Said they addressed all the issues that the Planning Commission requested in June. He
highlighted major changes to the project.
" Changed elevations to be two story, no higher than 30 feet to the ridge of the roof.
" Bedroom count was addressed and now is 50% three bedrooms and 50% four
bedrooms.
" The interior dimensions of the garages are now 20 feet by 20 feet.
" The Union Pacific Trail and the McClellan Trail, will be built with public use
easement granted to the city for the trails.
" Homeowners will pay a maintenance fee to make sure they are maintained.
" Union Pacific Trail will be kept open during construction, but may have to be
temporarily relocated.
" Build and maintain 3 public parks as shown over 2 acres of open space. They will
make sure the City has sufficient funds for maintenence of those parks. The
traffic issues on McClellan and Budd were raised.
" Taylor Woodrow worked with the City and the city's traffic consultant engineer,
and the schools to develop this plan. Traffic issues will not be alleviated
completely but improved. They are willing to do the improvements over this
summer and are about half a million dollars. In addition there is a traffic crossing
guard at McClellan and Budd, and a school drop off and pick up coordinator at
Lincoln Elementary. Schools are important in Cupertino and they are behind that.
They have worked with the school districts to make sure the schools benefit ITom
this project. TW will contribute $468,000 to the CUSD sO they can make
improvements at their campuses.
· He summarized the contributions made for all the mitigations. They worked to make a project
that was beneficial to the City, the schools, and the neighborhoods. This is a complete
package. Fourteen BMR Units, three public parks over 2 acres, two public trails, traffic
calming, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. It is good for schools, a high quality
development and smart growth. They have other data to share if needed and all the consultants
on the project are present if needed to answer any questions.
Mr. Mader:
· Answered questions about homeowners association fees, planting and relocation of trees.
Com. Wong:
· Asked staff or applicant to answer questions on traffic mitigation on Budd Road. Regarding
an area shown on the overhead, it looks like in order to allow the drop off for Lincoln school
students, the road will be widened. He observed that there are a lot of mature trees. He
wanted to know if some of the trees will be gone to accommodate this mitigating factor.
Mr. Piasecki:
· They can attempt to move the sidewalk around back of trees to try and preserve trees, they can
try and make it as minimal as possible but they might hit a tree or two. They could focus on
that if needed.
Com. Wong:
· Expressed concern that in order to have that traffic mitigation, the road would need to be
widened.
Cupertino Planning Commission
I3
January 24, 2006
Mr. Mader:
· Relative to the promotional mailer, he apologized to anyone who may have found the mailer to
objectionable, as he said he did not mean to offend anybody. He said many positive things
have occurred tonight; unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there about what they
are doing with the parks and building elevations. They wanted the correct information out.
· He explained how the outreach to the school districts was conducted. Over the last several
months they have been working with the school districts and they set the bar high. They
wanted to make sure they were well mitigated on any potential down side. Both school
districts have approved the packages and said they can accommodate the students from their
projects. The schools are not an issue. They were asked to solve it and they worked hard to
do and they solved it. TW formally submitted it and they went through their approval process.
He thinks that it would be best that the representatives from the two school districts, they can
explain their approval process. It was up to TW to put something together they could approve
and they did.
Com. Wong:
· Questioned what the other one-third of the Measurex site was going to be. Were they just
buying the two thirds of the site or the whole Measurex site?
Mr. Mader:
· Explained that they are purchasing from the GTosvenor Corporation the subject 12 acres they
are developing. The other approximately one third of the site is office buildings that are fully
leased and functioning. GTosvenor does not have any plans to do anything other than have
them managed as a office building. Alan Chamorro can inform you what they have gone
through with their project. He does not think they are doing any thing differently. The big
thing is they will be using up all the housing allocation for Monte Vista. The office buildings
that remain will have to park on their own. They have their own parking requirements and
meet them. The plan they put together all the parking for the one third of the office buildings
that will stay, they have plenty of on site parking to meet the parking code for the City.
Chair MiUer:
· Asked staff if they had an issue with that? Did they think parking would spill into the
neighborhood?
Mr. Piasecki:
· No, the property owner who is retaining those buildings is insisting that they have adequate
parking. They still have to lease those buildings.
Staff:
· The side setbacks on the housing units proposed range between eight and twelve feet.
Chair MiUer:
· Over what period do you see the project being built and what is the projected completion date?
Mr. Mader:
· If the project gets approved tonight, and then at the City Council, it goes through the process
of preparing construction documents, and permitting, approximately six months of site
development work, doing the infrastructure.
· There is a period of 12 months to deliver the first house; hence they are two years out before
the first house is sold and the first family moves in. It is not 94 homes being delivered. It goes
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
January 24, 2006
in phases, about five or six homes per month. Completion would be somewhere in the 2009
/2010 time trame. The first ones would be done in 2008, roughly 18 months after that the
project is completed.
. One of the city residents and community leader, David Greenstein wrote in an email
supporting the project. Kathy Robinson wrote a letter support especially the BMR's and the
project. Community Paul Fong wrote a letter saying that this is a good project for the city.
Santa Clara County Sheriff, Laurie Smith wrote a letter stating that this would be a good
solution to the vacant building that is there.
Jeffrey KeiI, Assoc. Superintendent for FUHSO:
· Said that approximately 300 students were disenrolled trom the district because of the
program of address verification to make sure the students were attending the correct school.
Com. Wong:
· Asked Mr. Keil to clarify the concerns in the Superintendent's letter.
Mr. KeiI:
· In April, they were concerned at that time when the study projected a 20 student SGR on this
project because the developer fees indicated that the school district would be receiving about
a $198,000 through this development.
· When they looked at their facilities impact it became clear that it would not be sufficient to
take care of any new growth in students on the facility side. At that time a letter under his
signature was sent to to Ciddy Wordell in opposition at that time.
· Over the coming months and several meetings with the developer and city staff they worked
through many of their issues. Their concerns were 1raffic and facilities. The added concern
was the data that the consultant came up with was based on history. what we see, and what
they were seeing in light developments in the area. Their concern if there was a demographic
shift and how many students will be generated in the future developments
· At that time he said to the Taylor Woodrow folks to do something that they probably never
have been asked to do before and that was to come up with some sort of contingent mitigation
proposal. What if the student generation rate on this project blows right through the projects
which were based on history. He asked them to address a proposal that would address a
doubling of that number, to go to an ex1reme. To their credit they did that and came up with a
proposed mitigation plan that met those needs.
· Regarding the vote, he wants them to know that the superintendent and their board are
fiercely committed to protecting their schools. It is not their role as a district, legally or
otherwise, to support or oppose any project. Their only role is to look at the impact of any
development on the schools. All five board members spoke out at some point in favor of
different aspects of the proposal. One of the board members voted no and one abstained
· They have been seeking to find creative ways that they can meet the budget gaps on these
projects. Each one of them provides potential additional classroom space, and also area for
other student and staff services. They see a benefit to the district. When you see the wording
of a neu1ral position, that neu1ral position is focusing on the overall project. His board has
absolutely no interest in getting involved on commenting on how many stories. color of the
building, the 1rees hanging over McClellan, etc. That Ì5not their interest and that is not their
role, it is simply to mitigate the impacts to the district.
· The Board does not have any interest in changing boundaries at this time. He said he could
not state what the overall impacts would be, but he appreciated that city staff came to them
and asked what they thought their impacts would be.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
January 24, 2006
Com. Giefer:
· Would Monte Vista benefit from equalization from the latest state budget in regards to
funding.
Mr. Keil:
· No, Monte Vista would not benefit. They have not received any money from equalization
funding. They are known as a Base A District, they receive no significant funding through
the revenue limit formula. That is why they are property tax focus and they are interested in
looking very carefully at impacts of projects on property tax and parcel tax.
Chair Miller:
· Said that Dr. Rowley has been before the Commission before talking about demographics and
that there is an expectation that over some period of time in the near future that enrollment is
expected to decline. The applicant has talked about his time frame for development. He asked
Mr. Keil to comment on the demographics and how that fits. .
Mr. Keil:
· No, the numbers for Monte Vista are going up slightly. The most significant growth in the
area is taking place in the north Sunnyvale area. The largest school of impact is Fremont
High School and they are looking at an increase of 900 students over the next fifteen years.
Next would be Cupertino High School.
Chair Miller:
· Asked staff about the affordable unit and designating them as age res1ricted so that they would
be for seniors and that would in fact reduce the number of children that this project would
generate.
· Would it be possible to designate some number of the units in the project as senior only.
Wanted to know if that was true or not.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was not really possible because the program itself is based on what is called a nexus
study which shows the office and commercial building in Cupertino and the need it generates
for affordable housing based on the growth of office development. Many of those office
buildings are not generating seniors or older employees so basically those are the fees that they
use to support that program as far as adminis1ration. They can not legally do that. Restricting
the age on those units will cause some problems with the Nexus study and whether they can
legally defend requiring the developer to provide those BMR units only for seniors.
· It might be possible, but she was not sure how she would fund filling those units in and
administering them.
Rick Hausman, Cupertino Union School District:
· Provided an overview of the present and projected enrollment at the various schools in the
Dis1rict and answered Commissioners' questions.
· He said Lincoln School is not considered impacted.
· Regnart will not be used as an overflow school for Lincoln.
· For CUSD the peak year looks like the 08-09 year.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
January 24, 2006
Dennis Elliott, resident:
· In favor of the project.
· He understood that big box retail probably would not fit on the land but other types of business
that generates traffic in excess of what you would like to have is possible. He believes the
project is very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Philip Tsai, resident:
· Asked about enrollment numbers.
· He estimated at least 94 kids corning out of the units and questioned where the 34 number
derived ftom.
Alan Chamorro:
· He represents the ownership at Results Way. He has owned the property since 1998 and
redeveloped the ftont part of the park. Measurex moved out of the property in 2002 or 200 I.
It has been on the market for about three years. These properties are affectively obsolete
and out dated industrial buildings. They have little or no value right now.
· They have several instances of vandalism. The only interest they have had has been ftom
big box retail and that is why they are here tonight with Taylor Woodrow. He feels that
Taylor Woodrow has a very good project and the community would benefit. This is one of
the best projects he has ever seen and they have been active developers around the world.
He is proud to be part of the project.
· Said the plan is to complete the demolition; the buildings have no value. They have no plans
for the current office space they are keeping. There are no allocations in the area.
· They are fully leased for several years. They have no plans to change that.
· He said he did not have a backup plan as he fully expects the project to go through
· He said as is, the property has no value; no one will lease the space.
· He said the project would be the best use for the property.
Ming Louie, Imperial Ave.:
· Seen many changes over the years in Cupertino; traffic is the biggest change. Crossing
McClellan Avenue is very difficult to do now. They have to pay $45 for a parking permit to
park a car in ftont of their house on Imperial. He thinks the Taylor- Woodrow housing
project is a good one but wants to know if they can reduce the number of houses ftom 94 to
reduce the traffic.
· More time is needed to evaluate the proposal.
· He urged the Planning Commission to delay the decision process so the public has more
time to evaluate it.
Doris Yeh, Imperial Ave.:
· Remembers when Cupertino was more open space. Now it takes 15 minutes to get on some
streets.
· The open trail at her backyard is a concern relative to her safety and her privacy.
Dennis Yao, resident:
· Said he felt that Taylor Woodrow is trying to change Cupertinos's characteristic and landscape.
· A consultant made phone calls to homes trying to convince residents to support the project.
· He stated Taylor Woodrow contributed $24,000 to campaigns to keep Apple and HP in
Cupertino. His question to the Taylor Woodrow representative, if Apple and HP want to
expand in the current Measurex site? If this project gets approval, one third of the industrial
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
January 24, 2006
land will be gone.
· It is difficult to convert residential back to indus1rial zoning. Keep some land for high tech
growth, because that is what Cupertino's culture is.
Dennis Yao, resident:
· Said he felt that Taylor Woodrow is trying to change Cupertinos's characteristic and landscape.
· A consultant made phone calls to homes trying to convince residents to support the project.
· It is difficult to convert residential back to indus1rial zoning. Keep some land for high tech
growth, because that is what Cupertino's culture is.
Kendra McIntyre, Stelling Road:
· Said she felt it was a miscalculation of students they expect to have with the new housing
development. If there are 94 units and considering the US average per household is 2.4 kids,
they should have 225.6 new kids in the neighborhood. She feels they need to average more
kids per school then they are.
· Everyone is assuming that the building is obsolete so you can not rent it in the condition that it
is in. Nobody is talking about renovating it. She stated that she got a donor list for this project
and several names from the commission carne up on the list. This means that several people
on this list will profit if this project goes through. She would like to know if it is likely that
this project will not go through?
· Explained that the donor list is a list of people who have donated to make the project succeed.
She said that many of the Planning Department staff were on the list an stood to profit if the
project succeeds.
· According to this list many people have given money to this project.
· She would only say that said the information carne across her desk.
· She passed it onto staff as requested by Chair Miller.
Patrick Chen, resident:
· Monte Vista High is at capacity but the estimate for the add on is under estimated. It is not the
same formula that is used for Cupertino. People move into Cupertino because they love kids
and they emphasize high quality education. People in Cupertino have two kids in school
because if they have one child only they probably would be in private school instead of
moving into Cupertino because it could be too expensive.
· It is cheaper when they move to new unit they need to pay close to $ 1000 home owners
association fee, if they only have one kid. He thinks their estimate is way too low. He said not
to damage the quality of life by adding on an assumed good project. He would suggest the
Commission vote no or at least delay it.
.
K.Y Ho, resident:
· Opposes the project.
· Main concern is traffic; there are traffic jams at Imperial, McClellan and Bubb.
· Density is also a concern; the houses in the neighborhood are zoned Rl 7.5, and should remain
at that to reduce the amount of house to a more acceptable level.
· If the Commission approves the project, he said he hoped they did not open up Imperial
Avenue.
RattehalIi Sudesh:
· Opposes the project because of traffic and the impact on the schools. He is also feels it will
impact the quality of living.
.. He commended Taylor Woodrow for the presentation and flyers that were mailed to everyone
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
January 24. 2006
even though he felt that the flyer was in poor taste. He superimposed pictures of traffic on
Taylor Woodrow photos to demonstrate how severe the impact would be.
· He said there were about 15 homes with nice views and yards and the others are crammed
together.
· He asked the Commission to hear the community because they are the ones living in the area
and will have to live with the project.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Expressed concern about the loss of technology parks. She said she did not want Cupertino to
lose its tech parks and become the center of residential buildings and housing units in the
valley.
· Cupertino can become Saratoga, a lovely community without tech parks, but a beautiful
residential bedroom community.
· She would like to think Cupertino will remain a vibrant center of Silicon Valley and there will
be a strong tech presence in Cupertino. It is not a good idea to rezone industrial technological
park to residential zoning. The tech parks need to be protected for future tech companies not
housing.
· Sunnyvale High School should be reopened.
· She opposes the project.
Surendra Muthye, resident:
· Opposes the project; it is too concentrated in its nature. Cupertino should have more dispersed
growth of such projects.
· Four parks are being donated to the city. The parks do not have parking spaces and are
inaccessible to the Cupertino residents. By having a very concentrated development very
close to the schools, they are impacting the greater Cupertino city. The boundaries are going
to be reduced.
· Cupertino will need more schools but does not have the funds for more.
· The traffic problem exists at the intersection of Budd and McClellan, and the junction of
Imperial and McClellan. There is nothing that can be done. The only way to address the
problem is to increase the width of the road which is not possible.
· Having a big box retail in that area would be more preferential. With retail there the traffic
would go outside, towards Stevens Creek to Budd north.
Norm Hackford, resident:
· The bicycle lanes on McClellan Way are the narrowest in the city. There are cars parked on
McClellan Road as well. He did not see anything in the traffic plan that will improve the
situation. Kids are riding their bikes on the sidewalks and the traffic in the morning is backed
up, it is not safe for the kids. Putting parked cars on McClellan is the dumbest idea he has
heard of. He wants to make sure the bicycle commission has seen this and approved it before
they assume they have done anything to improve the traffic in this area. Aside ITom the that
issue he supports the community who are generally against it.
Charlie Ahern:
· He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. The developers have done a lot
to mitigate the issues that were brought up by the commission and the community.
· He said he was disturbed that is seems like people have already made up their mind, they do
not want this project. They talk about the school issues; the school district said they will be
renovating and the developer has gone out of their way to contribute a couple million dollars
extra to help mitigate the problem with the schools. People do not want to hear that because
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
January 24, 2006
they have already made up their mind. The traffic problem is Monte Vista High School. If
people do not approve the traffic mitigations that they are proposing, two alternatives are to
close Monte Vista High School or require that the school districts provide traffic coordinators
and people to handle the traffic up there. It is the responsibility of the school district to
mitigate that. He likes the design of the development. There are porches and shared public
spaces. He believes that someone made some undocumented charges of staff and commission
corruption. They said that a piece of paper came across her desk. They need to know where
that paper came rrom and if someone makes charges like that they better be willing to stand up
and back those charges up. He feels that is an insult.
Yu-Sheng Kao:
· Asked how many parking spaces in the plan aside rrom the garages? How many parking
spaces does the residential guidelines require for three and four bedrooms? Does this meet the
requirement? Is there any parking guidelines for the park?
Rich Robinson:
· Said he said the flier; it was to inform the community what the project was and what the
economical and viable alternatives for the project are. You can either have this housing
project or you can have some other retail, mixed retail, or big box development. The industrial
technology is not coming back; it is happening in San Jose and in Cupertino people are
converting their industrial land to housing and commercial because that is what is
economically viable.
· He said he felt the flier was factual and its goal was to influence people. The telemarketing
was to gage public support for the project which was overwhelmingly positive up until tonight.
He feels that the election results did send a message, that smart growth works; 8.000 people
voted against Measures A, B, and C. Not everyone that supports the project is going to come
out every night and tell you that.
· He commended the exceIIentjob done by the Planning Department staff and Taylor Woodrow.
Com. Giefer:
. Noted for the record that on the BRC for the direct mail piece there was no alternative to state
other than you did support the project. There was no place on the BRC to indicate they did not
support the project.
Mr. Robinson:
. Noted that some opposition cards were received.
Com. Giefer:
· Stated for the record that on the BRC for the direct mail piece there was no alternative to state
other than you did support the project. As an example, people who opposed it there was no
place on the BRC to indicate that on their mailer.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
January 24, 2006
Champion Chen, Imperial Ave.:
· Opposed the proj ect.
· He said Cupertino has excellent education for the students.
· The buildings look bad, need improvement.
· Relative to traffic. how do they drive out; people oppose the project because of the drop off
area.
· Need more time to study the issues.
Stan E., Imperial Avenue:
· Issues are traffic and schools.
· He does not see a issue with proposed units; when Measurex was built, it took out 30 or 40%
of the skyline, it is just a big wall. It would be aesthetically pleasing to see some homes there.
· Taylor Woodrow has a good project.
Robert Yu, Imperial Ave.:
· A long time resident of Imperial Avenue. He has not experienced problems coming from the
office building behind his backyard for the last eighteen years.
· Said he had concerns with the McLellan trail, and opposes it for the following reasons: It is
not good for students to walk to all three schools, but is also open to entire public for all
purposes. He understands that all the proposed trails are connected. It opens up his backyard
to the potential safety, security, and privacy impacts. He recommend that the planning
commission read policy 2-70, page 2-54, strategy 2, concerning the trail project in the city's
general planning amendment finalized in last November. He would also like to ask each
commissioner if they would approve this open trail behind their backyard, without any
evaluation on these issues and concerns as stated in the General Plan. He thinks the answer
would be no. The second reason is the issue for walkability because the homes being built in
the new tract are located very close to three schools. He feels the underlying intent is for
profitability at the Imperial residents expense. The realtors and home owners know that
walkability means saleability to all the new homes. Saleability meanS profitability.
Glen Lynch, Owner of Cupertino Supply, Plumbing Wholesale:
· The traffic report states that there will be no increase in traffic overall, but does not address the
fact that on Imperial Avenue there is no connection now to the existing occupancy; even if
that building as it exists was fully occupied there would be no impact on Imperial Avenue
today.
· The project connects Results Way to Imperial dumping a lot more carS onto Imperial Avenue.
· Urged the Planning Commission to listen to the community.
· He asked why the traffic concerns were not on the list of concerns from the community.
Com. Wong:
· Asked Mr. Lynch to provide a brief history of his business and how the change in housing has
affected his business on Imperial Avenue.
Mr. Lynch:
· He has spoken with other business owners on Imperial and they are all very concerned about
the traffic. His customers are small plumbing contractors whose time is money to them, they
are not huge shops with employees on hourly wages. They are losing money when they are in
traffic just to get to and from their shop; it does affect their decisions about where to buy their
materials from.
· His father started Cupertino Supply on Homestead Road in 1964, they have been on Imperial
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
January 24, 2006
Road since the early 1970's. The traffic is an issue to his customers. With 94 homes the
morning traffic will be a disaster. It is not going to just affect Imperial, it will affect the
surrounding neighborhoods as cars look for other routes to get to Stevens Creek.
Vikas Sachdeva, Imperial Avenue:
· He opposes the McLellan Trail that passes directly behind his house. He believes that because
of the unrestricted traffic on the trail it is going to affect the piece and quiet of the
neighborhood. The nature of the trail can result in hangout areas along the trail.
· Fonnerly resided on McClellan Lane and part of that community was dedicated as a city park.
· If there are any type of unpleasant occurrences on the trail, it will have to be reported or
disclosed as part of property sales, which will bring down the property value of the homes in
that area.
Steve Wu, resident:
· Has lived in Imperial neighborhood for twenty years. Does not want to mix industrial and
residential zones. It creates more security and safety issues.
· The area cannot handle more traffic generated by the high density housing development
project. The neighborhood has three schools with terrible traffic problems already. He feels
that the neighborhood, and the zoning was not intended for residential housing. There is no
way to expand Budd, Imperial and McClellan, they are two lanes. He showed slides of the
proposed development side at 7am in the morning, showing the long lines of traffic and how
difficult it is to make left turns or cross the streets.
Doris Yeh:
· Has lived in the Imperial neighborhood for fifteen years.
· Remembers Cupertino when it was open space; now she has to wait sometimes fifteen minutes
to get on some streets.
· Expressed concern about the open trail at her backyard relative to her safety and privacy.
Christina Wong, Imperial Ave.:
· She is not opposed to the project.
· Has concerns about the trail at the back end of her house, as well as safety and security. If the
trail is open her privacy is invaded. That is the area where police men cannot get in. She feels
that the highschool students or other people might do things when it is dark. It is not a safe
place for children to walk to school.
· The parking lot is a good place for parents to drop of their kids and it is going to be a trouble
spot.
· Recommended lowering the density to 80 houses instead of 94. She doesn't want a trail in her
backyard. The Cupertino quality of life should be preserved.
Sherry Hsu, Imperial Ave.:
· Concerned about McClellan Trail and is uncomfortable with it running through her backyard.
There is already a trail by the railway. She feels if they want another one they can make a trail
in the middle of the complex. She doesn't understand why they give the reason of walkability
when the trail takes away the neighbors' privacy, security and safety.
· She opposes the McClellan Trail.
· Asked if the fire trucks would be able to get to the houses, because of the one way streets.
· Wants to know if there is a fire, will fire trucks be able to get through all the houses, especially
because of the one way streets. She has concerns about the parking spaces. There is no where
to park on the one way street.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
January 24, 2006
· The City is only getting 4% of property tax, it can not offset the public expenditure. She feels
they should preserve the land for Apple and other companies to expand.
Edward Ford, Wilkinson Ave.:
· Opposes the project.
· Expressed concern about the traffic and safety.
· There is already worry for the children's safety; and this project will impact them. It is a high,
heavy hazard area and at some times of the day he cannot take his grandchildren there.
· Many neighbors do not believe or have confidence in the reports. His profession is an
aeronautical engineer, and he said that he doesn't trust the numbers.
· He feels there is a communication gap between the community and the consultants report.
· The quality of life will be impacted by the project.
· There are many options that have not been looked at.
· Too much commercial land is being changed to residential and that needs to be halted.
· He said he would like to bring suggested options to the Commission at a future time.
Mr. Ford:
· Said he did not see any value in the traffic mitigation proposals. Stated that when you do
traffic bumpers, what happens is you push cars into the sidewalks and what really happens is
the cars push into pedestrians. You are merely jeopardizing the people who are trying to walk
down the streets. The right answer is to get the carS off the streets, period.
Cben, resident:
· Monta Vista High is at capacity but the estimate for the add on is under estimated; it is not the
same formula that is used for Cupertino. People move into Cupertino because they know of
the quality education.
· It is cheaper; when they move to a new unit they need to pay close to $ 1000 home owners
association fee, if they only have one kid. He thinks their estimate is way too low. He would
suggest don't damage quality of their life by adding on an assumed good project. He would
suggest the commission vote no or at least delay it.
Tom Wangb, Nortb DeAnza Circle:
· He is on the Board of Directors of the Silicon Valley Habitat For Humanity.
· Asked what percentage ofBMR units is determined for this project
Mr. Piasecki:
· By code, the city has a requirement for 15% in the General Plan and it has been that way since
200 I.
Mr. Wangb:
· Asked TW how the BMR Units going to be distributed. Stated they are currently proposing
50% three bedrooms and 50% four bedrooms. Are the BMR Units going to be 50% three
bedrooms and 50% four bedrooms?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Yes. The BMR process requires that it be equally distributed based on whatever is being put
into the development.
Radba Nagarajan:
· His concern with the new proposed development is having several sites of high density
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
January 24, 2006
housing sprouting around the city without actually knowing the impact of the new
developments in Cupertino. He thinks they should slow down and look at the other
applications that are approved and see what the impact that they have. The Rosebowl, The
Ridgeline and the one that was discussed two weeks ago before more units are approved. Big
box retailers have been discussed as alternatives and he feels that is more of a red herring than
anything else.
· The City has discouraged one and he does not think another one would move in just because of
traffic concerns.
· The developer has done a good job in putting the whole package together but the flyer and the
subsequent phone banking was disingenuous.
· He said he did not think they appreciated the flyer distribution and that they got involved in
local politics and local measures. It is not a good indication of a good developer and a good
neighbor.
Ben Chia, Imperial Avenue:
· He hopes the commission will look at Cupertino as a better place instead of smaller high
density houses. Looking at the overall project, he noticed that all the projects look really
pressing.
· He said he had negative feelings about how much money the developer is giving to the school
and the District as support. He stated that if something is invested into a development, it is
just done, it should not have to support schools; it looks like a huge effort put in, it does not
seem natural. He is concerned the dropping off thing is horrible and does not work. The
school is a concern too.
· Is confused where the communication is coming ITom that says there are no problems with the
schools.
· Parking is a problem in the high density residential area.
· There are few places to allow guest párking.
· He does not know the communication the commission gets that says there is no problem with
the school. Where does it come ITom? The parking space is a problem in the high density
residential area. There are very few places that allow guest parking. Is there any special
requirement for the three or four bedrooms, for the guest parking?
Jill Lin, resident:
· Opposes the project.
· Said she was under the impression that their school district is impartial to this project. Do they
support this project? Cupertino has done an excellent job in retaining the best parts of a small
peaceful and prosperous town. The schools are good and not over crowded. The proposed
developed of the Measurex site would add 94 homes and several hundred residents in a high
density arrangement. This is simply too much for such a small area. It would completely
change the character of this area making it much more crowded, with more traffic. It would
add many more new students to schools that will have no new facility to accommodate them.
The residents of Cupertino recognize the need for development that will keep the city's
economy healthy but this kind of growth is the wrong kind and threatens to compromise the
quality of life that has made the city such a great place to live. The proposed development
seems to have been designed to extract the maximum short term profit ITom the targeted area.
Little attention seems to have been paid to the need of Cupertino as a city. Apparently it is up
to someone else to worry about adding new retail space, fire stations, schools, professional
offices, and so forth to serve all the new people who would be occupying these proposed
housing. This can only mean that existing services in the city will be overburdened
· This plan is not designed for the best interest of the community. We need to insist on a plan
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
January 24, 2006
that pays more attention to quality ofIife issues for the residents of this community.
Rick Mesler, resident:
· 'He is looking forward to the project and plans to move into one of the units. He has a four
month old and the impact that he brings to the schools will not be seen for years. We need to
take this into account, not everyone that is moving into the places is bringing four or three
kids. The project will be a nice face lift and bring added value to the area.
Alden Wong:
· He works in the area and would like to move into the area. He is a single parent with a five
year old son.
· Expressed concern about the safety. The kids need a lighted area to play in, not a dark alley.
· feels it is ridiculous that the kids will be doing things in the dark alley. He would like to see
some street lights out there.
· There are not generated funds coming to the city for this space and is a waste of property.
Apple has every opportunity to come here. The land is just sitting there.
FerdinanD Laxamano:
· He is in favor of the proposal and feels that Taylor Woodrow has brought a lot to the city of
Cupertino. They are planning on beautifying our parks and trails as well as contributing to our
schools. I feel that the schools are the greatest for our future.
Ryan Magdangal:
· He supports the Taylor Woodrow development because how they are working with the
community and the city. It will bring some added value and beauty to the area. It is a win win
situation and they are open to working together.
Alex Yee, resident:
· He supports the project.
· The projects brings forth the quality of life that every family would want for their own. He has
seen developments from Gilroy, Danville, and as far away as Monterey and has never seen a
project that brings everything encompassed as one. The parks are enjoyable for the children.
· There are many shortcomings; but it is workable.
Arvind Agarwal:
· Resident of Cupertino for 14 years and have relocated because of some of the rezoning that
took place. They have always been supportive of development and taxation and building.
· The voters in November delivered a very clear message on Measures A,ß,and C; the message
that they heard from the voters is more may not be necessary. He heard a lot of people talking
about 2400 new housing units, why is that? Do we still believe that is necessary? He urged the
commission to postpone a decision to reflect upon what they have seen in the recent election
and make a wise decision.
Dennis Yao, resident:
· Said he felt that Taylor Woodrow is trying to change Cupertinos's characteristic and landscape.
· A consultant made phone calls to homes trying to convince residents to support the project.
· He stated Taylor Woodrow had contributed $24,000 to campaigns to keep Apple and HP in
Cupertino. His question to the Taylor Woodrow representative, is if Apple and HP want to
expand in the current Measurex site? If this project gets approval. one third of the industrial
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
January 24, 2006
land will be gone.
· It is difficult to convert residential back to indus1rial zoning. Keep some land for high tech
growth, because that is what Cupertino's culture is.
Doris Li, So. Stelling:
· Opposed the project. She moved to Cupertino three years ago because of the schools; and
learned that Cupertino is the least funded dis1rict in Santa Clara County. She also found out
that the schools are over crowded. High density housing is popping up everywhere.
· She thinks Taylor Woodrow 1ried to work the project and it is good to have BMR Units. She
feels they should mitigate the traffic and lower the density and maybe it will be approved. She
owns a business in Cupertino and they can not find property to rent. There is no warehouse
space in Cupertino and businesses may move to Sunnyvale and the city will lose out on sales
tax. She would like the commission to delay the decision. She calculated that 94 houses
probably will sell for $800,000 and $75 million, 2.6 of that will go to schools which is less
than 3%. She feels that is not much.
Brent Johnson, Silvergate Construction:
· He is Chief Estimator for Silvergate Construction; a family owned civil engineering
construction company operating in the bay area for 75 years. They have been associated with
Taylor Woodrow for a number of years. It has been a successful partnership and they are
people of their word.
· Taylor Woodrow requires high quality and going beyond the expectations of the cities and the
agencies and building above and beyond what is expected. They believe in doing it right the
first time and doing it safely.
· Cupertino has a great reputation for the schools and the community. He thinks this project is a
great vision to provide housing in the community where people work.
Scott Schultz, resident:
· Supports the project.
· He works for Sanco Pipelines located in Campbell which has been associated with Taylor
Woodrow in he past.
· Taylor Woodrow has looked at blighted property that is of no use and 1ried to look at it with a
vision and change it to an attractive place for mixed use for families.
· Sanco Pipeline has worked with TW in the past and has found that they have a vision. They
have come into other communities and built other successful projects.
· They are beautifying an existing retention pond that is no longer attractive; they are providing
a green space in a trail system; they are also going over and above the legal limits to provide
for mitigation at the schools. They have looked at this with a purpose to create a community
and he feels they have succeeded.
Ned Britt, resident:
· Opposed to the project; was originally undecided, but the deceptive flier they sent out, as well
as the annoying telemarketing helped change his mind.
· Consider the hundred of thousands of dollars spent and the fees that are being promised to the
schools. He quoted a saying "that if there ever a study about public policy, tell me who funded
the study; tell me the question; I will tell you the answer". When you look at the number of
students who will come out of the school, there are a lot of questions about that. It was funded
by people who want to make the project move forward.
· What might happen is eventually the crowding in the Monta Vista area will cause the
boundaries to be redrawn and there will be the opening of the bike bridge toward Mary
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
January 24, 2006
Avenue; you will push students now in the Monta Vista area over into Homestead. We have
seen the role play on that from what happened in the elementary schools.
o I think it is a bad situation for us to get rid of one of the two large contiguous spaces of
commercial areas and convert that into residential. This is one, the other is the area around
Valleo. Both of those are the only two places we have for significant expansion ofreasonably
large technology companies; and the idea of converting those things into residential. is a false
bargain. It may look nice now, but we will pay for it later.
Chair Miller:
o As one of the architects of the initiatives, would this project have passed the tests that the
initiatives set out?
Mr. Britt:
o In tenns of the density, it was 15 units per acre, it is less than that; in tenns of the height, the
maximum height is 36 feet; so in those senses, it would have passed.
Chair Miller:
o They would pass too, because they are single units; they are not higher than fourplexes.
Mr. Britt:
o There is a 1-1/2 to one slope ratio. But overriding all of that, the initiatives were totally exempt
for any residential spaces; that was one of the distortions that were used against it to get people
to vote against it. It did not apply to residential things; so it would not have applied in any
case.
o There was a statement that said nothing in those measures would prevent the councilor the
Planning Commission from imposing restrictions more stringent.
o In this case, I would recommend that is what you do.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller asked staff to respond to speakers' questions:
o Axe there requirements for parking for the park that we haven't addressed?
o Parking issues in general; parking cars on McClellan.
o Issue of whether we are making it unsafe for bikers.
o Concern about having two entrances to the development and adding to traffic on Imperial
which would impact the businesses there.
o There was a concern about safety in tenns of whether or not the fire department could get their
trucks in and out.
o A major concern about the trail that would go behind a number of homes on Imperial.
o Question of whether or not the owner had considered renovating and renting the buildings out.
o Question about the accuracy of the SGRs.
Mr. Piasecki:
o Said that Soreb Rashid from Fehr & Peers is here; he is the one who developed the mitigation
plan along McClellan Road; he was working for the city of Cupertino; the developer has to
pay the costs for all the studies; the plan retains bike lanes alaong McClellan Road; so the idea
that it wouldn't is simply not true.
o There is a proposed dropoff area, which was obtained only because of the additional right of
way that the property owner is willing to give up on his property; otherwise there is no new
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
January 24, 2006
added onstreet parking being proposed, and this plan for the other side of the street that would
be an impediment to the traffic flow.
· Relative to parking, he illustrated where cars were parked; the number of parking spaces
proposed is 2.8 spaces per unit; there is parking all along the streets in the development. They
have two spaces, an enclosed garage, and then the .8 is available for guests or users of the park
facilities which are primarily going to be the residents in the development; and incidentally the
neighboring properties, who can either walk or take their vehicle there. The idea of having
open space in proximity to neighbors is that they can have the option of walking. These are
relatively small facilities; we don't expect you will find pickup games of soccer or baseball,
the spaces are not that large, which is one of the reasons while we are willing to take them as
public parks, we don't want to bear the costs of maintaining them as public parks, so we ask
the applicants to not only give us a turnkey park, but to have the future homeowners pay for
their maintenance.
· People from outside using the park area can park in the .8 additional spaces per unit, there are
about 75 spaces available in the project, onstreet to accommodate people using the parks or
guests. If the open spaces were private, we would still have 2.8; we have always asked that
they be publicly accessible; the only difference is that they have said they will dedicate those
parks and give them to the city of Cupertino. They would have been publicly accessible
anyway, and we think the .8 is sufficient to handle the parking necessary for the public and/or
the private use of the parks.
· There was a suggestion that the school report was tainted because the applicant has to bear the
cost of that; this was a city selected consultant who also works for the school districts. The
applicant had to pick up the cost of the study, there was no relationship otherwise between the
consultant who did the study and the applicant.
· Relative to fire access. the fire department looks at the developments and have reviewed it.
· Trails: We asked the applicant to incorporate trails. We were concerned about school children
from Astoria or the neighborhoods in Monta Vista having another option to gain access to
McClellan Road and the schools without having to go out to Bubb Road and swing back in.
You can choose to leave them in or take them out. The trail system is not likely to create the
impacts and issues they are speaking of.
· Traffic impacts on Imperial: Said that there is only one controlled access into and out ofMonta
Vista on Orange and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Imperial and Stevens Creek is a problem spot
because there is no controlled access; you have to wait for a clearing on Stevens Creek before
the cars can get out. There is little reason why the residents are going to want to get out on
Imperial Avenue and get in line for a gap on Stevens Creek Boulevard when they have a
controlled access on Bubb. It also provides an opportunity for the Monta Vista residents for
another way for them to flow out of the area through the same system of controlled access if
they chose to.
Soreb Rashid, traffic engineer:
· Clarified the purpose of the plan to provide whatever capacity enhancements, essentially the
problem in the neighborhood is getting traffic in and then flushing it out during the peak
school times.
Mr. Robinson:
· Relative to the postcards sent out, he said they are still receiving them back, and they plan to
take them to the City Council meeting on the 21 ".
· It is evidenced from the telemarketing that they have over I ,000 supporters. The community
will benefit.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
January 24, 2006
Com. Giefer:
· Noted for the record that on the BRC for the direct mail piece there was no alternative to state
other than you did support the project. There was no place on the BRC to indicate they did not
support the proj ect.
Edward Ford:
· When they did the telemarketing you did not have an option other than to say they supported
it. No matter what you said the other party kept changing your words.
Mr. Piasecki:
· In the area of McClellan and Bubb, where we are looking for a way to flush out Bubb Road
northbound, we made numerous observations in the area to look at the school traffic and the
flows and that is one area we saw we could do some minor widening and improve the capacity
out. The second one was the flow along McClellan is affected by how well vehicles are able
to circulate to Lincoln and to Monta Vista and because of the way the schools are constructed,
there are not a lot of opportunities to provide any major onsite enhancements for capacity.
· We looked at making sure that the onsite facilities that are there now operate as efficiently as
possible and one of the best ways to do that is to provide traffic control which the project
sponsor has agreed to do between a crosswalk over at the intersection and having a traffic
control person within the Lincoln lot to get people in and out. We also saw an opportunity to
provide an additional dropoff area so you didn't have to circulate on through the campus.
· We also looked at the bigger picture of where could we also make safety enhancements; one
speaker gave an example of a person crossing the street and had difficulty with gaps. The plan
itself doesn't increase the number of gaps but at specific locations, we are extending curbs, we
are bringing pedestrians, we are having a shorter distance acroSS and exposing them visually to
the driver more so than they would be set another five or eight feet back from the roadway.
· The side benefit of these enhancements is traffic calming so that people drive more controlled
through the area. Weare trying to provide opportunities for people to walk rather than driving.
· Relative to parked cars, he said they were not planning on adding any additional parking along
McClellan.
· Answered questions regarding traffic analyses, and traffic impacts.
Mr. Shamòra:
· He said the plans were studied, and the current rents would have to get up to 400% of what
they currently are to make it a viable office park. The costs are prohibitive.
· To make it an office park, the properties would have to be seismically upgraded, have all new
infrastructure, new electrical, new hvac, plumbing; there is no elevator in the largest building;
several of the buildings do not have windows; no lobbies or common area or cores. It would
be more economical to tear it down and rebuild it. The layout of the existing buildings is a
hodgepodge of buildings pushed together in various forms and is in no way indicative of the
property. The property has been on the market for three years and it is an obsolete building.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the absorption rates for office in the valley were 20 to 30 years out before we fill up
what is currently vacant; space is going at a very low price presently.
Chair MiUer:
· Relative to density. a number of speakers spoke about the concern that the density is out of
line with the neighborhoods and most of the zoning is 6,000 square foot lots, 7,500 square foot
lots, and the project seems to be higher than the surrounding neighborhood.
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
January 24, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Referred to an aerial photo illustrating the location relative to the neighboring properties. He
concurred that the core of the Monta Vista neighborhood is in the 4 to 5 dwelling units per
acre range. He reviewed the density of surrounding projects. You could make this a lower
density in which case you would probably lose the open spaces and spread the units out on a
larger lot. In the Monta Vista area there are a number of areas where people have built
apartments over shops and retail and dental offices where the densities are comparable if not
higher than what is being proposed.
Staff answered questions about the BMR housing program and the qualification guidelines in
Cupertino.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said it was a well designed project, a well integrated neighborhood, and she was pleased that
Imperial was opened up for a connection to the neighborhood.
· Supports the pedestrian trail out to McClellan, and noted she would not be opposed to having a
trail behind her home.
· Said she did not have concerns with the density; however, she has reservations about the
projects, and feels there is a certain irony about the project. Everything discussed during the
General Plan deliberations and with other projects being reviewed, it is all about putting jobs
near housing. There is housing surrounding the project and we are talking about taking out
buildings and these could be functionally obsolete buildings, they are not modem and cost
prohibitive to update.
· I would rather see the commercial replaced than to see more housing there since it is an easier
solution in terms of providing jobs for people in the neighborhoods and making it convenient.
We have heard a lot from developers about how bad all the obsolete industrial is in Cupertino,
we have never heard a developer come in and tell us they wanted to keep industrial the way it
was or commercial the way it was; all we ever hear is how they need to remove it and put in
housing.
· Our job is to have a long term vision and I think that housing is very important today and is
something we have to address as a community. Over the next 20 years, the length of our
General Plan, it will be very important for us to have space available for businesses.
· If it wasn't removing commercial, I would support the project because it is very nicely done.
They have done an excellent job of negotiating with the school systems and trying to be
creative to help solve the neighborhood traffic issues. I cannot make the findings this is an
appropriate site when it is ajob generating site in the middle of existing housing.
· To go ahead and remove this and put more housing in when every other deliberation we have
relates to putting housing close to jobs; it is contrary to me. I cannot support the project.
Com. Saadati:
· When the project was before the Planning Commission previously, comments were made
about size, height, bedrooms, and the developer has done a great deal to integrate those into
the plan. Many speakers spoke against the project.
· The traffic aspects of the project are not that important, because currently the traffic is bad.
The problem is people don't walk; unless people get out of their cars, the school districts
should try to implement some incentives for the students to walk to school which would help
the traffic.
· The law prohibits the Planning Commission from making a decision based on school impacts.
· The trails are positive; they encourage the Monta Vista students to walk to school.
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
January 24, 2006
· Converting industrial to residential - the area has been vacant for some time and don't foresee
for five years any industrial development in the area. There is a lot of outsourcing taking place
in the valley; the lots are small. .
· It is doubtful the project would impact the traffic on Imperial.
· Recommended improvement in the BMR area; the project is well done with parks and public
space adding to the community. He said he hoped when the project goes to the City Council.
the developer would increase the BMR units, to bring in more people who work in San Jose
who are able to afford to live in the area.
· Said he supports staff recommendation with the added suggestion of increasing the BMR.
Com. Wong:
· Acknowledge the receipt of a lot of input, some opposing the project and some supporting it.
· Concurred that the project was well designed; Taylor Woodrow followed the Monta Vista
plan, and followed staffs recommendation. It applies much ofthe smart growth principles that
we would like to see in our community; it is important to follow those principles.
· The applicant also addressed some of the concerns that were raised by the Planning
Commission by lowering the height, having different mixture of room counts; having bigger
garages; trails, parks; opened up the pedestrian walkability; and trying to address the school
impact concerns.
· Regarding the McClellan trail that abuts the neighborhood, it is similar to Regnart Creek trail,
the neighbors said they were concerned about their safety and security, I have to agree with
them. If we are going to move forward with this project, I think I would support the Union
Pacific trail, but not the McClellan trail.
· Relative to school impacts, the Commission cannot address those issues; the developer was
generous to negotiate with the school district in getting $908,000, for CUSD; $I.I20 million
for FUHSD, and traffic mitigation of $640,000. My concern is that we look at it as a cost
benefit analysis; what is the cost and what is the benefit to the community; it gives a
perception that we are giving funds to the school district which they really need. The problem
has to be addressed in Sacramento.
· The traffic mitigations are very good; again I am concerned about traffic.
· Expressed concern about preserving the light industrial of Imperial Avenue and DeAnza
Boulevard, to keep jobs and services close to Cupertino homes.
· The applicant has to make a business decision; he knew he purchased it as industrial space; I
do understand that it has to be tom down, replaced, but that is a business decision.
· It is a difficult decision to vote No on the project, even though it marks all the smart principles
that I support.
· Expressed concern about the resident who accused the Commissioner and city staff for giving
funds to the developer; said he had no attachment giving funds to this particular developer;
this developer has been very generous to the community and gave $35,000 for the Jubilee
Celebration. Taylor Woodrow has been a community builder in the community and has
contributed to our community organizations.
· It was a business decision by Taylor Woodrow to hire a consultant. I applaud Rich Robinson
for taking responsibility for this flier and telemarketing. He is doing his outreach; I don't
necessarily agree with the particular style. On the time I have been on the Planning
Commission, I never saw a developer do this type of outreach, hiring a consultant and fliers.
Based on the merits of the project, I think the merits should stand on their own; come to a
public hearing, and this is bad publicity for the applicant, but I am not going to hold that
against him. My main concern is traffic and loss of industrial use.
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
January 24, 2006
Chair Miller:
· It is a wen designed project. I am struggling about the appropriate use for the site. The way
the traffic flows, it is not clear to me that it works very wen for much of anything. I think it
would be great as a park. The other suggestion is I thought it would be good as a senior
community because all the impacts would disappear, but the developer is not
proposing that at this time.
· It is not clear to me that it works well as an industrial site just because of the traffic
flows. I struggle with what is the right use.
· Another issue is, if we convert this, then the choice of densities seems to be very
arbitrary and my tendency would be to go with a density that is more in line with the
surrounding neighborhoods as opposed to one that is higher. Commended the applicant
for working with the schools and reaching an agreement with them in tenns of
mitigating the impacts on the schools. There is no way I can say that the schools are
going to be impacted. All the data suggests that the schools will not be impacted, and
we are having traffic experts come up and tell us that the dedication of some $600,000
or $700,000 toward traffic improvements will make a difference there if this
application goes away then that money towards making a difference in tenns of
improving the traffic, also goes away. There are other benefits here, some people
support the trails; some people don't support the trails. There is one trail everyone
agrees on; the other trail, I would say that if the project went forward that we should
have perhaps put it in, but have some review and if it is causing a problem, then it is
easy to close it off so it doesn't cause a problem.
· I think that I would rather see senior housing, but the next most reasonable thing is that we put
a housing project there, but we put the density more at the level of the surrounding
neighborhoods, and then I believe it becomes a non-issue.
· Whether we go through Imperial or not, I understand the concept that traffic flows like water,
and so if there is a heavy traffic backup at Imperial and Stevens Creek today, putting that road
through is not going to increase it, but I am also sensitive to the need of the businesses in that
area that say they have noticed an increase in traffic since the other development has gone in,
and their business has decreased. I am sensitive to that concern as wen and would consider a
modification of the entrance.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to deny the project.
Com. Wong:
· Noted for the record that he preferred Imperial Avenue closed and used for pedestrian traffic
if the project moves forward at the City Council level
Vice Chair Giefer:
· If it goes to Council. I would like to express my opinion, that if that road is not open, it would
be a dreadful plan.
Com. Saadati:
· If it goes to Council, I would like to see more BMR units.
.
Com. Wong:
· Said he would support 20-25% BMR if it goes forward.
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
January 24, 2006
(Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Saadati No.)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ERC: No report
Housinl! Commission:
Com. Saadati:
· Bill Britt suggested extending the limit of the housing assistance to the Cupertino District
Board vs San Jose because the district limitation goes beyond the Cupertino limits. No
decision was made; the legality needs to be evaluated.
Mavors Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
Com. Wong:
· Reported that Mayor Lowenthal welcomed the commissioners. He will provide a more
detailed report at the next meeting
Economic Develonment Committee:
Com. Wong:
· The Chamber of Commerce. City Council and city staff look forward to working together on
economic development.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
· No report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting
on Thursday, January 26, 2006. at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary