PC 07-08-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
APPROVED MII~UTES
6:45 P.M. July 8, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 8, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Mariy
Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
Senior Planner: Gary Chao
Assistant Planner: Leslie Gross
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the June 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Corrections: Com. Rose: Page 9, bottom of
page: website should be www.solar.cunertino.log
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve the
June 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Steve Piasecki noted receipt of items relative to agenda items.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
1. M-2008-02 Minor Modification of Use Permit (U-2007-09) for the
Devcon Construction removal of 15 additional trees. Application has been
10900 Tantau Avenue removed
from calendar.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to remove
Application M-2008-02 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to move (Item 2)
Application MCA-2008-02 to the end of the agenda following Old Business.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 8, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Chair Miller moved the agenda to Item 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3. CP-2008-02 (EA-2008-04) City initiated Master Plan for the South Vallco Area
City of Cupertino Tentative City Council date: August 5, 2008
Citywide Location
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the application for the City initiated Master Plan for the South
Vallco Area, as outlined in the staff report. In March 2008, the City Council initiated the
planning process for the South Vallco planning area, and authorized Sand Hill Properties to
take the lead in managing the master plan.
• He reviewed the community workshops held by Sand Hill Properties on April 10~ and April
23rd. Outreach was also conducted with various stakeholders in the area, as well as the Rancho
Rinconada residents. Citywide postcards were sent out regarding tonight's meeting as well.
• The premise of the Master Plan is based on the General Plan Policy 2.30, which provides two
objectives for the South Vallco plan area; one is to ensure continuous building mass and scale
and connectivity; and the other to ensure a consistent and continuous streetscape treatment
along Vallco Parkway from Wolfe Road to Tantau Avenue. Based on the input received at the
community workshops, four objectives have been incorporated into the So. Vallco Master
Plan. They are listed on Page 3-3 of the staff report.
• He highlighted key policies of the Master Plan as contained in the Master Plan as part of the
staff report, including connectivity; circulation; design consistency relative to landscaping,
sidewalks, street furniture, lighting and parking; and retail activation.
• Relative to sustainability, cunently there is not a policy in the document and staff recommends
that the Planning Commission evaluate this issue and provide direction on a reasonable policy
that covers sustainability and green building measures within the So. Vallco area. Sand Hill
Properties and their architect have additional suggestions to present to the Planning
Commission.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
So. Vallco Master Plan.
Staff answered Planning Commissioners' questions relative to the application.
Ken Rodriques, Project Architect, Sand Hill Properties:
~ Using a slide presentation, he provided a background of the project. The City Council
requested a focus master plan to coordinate the connectivity and flow between all of the
properties in the So. Vallco area and also asked what should the pedestrian experience be in
the master plan. Held a series of community outreach meetings on the master plan, one being
held this week on site specific. Also included community action groups, and all of the adjacent
property owners. Some of the things we heard from the community were make it a downtown-
like; could we develop some type of main street; appeal to a wider area of Cupertino and not
only Cupertino but also regional draw; include trees, benches, special lighting, safe walkable
pedestrian oriented areas that had really interesting and good street lights that serve the
pedestrians. Wanted to have connections to offices, shopping, neighborhood and the school.
Pedestrian connectivity between Vallco and the Sand Hill site; also possibility of helping
develop a park or trail along the existing creek. Consistent public space; lighting, sidewalks,
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 July 8, 2008
trees, how can we take these 8 to 9 properties and connect them all with some kind of common
theme. The areas should bring out people, bring them together and it also has good access to
public transit. In terms of the site planning itself, they wanted it to be a gathering place that
attracts people citywide; family friendly; somewhere for youth to go; a landmark project; a
focal point community gathering place; help connect to Cupertino Square, complement the
Rose Bowl site as well as connect to it; possibly create precincts or districts; a European Old
Town; pedestrian center with shops, restaurants, and other uses along the edges so that the
sites connect it; slow th4e traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard; and locate a variety of
different scaled buildings along Stevens Creek. That was the public input from the various
community workshops.
• He reviewed a site map which included property uses, vacant land, parking lots; vehicular
circulation patterns; future use of the sites; but today they are office; how can they strengthen
pedestrian access along Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and how do
pedestrian connections link from site to site. We looked at being able to strengthen these
future uses, creating nodes at various intersection points within the project. When you look at
some hierarchy of both pedestrian and trying to slow the traffic down, in terms of the vehicular
traffic, the connections in between those become really important; the common street trees, the
common lighting, benches, graphics; all of the things that make this a district.
• Discussed the possibility of creating a downtown site, and major landscape frontage along
Stevens Creek Boulevard creating a focal point at the edges of both Vallco Parkway. The
community also wanted to provide a buffer between Metropolitan and the Sand Hill Project.
There needs to be some type of landscape piece that gets created there to help buffer the
project from them. Both the Metropolitan project, surrounding neighborhood to the south, the
high school, they felt comfortable talking about locating a park element on Stevens Creek; not
only does it help buffer the Metropolitan project from the future Sand Hill Project, it is a
visible landscape marker on Stevens Creek which could be a dramatic piece. There is also the
opportunity to create a landscape creek trail, the north end of the site, and connecting it to
future development at the Apple site.
• There was also a discussion about abandoning Finch Avenue internally, creating a pedestrian
plaza. Streets in most downtowns are necessary, they circulate both autos and pedestrians, but
they can be very pedestrian friendly, such as downtown Los Gatos, Healdsburg, downtown
Sonoma, Cannel on Ocean Avenue; these are the kinds of images that the public talked about .
and wanted to create this different place.
• A variety of building heights along Stevens Creek; we also looked at how to make the site
bicycle friendly.
Gary Lehman, Landscape Architect:
• There were several different goals we had from the landscape perspective and particularly
with regard to the master plan, a lot of what you see is landscape oriented. It is both
vehicular oriented in terms of defining the district, and you see as part of the plan we have
gateway features both on the east end of Stevens Creek as well as the west end of Stevens
Creek; there is also as well on the north end of Wolfe, these will be some type of gateway
structure or signage element that would be community focused; not advertising focus and it
would be a way of announcing you are coming into a district. That would be primarily
vehicular oriented piece, but then as you come in along the streets, we are looking at taking
the landscape design and reworking the medians there to help establish the district identity as
you come into the site. That would occur both on Stevens Creek and on Wolfe Road. Street
trees aze a very important element as part of the plan, including large scale Ash trees, and
new trees planted amongst that to help solidify the canopy feel.
• Site lighting was also an important element; the site today there is plenty of street lights for
the vehicles, but the pedestrian experience along a lot of these properties is rather dark; we
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 8, 2008
felt the need to supplement that with some additional pole lights along the sidewalks. This
would help to encourage pedestrian activity, make it feel it is a safe place, give it a sense of
livelihood which is an important element throughout. Another element was looking at the
successful lighting design done by the theater at Wolfe and Vallco; the disk lights are iconic
element; we are looking to take that same idea down to the office side, the other end of
Vallco to reflect that as well, reinforcing the connectivity between the office building and the
Cupertino Square project.
• A lot of comments came from the community about making this a walkable project; they felt
there was a disconnect between South Stevens Creek and getting to the property. There is a
need to be able to look at taking the crosswalks themselves, enhancing the paving,
articulating the crosswalks, making them feel like a pedestrian zone. That is an important
part of this plan as are the median improvements.
• We showed you last time a number of different images of activation that was important; we
see that the landscape could help convey this activation of these. pedestrian spaces, giving
alternative to driving, making it feel like people belong on the street. Presently it is an auto
dominated environment and we are looking to try to soften it and create a more inviting
space as a part of the master plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Commended the landscape architect that they were trying to extend the Stevens Creek look
and feel. On the interior, one of the things I had expected to see that I did not see were more
native plantings as well as low drought resistance low water usage plants.
Gary Lehman, Landscape Architect:
• Said they were excellent suggestions; it fits in well with the charge to look at AB32 in terms
of sustainability and an energy conservation. As a part of the Master Plan we are working on
now, we are working with the existing pallete of those main two trees, the Pears and the Ash.
One other element we looked at doing was replacing the existing Oak tree at the corner of
Finch and Stevens Creek that died; we are looking at incorporating a couple of new Oa1c trees
as gateway elements as a part of the Finch entryway. That is one place we have been able to
work in our native vegetation; as we get into the site specific plan, incorporation of native
vegetation will be a very important component to help make it a sustainable development and
it ties in beautifully with the whole notion of the village being a part of what Cupertino is like
as opposed to being anyway else. We want to incorporate that native vegetation into the plan
as a part of the identity of the project.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• From a master planning perspective, one of the things I might be looking for is a discussion of
using native plants as we do in our General Plan; we talk about in the sustainability section,
using drought resistanbdrought tolerant natives, drought tolerant non-natives, pervious vs.
impervious, surfaces, etc. and would look to that as part of the master plan for the area, and .
would expect each of the subsequent followup on specific plans that come before us to
reinforce that, because I want to see the Pears and I think the fruitless Pears we use, I want to
see that look extended so I think that it right spot on; but as we move into the interior of the
project, I would like to see more both the verbiage we are seeing in the Specific Plan and take
a nod to the General Plan with regards to native plantings; and also with regards to the
pervious and impervious surfaces; I would like that called out more where it would be
appropriate to use those and in what applications.
Gary Lehman:
• Said it would be appropriate.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 July 8, 2008
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I have seen other site specific plans where they talk about waste receptacles; and I think one
of the things we have been doing is emphasizing wherever you have the trash receptacle, and
you would want something stylish paired with an ariractive recycling bin as well that is
clearly labeled what goes in there, to support our sustainability objectives.
• How would you see a tie-in between what looked like a square on Finch with the Calabazas
Creek Trail that will go through someday.
Gary Lehman:
• Said that would occur as part of the discussion of the Site Specific Plan; as part of the Master
Plan, we have been looking very much at connectivity. One of the things that was obvious is
we are going to have public sidewalks which will be throughout all the major public streets,
particularly on Vallco and many of those streets do not have public sidewalks now. We will
be improving the pedestrian connectivity along those streets by incorporating new sidewalks
as part of that. There will also be connections both to the Rose Bowl site and connecting to
the existing walkway system that is part of the Menlo Equities Project as well. Within the land
connected sites, there will be pedestrian connections as well as some vehicular connections.
The connectivity across both the intersections at Tantau and Stevens Creek and Wolfe, will all
be important enhancements, allowing people to walk and ride. A lot of bicycle improvements
will be made as a part of the whole circulation plan; not only do we have places for cars to
park along these streets, but also bicycle parking that will be incorporated into the sites as
those are developed.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• In discussions with the other developers, did you talk about shared parking and ingress and
egress between parking lots regardless of the ownership.
Gary Lehman:
• Yes, and we are still studying it, the Sand Hill Properties, the owners of Cupertino Square and
the Rose Bowl have had many meetings; when we do bring in the Site Specific, you will see a
connection there, both vehicular and in particular, bike and pedestrian.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• One of the other things I would look for is examples of bike racks to be used throughout the
center; when you bring in your specific plans, you have to allocate a certain amount of bike
parking, so I would like them all to be the same throughout the plan.
Gary Lehman:
• Said it was their goal. We have to work with Cupertino Square which is out in front, ahead of
everybody.
Com. Brophy:
• On Calabazas Creek, north of Vallco Parkway is shown as a possible trail area. Given that
there are office buildings on both sides immediately north of Vallco Parkway and crossing
280, is showing this as a trail a realistic expectation of what can or cannot be done?
Gary Lehman:
• Said they had discussions with Santa Clara Valley Water District both on the culverted creek
which is underneath or adjacent to Finch and then what happens on the exposed creek trail.
The Water District is open for those type of ideas, the adjacent properties as they get
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 8, 2008
developed, if it is in a Master Plan could be something they look at, in terms of site specific. If
you go underneath 280, it is a big culvert; you could do some interesting connections there.
There are other locations that the Water District has done like that. We just noted this as an
opportunity; the community noted it as something they wanted to have as part of the master
plan, and I think we wanted to be sensitive to that. I think if you own property on both sides of
the freeway, what a great way to connect to your sites from a pedestrian standpoint. It makes
sense to me vs. getting in an auto trying to drive over Tantau and come to an adjacent site.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said one other part of that is if you are contemplating that there might be a connection under
the freeway all the way through out to at least Tantau, then you would want to design the site
specific plan so that it was sensitive to that concept that there might be a connection, all the
way through this project site, so you can imagine that you can walk from this intersection, go
through an interesting market square, connect up, and go underneath the freeway, come all the
way out to No. Tantau. It might not happen because it is offsite until Apple comes in with
their planned campus, indicating they may have the greatest interest in facilitating this
connection.
Com. Brophy:
• He questioned if the vest pocket park makes sense a couple of hundred feet from a large high
school. Expressed concern that long term it might create a place where kids hang out to the
unhappiness of the residents at Metropolitan and to the unhappiness of the residents of the
future senior complex. Is this parcel the right place to have a small park?
Kevin (Applicant):
• That was talked about by some of the residents too; they had similar questions. The developer
wanted everyone to know (referring back to the last Master Plan landscape plan) whatever we
do at this park, if it has eyes on it at all times and activity around it, it will not be a place that
someone comes and loiters. Any kind of retail that gets done needs to edge that park; that is
positive; outdoor dining, activity areas and active park space and we also have eyes on it from
the residential building. This is a circulation path that borders the two properties to get into
those units, there is a walkway running nortl~/south there. It is a good opportunity to have a lot
of people azound the park and eliminate that kind of activity. We mentioned that to many of
the residents and they felt more comfortable with it. In particular the last thing is, this is a
development owned by one property owner, their management and security comes with it.
Those are positive things; different from a downtown with individual sites.
Com. Brophy:
~ Said he assumed the developer would intend to deed the park to the city, to make it a public
property.
Kevin (Applicant):
• Said they had not discussed the specifics, but they would want to make sure that the park is a
highlight of this project and probably not want to lose too much control over that park if he
was the developer.
Guy Lehman:
• It is a fair question; it is still part of our discussion with the city; we have to meet with the
Parks and Rec Dept. It is important for us as a whole to be able to keep, to make sure as you
voice some concern, that the park is safe, that people feel safe when they are walking in the
park. There is some benefit to having it be under one control and one ownership.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 July 8, 2008
Com. Brophy:
• I understand and probably agree with that viewpoint; was just wondering what the perspective
of the City would be on that; it is not that I would consider the park to be potentially unsafe,
but just to be potentially, by virtue of its location, a place where there might be some disorder
and where there may be a perception of discomfort and insecurity on the part of residents.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said one of the things they could look at in the Site Specific Plan is how that park is designed.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked what feedback they received from the other property owners regarding the Master Plan.
Ken Rodrigues:
• They have been very cooperative in working with us to help frame this discussion. What you
have in front of you, a lot of it is from collaboratively working together to come to that point.
We are all very excited to create something that really unifies the area because we want to
create a district; it is in everyone's best interest to have it tie together, have it look like it is
identifiable to the rest of the city. It is very important for us, to Evershine, Orbit, HP and
Apple.
Com. Kaneda: (to Ken Rodrigues)
• Referring to the landscape plan, you talked about trying from a Master Planning standpoint,
make this into an area that is pedestrian friendly and walkable; the area on Wolfe Road is
showing landscaping on it, but that azea is not at all what I am imagining the goal is; from a
Master Planning standpoint, are there things you could recommend or things that we should
put into a Master Plan that could at least for future development and work being done in
Vallco, that could make it more pedestrian friendly.
Ken Rodrigues:
~ Said it was six lanes, which is very difficult as nothing opens onto Vallco. When you listen to
the neighborhood and the citizens who shop there, people feel they cannot get in. Many
Cupertino stores are doing positive things now, such as reworking the circulation, creating an
opening with the movie theater. He pointed out the stamped pavers with the walkways around
the edges; the lighting and the landscape features embellishing those areas. He said they were
studying what a diagonal crosswalk would do, at a Council member's suggestion.
Gary Lehman:
• We talked about signage, lighting and trees, but one of the elements also is looking at signage
oriented toward pedestrians; that invitation from the street to shop there can be augmented by
having pedestrian scaled signage that has more specific information and is being developed in
a similar line to how Cupertino Square is developing some of their new signage today.
Com. Kaneda:
• Is there any thought to putting on a street level retail that you can walk into along that edge,
especially as you go down toward Stevens Creek.
Gary Lehman:
• Some additional ideas that Cupertino Square has is being able to create retail on the corner
which is a positive first step. The next step is to open that area; there is the ability at some later
date to be able to do narrower depth retail edges along Vallco. You aren't going to be able to
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 July 8, 2008
take them down all the way, but you could take it past TGI Fridays up to Alexanders. This is
something that the master plan starts to contemplate. It also is something that the property
owner has discussed with our team also; which was really good. T'hat is information you aze
not aware of, but I think in the long run will help.
• Showed an area which is an office building that doesn't touch the street edge; it needs to have
some time of pedestrian oriented piece to it. Over time if we can get parallel parking along
Stevens Creek so these retailers have parking at their front door, it will help Metropolitan; if
you go out there today those retailers are not doing well; they don't have street parking, and if
we think about any great downtown, you mentioned Third Street Promenade in Los Gatos,
studied it a lot, it was a success when it opened, but then they took the parking off the
promenade, the retailers suffered. When they put parking back on the promenade all but two
blocks and now those retailers are thriving again. If we could get some parking to slow
Stevens Creek down, we cannot get it on Vallco, but we could get it there I hope; and that then
affords the opportunity of these corners becoming real retail edges too.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would like to see a successful retail edge and main street feeling, asked if there were
concerns about retail being successful. My observation as a native of Cupertino, Vallco was
the A 1 mall; the remodels of malls are great things; the Sand Hill project to me, it is one of the
reasons the residents geared us to more of a downtown-like project, something that you want
to go to, a place you want to be. Santana Row for whatever it is, it tries to be a downtown, it is
a place you would want to go for residents of San Jose. That is what we would like to be able
to offer here in a single story lower scale village-like character on the Sand Hill side and let
the Cupertino Square remodel itself and thrive, and those are different types of tenants than
what we are designing for on that side.
Ken Rodrigues:
• That is a good question; from our location we have the No. 1 and No. 2 malls in the Bay Area;
you have Valley Fair which is adding more squaze footage than Stanford, we see ourselves a
little different and that is why we are pedestrian oriented, it is Main Street style retail where
you are able to walk; where it is a dining experience; it is a different type of niche and that is
why we are not necessazily going to compete with Cupertino Square which is a different type
of unique opportunity and something that is very elegant, something that is very beautiful and
that ties into the mixed use atmosphere and something that is very distinct and unique.
Com. Kaneda:
• The project is mixed use but the housing is senior housing and hotel as opposed to just
traditional residential. I would have thought that if we are trying to make this into a true new
urbanism environment, we have a little bit of residential, but I would think we would want
more residential housing since the seniors are not working.
Kevin (Applicant):
• As we were talking to the community, what we said to them was that everybody cannot get
everything they want, but everybody can get a lot of what they want. The reality is that would
we want traditional residential; absolutely; we think it is a great thing here. But we also have
to balance the fact that we hear from the community that the impacts to the schools are
unacceptable to them; so we have to understand what that is and take that to heart. We are
going to incorporate senior housing which is going to be which will not have impact to the
schools, which is a valuable commodity to the community and we don't want to tap into that.
You make a good point, because traditionally you would have those mix of uses, you would
have a mix of people that live there, walk to work, eat and not have to get in their cars. But the
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 July 8, 2008
reality is that we have to incorporate a different type of use in this case.
Com. Rose:
• Said other Commissioners have touched on a lot of great comments and asked some good
questions for the project, and I appreciate all the efforts you have to bring in the community
input and try to make this move forward. I think it is an exciting opportunity for all of us in
Cupertino.
• Asked if there was any consideration of parallel or diagonal parking along the interior streets,
the parkway.
• Said she liked the concept of the main street, but did not feel the name Vallco Parkway
matched the main street concept.
Kevin (Applicant):
• He said a good solution would be diagonal parking along Vallco; it would get people out of
their cars walking onto the public right-of-way. Parallel parking along Stevens Creek does
the same thing; it also does slow the traffic down slightly; it is a six lane boulevard. We have
to test with Public Works what would happen if it was four lanes instead of six lanes, with bike
and parallel parking along it. It would be a great planning tool if we could do it. Inside the
project around Town Square I see traditional diagonal parking. Those are the kinds of things
we would be doing internally also, but in terms of street parking it would be those two main
streets.
Chair Miller:
• Complimented the applicant's ideas and comments about corner retail, parking on Stevens
Creek, considering four lanes on Stevens Creek as well, and diagonal parking on Vallco; as
well as a number of the other ideas. He said it was clear they spent a lot of time and effort on
the project and it shows.
• He referred to the map and pointed out areas designated for retail, and asked if the project was
going to encompass all that retail.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said they would bring the plan to the meeting on Thursday night; and illustrated on the map
the Sand Hill site; Rose Bowl, so we have retail that does that, that is a positive edge. We are
proposing to wrap retail around the corner of Finch, so that we have the connectivity between
Rose Bowl on Vallco. Also Town Square which comes out to the street edge. It covers a lot of
street frontage, and if the sites were to go to something other than office, they would have a
retail edge along there with a complete connection which would strengthen it. The Master
Plan that we are proposing to you and the Council allows us to do that at any time.
Chair Miller:
• And this is going to be synergistic just the way Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 39 are synergistic?
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said those were two good examples of retail that we had not talked about in the community
meetings, and are two good ones to add to the list; but part of those are around something; they
are there, and that is where this Town Square came in, as one of the community members said;
I want a place where I can watch the fireworks. This is where I want to come to do our
Christmas tree lighting or something like that. We need retail oriented things around the
town square, which would work all day. The developer is committed to leasing to that kind of
tenant.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 July 8, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Summarized the unifying elements among the different land owners: they would do common
lighting; street trees; street furniture; signage to the extent we can; also in general, bicycle
friendly throughout the project.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said it was in the text part of the submittal plan, and calls those all out and how to accomplish
them.
Chair Miller:
• Said that he felt the site was idea for senior housing; and disagreed with Com. Kaneda that
seniors are going to be retired; keeping in mind it is 55 and older, and there will likely be
many seniors working into their 60s or 70s. The other type of housing that would make sense,
is housing for young professionals who work at Apple and HP on the other side of the
highway, and providing them bicycle access over there. He asked if there were children living
in the condos above the shops in Santana Row.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said there were not many children residing in the condos above the shops in Santana Row; it is
a very professional oriented project; there are many seniors there; the residents of Santana
Row vary in age; there are young professionals and people without kids, who are moving out
of larger homes from the area into an active space. I believe in mixed use; when you start
approaching $5/gallon in gasoline prices, you have to think about some of the environmental
issues.
Chair Miller:
~ Said that Santana Row is not child-friendly; it is pedestrian friendly and it works for the young
and old, but not for families. What I think I am seeing here is a similar type of project. That is
the type of housing that serves us best on this site, that will serve the industrial areas here as
well as the office buildings over here and also provide a place for seniors which we don't have
that much for what I call the segment of the senior population called active adults. Those are
the two primary types of housing we would like to provide and they don't lend themselves to a
lot of kids.
Vice Chair Giefer:
~ In your community outreach, I am going back to Finch Avenue, did it come up to make that a
pedestrian mall instead of a vehicular access street.
Ken Rodrigues:
• There was discussion on types of things we could do with Finch Avenue; there was a lot of
support to have it support both pedestrians and vehicles. We did not heaz support for closing it
off completely to vehicular access.
Com. Brophy:
• I went to both meetings and there was mixed comments on Finch Avenue, some said it would
be better to keep it open as a public street, some talked about closing it. As I look at the retail
space existing in Cupertino along Stevens Creek, along the easbwest access, with the
exception of Target and the two grocery stores there, I would describe the retail component as
weak in Cupertino and I wonder when we have proposals now to substantially increase the
amount of retail space, just where the customers are going to come to support these uses at the
level that will be needed to support new construction.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 July 8, 2008
Kevin (Applicant):
• What is important in terms of answering that, because you can go down the street and see
some vacant space; the question needs to be what we are proposing is actually setting the stage
and the table for the right retails to come in; what we have heard from the community is that
they want to support restaurants, but there is no place to go. The question is why; there are
places around down the street, but what is the difference; I think the interesting thing is that
there is nothing that creates a stage for something special, where you have a mix of the right
place for a retail to come and the right retailers that actually want to go there. I think when we
bridge those two together and make it a very pedestrian friendly, pedestrian oriented type of
experience, very elegant, high class; it is something I would say that is missing in Cupertino.
And that is why we will be able to fill it with the right type of tenants.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
• Commended Sand Hill Properties on their excellent community outreach.
~ Disagreed with Ken Rodrigues on how nice two or three stories would look in this area;
example of Pine Cone Inn and Tollhouse; they are on hills, Santana Row is on a flat land.
Three and four stories will stick out like a sore thumb like they do in Vallco Parkway.
• Leave Stevens Creek as an artery; don't constrict it because if there is a problem with Hwy.
280, there are people who don't want to use 280; it is the only way you can go east and west.
Do not bring it down to four lanes.
• Adequate parking is the most important thing you can do; bring parking lots in; don't have
diagonal parking or street parking to solve all problems. Allow for safe bicycle use and safe
walking; but if you have diagonal and parallel parking, you are going to create lots of
problems.
• Wolfe Road is now a very important artery because if you try to go down DeAnza Boulevard
to Hwy. 280 from 4:30 to 6:30 you have a traffic jam; we go to a meeting once a month and
we have to use Wolfe Road because we cannot get down DeAnza Boulevard.
• Parking along Stevens Creek - there is no parking along Pacifica Drive where my office is
located; and I don't know how many times I have tried to pull out onto Pacifica and I have
almost hit people, because you cannot see around cars when you pull out slowly. Don't
parallel park on Stevens Creek.
• Sustainability: About energy reduction, consider water rationing, blackouts and brownouts,
and now talking about additional housing; it doesn't make sense, it is totally contradictory. I
don't want to see a new urbanization environment; we need retail. I support Sand Hill in a big
way with an emphasis on increasing retail and restaurants and a Main Street idea. Sandy
James was interviewed by Eye on the Bay and when asked where Cupertino's downtown was,
she said there was no downtown.
• We need to retain Finch, a connection between Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek. If you
think now Apple is a disaster in trying to get down DeAnza Boulevard to Hwy. 280, look
forward to see what is going to happen when the new Apple campus is put in. Please plan
ahead; don't cut us off.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• I am encouraged by the tremendous amount of public participation in the Sand Hill projects on
the old Toll Brothers site; I did commend Sand Hill for trying to reach out to the community as
much as possible; they have a lot of property down there. There aze a lot of issues; there is
tech park there, there is Ducane retail on the other side of Stevens Creek, tremendous amount
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 July 8, 2008
of residential. We need commerciaUretail down there. I would like to dine in Cupertino, I
would like to shop for groceries in Cupertino; now I shop outside of the city because there are
not amenities at my end of town to satisfy my consumer needs. Put a Safeway in there; put in
some type of fine dining; we will go there. You have tremendous neighborhood resources,
there are 5,000 people across the street right now who have any choice of where to go, I spend
a lot of my time in Santa Clara and I actually shop on El Camino now which I never did 10
years ago.
• There are a number of issues. Please do not have parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard; in
the meetings with the neighborhoods, no one thought that was a good idea; we do not want to
slow Stevens Creek Boulevard down; it is our way from the eastern end into the city. We
don't want to feel like west Cupertino doesn't want the eastern neighborhoods to come down
Stevens Creek Boulevazd.
• Please retain the double row of Ash trees; pear trees are lovely, but they are western
Cupertino. In the eastern end of Cupertino, the Ash trees have been a symbol of the Vallco
shopping district since 1970 and it is a tremendous point of recognition for our neighborhoods;
the Ashes belong in eastern Cupertino. Said she was concerned when there are big gaps in the
frontage~ along Stevens Creek Boulevard; please respect the public right-of-way, make sure
that the Pine which is currently there along Stevens Creek Boulevard is protected; it is within
the public right-of-way as verified by the Toll Brothers two years ago. Please replace the Ash
tree; please make sure that nothing is built on the Calabazas culvert properiy along the old Toll
Brothers site, we want to retain that as a potential to raise the creek in the future.
Keith Murphy, E. Estates Drive:
• Opposed to the application.
• Thanked the Sand Hill group for their excellent community outreach.
. • Referred to the grid showing where the housing was, and some of the commercial would be;
we should make sure there is an important feature here, people are always grasping to find a
focal point; we heard about a little square maybe something in that general area, but I am
thinking it should be the linear park which I think Dr. Lum spoke about many times, about
including a creek trail; I am thinking there should be a linear park, a walkway, should be a
focal point for retail, maybe fine dining will back up against it; it could have some nice
landscape and screening. There was another chart which showed some hotel being placed over
there; I was thinking the senior housing should be put next to the Metropolitan, making a
better community and neighborhood and more closeness for the people living together. This
park could act as a barrier or buffer between the senior housing, the regular residential housing
and then the retail that would be coming further east on the Sand Hill Property, for the sake of
they have the biggest property that will be developed. I think that needs to made a focal point,
and also the idea with the two Oak trees being placed at each side of Finch Avenue entering
onto what could be this great liner park; that could also be a main feature rather than have a
big architectural piece in there. A natural landscaping of two Oak trees is a great idea and that
could even be developed on other access points, such as Tantau.
• Said he was also concerned about slowing down traffic with parking on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and I also wondered whether traffic should be directed almost one way, perhaps
heading north onto Vallco Parkway, heading towards Wolfe Road or Tantau and try to keep
circulation patterns flowing that way, so Stevens Creek Boulevard doesn't get impacted and
neither does the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard or Tantau and
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
• Said none of the flooding mitigation has been addressed and how that is going to impact a
parking garage, subterranean parking and also the seniors and other residential features in the
area. I was wondering if that could be addressed also.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 July 8, 2008
A1 DeFrancesco, Cupertino resident:
• Said he would like to keep the double row of trees on Stevens Creek Boulevard and did not
feel there is any benefit in trying to slow down Stevens Creek. The real question is where is
the Main Street look? I think we really need to focus Main Street inward, not Stevens Creek
but as road that is inside.
• I would like to keep Finch Avenue; it is the smarter idea to keep Finch, slow it down by
putting perpendiculaz parking on Finch both ways, but put the park over the creek, that
maintains the creek bed, that gives us the continuity we are seeking. Focus that activity into
the center of the area not to the outside of the area we are not trying to make Stevens Creek
look like a main street; we are not trying to make Vallco Parkway look like a main street; we
need to have a walking area. I think we should work with the other developers so that we can
move this main street between Menlo Equities and the Cupertino property development what
is now the Rose Bowl, that it would continue through there and we could even put a pedestrian
bridge over Wolfe Road at that point. That would be a continuity that we could work with. I
think there would be a lot of parking around the park in this manner, just as much parking as if
it were a square, and there would be a lot of places to eat.
• The big issue is to focus the whole development inward into a main pedestrian friendly street.
Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident:
• Relative to Stevens Creek Boulevard I think that the Heart of the City Plan criteria which is
part of the General Plan should be used on this frontage of Stevens Creek. The Heart of the
City frontage easement is 26 feet which includes 10 feet of landscaping, 6 feet of sidewalk and
another inner part which is landscaping also. The buildings would be set back from that
landscape easement by 9 feet; that should be observed.
• Referred to the No. DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan adopted in 1996, and it states that "the
civic image of a city is in large measure determined by the mood created by the treatment of
its major streets. The landscape setback will have a positive effect on the community as a
whole because it will provide an attractive entrance into the city". As far as the parcel, you
can keep Finch Avenue, I would suggest keeping Finch Avenue either as a pedestrian street or
for cars also; another possibility would be to put a linear park besides Finch and that would
also connect with the creek north of Vallco Pkwy. The Santa Clara Water District easement
on the Sand Hill Property can be a natural asset; I would propose a lineaz park trail of some
sort along that right-of-way; would also tend to expand that right-of-way because this area up
here is about 116 feet; the park (part) down here is only 32 feet. I think if you expand the
width, you would make a nice park or open space.
~ Also in the Master Plan, the Calabazas Creek corridor is just referred to in two diagrams; there
should be a more explicit statement that also has been expressed in three of the city's
documents, the Heart of the City Plan, the No. Vallco Plan and the City of Cupertino General
Plan.
• The freeway 280 should not be a barrier to the creek trail. Here is the easement on the present
project; this is new Apple building, these are the two HP buildings and here is the wide creek;
and here is the freeway 280 and then the creek continues over. If you could connect all that by
using the culvert and here on Hwy. 101 they used a culvert as a bike/pedestrian trail and they
have also done it on Middlefield Avenue and Highway 85. But you already have a culvert
there and it is just a matter of modifying it to some degree for that type of use.
• As far as the area next to the Metropolitan condos I think I would defer to the residents as far
as what they would like to see next to them.
• Within the Master Plan, I don't see anything about green standards, and I would suggest that
any new projects built in that area be to the highest LEEDS guidelines possible.
• Also at the April 10~' workshop, some of the public expressed that Sand Hill not have retail
because Cupertino Square would suffer. Unfortunately Cupertino Square is having some
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 July 8, 2008
difficulty presently and I think it is our opinion that the Sand Hill Properties should be retail
since the project has more potential and opportunity to drive that area.
Tom Hugunin, Cupertino resident:
• Said he felt the goal was to create connectivity between the properties in this area and to No.
Vallco. What struck me as odd, was I was at a Planning Commission meeting many years ago,
and an Apple spokesman said "Apple employees won't walk to lunch" and what I thought
was, there is this trail here that could connect the two and bring Apple employees into this area
and enliven it. Apple's campus is a few years off, so is this development here; but it has the
potential to become a focus point for Cupertino.
• We have mentioned several times this evening about Santana Row; this could be Cupertino's
Santana Row in the future; it has the potential of doing that. Can Cupertino support retail; just
go to the Marketplace and try to find a pazking spot; you cannot, it is so successful. Cupertino
residents want to shop in Cupertino, they haven't been presented the opportunities to do it. I
think that this area provides it for them. A cohesive connection between all these properties
can help make this a very successful place to be in Cupertino.
• I would hope that we would work toward making connectivity and making this viable in the
future and for all the residents here, but also for the residents in surrounding areas that border
Cupertino, that would be enticed to shop here and spend time in this area.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Thanked everybody who commented this evening, and thanked the authors of the Master Plan,
because it is a good start for us. There are several things I would like to see included in it. I
am not sure how we will go with this; if we can do all the work tonight or if we are going to
need to carry it over. Some of the key ones based on what I have heard and read in this Plan, I
will only focus on what is missing. There is a lot there that I really like, don't take these
comments as me saying that it is not a good plan, because I think it is an excellent start.
• Sustainability - I would like the projects that come before us as part of this to be rated LEEDS
silver, core and shell, because I think that gives the builder more control as opposed to many
of the varied ones that are for occupancy and interiors. It needs to support the General Plan so
we need to add some specifics with regards to waste management, both with trash receptacles
paired with recycling receptacles and at what intervals they are placed. Disneyland is the gold
standard on how far apart you put trash receptacles.
• One of the speakers had a good comment with regards to creating energy and also we are
entering a drought cycle which occurs in California every so often; we previously had talked
about having buildings purple piped for collection of non-waste water to be used in
landscaping; maybe that is more appropriate for a specific plan, but there needs to be some
verbiage in sustainability with regards to capturing water and reusing that for landscaping
materials.
• I would like to see greater support of AB32 and I would like to stipulate that 30% of the
anticipated energy used in the future projects be generated onsite through solar energy or other
means. If you did solar carports, solar panels on the core and shell buildings that you built, so
that whatever residents or businesses occupy those buildings, you will be generating up to 30%
of the energy onsite. I would like to specifically call that out in the sustainability portion of
the Master Plan if I have concurrence and support from my peers.
• With regards to parking, I think one thing that works for me when I go to a downtown area, if
it is Santa Cruz, Los Gatos, Palo Alto or Los Altos, I think we do have to have onstreet
parking, but I would like to see a policy with regards to onstreet parking that we allow that
wherever it makes sense based on Public Works and traffic studies.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 July 8, 2008
• We need to have a policy that specifically states that all adjacent properties provide ingress
and egress to adjacent properties. I understand that if you are doing residential, you need
specific parking spaces for those residents; so I would not anticipate those being shared, but
we need to add a policy that speaks to that in the Specific Plan.
• We have heard a lot this evening regarding access to the Calabazas trail and I support that. I
would like to see a policy added to this that we connect that. I am not sure what the
ingress/egress requirements are and what can be built above the Santa Clara Valley Water
District culvert. (Staff indicated that nothing could be built directly on the culvert). Said she
would like to support a pedestrian trail and somehow in the Master Plan we need to speak
about that connectivity that we will work to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to any
future Calabazas Creek development.
• Relative to the landscaping plan, conspicuously absent is the Redwood tree screen between
Cupertino Square and the adjacent residents. When Cupertino Square came in and was
proposed, the parking structure which is on the ground today; we heard from the residents
adjacent to the western side of the development, how important that was, and they are
conspicuously left out of the landscaping plan as part of the Master Plan. I would like us to
speak to that as well, that tree barriers are very necessary when abutting up to existing
households both for noise, light and fresh air.
• Again, I spoke earlier that I would like to see plantings that reinforce what we have in the
General Plan today using native species, and drought tolerant species as well; and I think you
can find many spectacular species bloomers in those categories. Let's not chose a lot of water
wasters for this development; let's pick ones that will add to us and flourish in our
Mediterranean type of environment
Chair Miller:
• I thought we were primarily talking about the Master Plan and the connectivity between the
different sites; and a lot of Vice Chair Giefer's suggestion were good, but I question is that of
the level of the site specific details, or should we be talking about those things at the Master
Plan level?
Steve Piasecki:
• Said many of them could be talked about at the Master Plan level; you want to give applicants
a heads up if you expect the buildings to be LEED silver, core and shell, 30% energy onsite;
they need to know that going in so they can plan appropriately connecting to the trail. The
Redwood trees is perfunctory; that was just an oversight; using native and drought tolerant
trees, it would be part of the landscape policies; waste management trash is becoming a detail
we are looking for but there is nothing wrong with saying we would like to see that brought
together on the Plan. Most of these you could incorporate as policy statements; the question
about how you implement them, the details, will be worked out in the site specific plan unless
you specify it here. You have the ability to go ahead and do that, you probably want to get the
applicant's input on some of the LEED silver, 30% energy onsite, because they may have
opinions about that level of detail.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I think part of the reason why I went in that direction and provided some specific data, is
Council asked us to weigh in on that; so I wanted to make sure that I was starting to move that
ball forward for us, because they gave us that direction. So often when we talk about street
furniture and we talk about how we are going to do waste management, there isn't recycling
implemented and I want to keep that top in mind, which I agree that is something that on a
specific project it is probably more appropriate. I think on a higher level, it is in our General
Plan, we have adopted zero waste strategy as a city; I think there is merit to add that to a
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 July 8, 2008
General Plan like this.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he was confused; puzzled of the role of the General Plan. It seems in some ways that
some of the proposals discussed may be too detailed, and some deserve to be, or are already in,
the City's Master Plan; and I am not sure what the incremental benefit would be by adding it
in this specific area study. I think we covered this at our previous meeting when we talked
about the Oaks project. I was on the losing side by 4-1, but I don't believe that sustainability
issues should be dealt with on an ad hoc basis; that we have already have a major effort to go
underway in terms of citywide, and I believe that is the place where we should analyze
sustainability issues rather than inserting them in individual projects or in individual area
plans. To the extent we have subjects covered in the General Plan, I am not sure there is
anything to be gained by repeating them again in the area plan because the area plan is already
secondary and is required to be subject to the conditions of the General Plan; so I don't see the
benefits of spending an extra meeting or two or more, adding clauses that are already taken
care of at that level.
• I strongly agree with Vice Chair; I see the importance of this study really is to emphasize the
connectivity, the pedestrian issues, bicycling issues, and I think that is where we really need to
focus our energies if there are any problems with them. I think on the Stevens Creek parking
issue, that is clearly a sensitive issue, I get the sense that not many people in the community
support it; but I do think if we are to talk about retailing facing Stevens Creek we probably
have to look at that; I think that is the tradeoff. If the feeling is we just don't want to impinge
the traffic flow on Stevens Creek, then I think we have to look at not having retail facing
Stevens Creek.
Com. Kaneda:
• I am not sure how parking is going to be accomplished on some of these sites. Street parking
I am guessing is not going to be enough for the proposed uses for your site. What were the
thoughts on parking?
• How does the Water District easement play into what you may or may not be able to do?
Ken Rodrigues:
• It is sometimes referred to as teaser parking, and is about 10 to 15% of your parking; it is just
enough to tease you to continue to find a street stall. The majority of the parking would be
located onsite in some type of structure; given this project and the amount of retail we have,
we are going to have to use some type of structure parking and I think when we come back
with the site specific drawings, we will show you how we can accomplish that.
~ We have met with the Water District; you cannot build on their easement, they are adamantly
opposed to opening up the culvert up and trying to create some type of natural waterscape
there; they have a big cost they have incurred to put this all underground. They want it to be
protected and whatever we plan we do onsite, we are going to have to be sensitive to those
needs. Where the creek is currently open, I think there is a great opportunity to take
advantage of that, because they haven't gunited it yet, and so it would be great to catch them
with some type of natural solution vs. trying to do something else.
Steve Piasecki:
• Clarified that the existence of that easement provides the opportunity and in effect forces the
pedestrian connection that many have talked about because the buildings have to be pulled
back; they are providing plazas and open spaces along that corridor and they can't do much
else with it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 July 8, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• It is not clear on where you draw the line on Master Plan and details; I support the idea of
putting something in the document about a pedestrian trail that crosses over under Hwy. 280
and connects this area to No. Vallco.
• I support sustainability although I am not sure core and shell we want to put in core and shell
just because there is a lot of difFerent potential usages and it may not be the appropriate thing
to put in. I recommend leaving it open to various versions of the LEEDS system; just put in
the hurdle of LEEDS silver.
• Renewable energy, I would like to see 30% renewable energy threshold, but in all honesty I
think that is pushing the envelope.
Com. Rose:
• In reading this over and looking at the objectives of the Master Plan, I think this seems to have
good direction and seems to address all of the comments from the community at the meetings,
and also the public comments seen today.
• I support Vice Chair Giefer's comments highlighting sustainability and water usage objectives,
and I think it is worth giving it a shot for some renewable energy onsite.
Chair Miller:
• Asked applicants to comment on their plans for sustainability and green building.
Kevin (Appliant):
• We are getting away from the Master Plan. What the developers doing on another project, we
are working together on Sunnyvale Towne Center; what I said to the Sunnyvale Planning
Commission and City Council is we will have a certified project; that is a great place to start
from. I cannot say today what every level is; it is our goal to have a sustainable project that we
can all point to, and say we were all part of that. We don't know what we will be certified on
until we are certified. Anyone who tells you different, is not telling you the truth. I will tell
you what we are trying to do at Sunnyvale TC and what we have applied for. We did look at
shell and core, we also looked at Master Plan; both projects, this project we are doing today
and that project in Sunnyvale are great candidates for both reasons. And you have to look at
both; I cannot tell you today this will just be a shell and core submittal; I think we want to
explore all our options and that will help us get points in various categories based upon
whichever direction we had. We will test them all; we will have the same consultant that we
used in Sunnyvale; same team; what we are trying to do in Sunnyvale, is we have a variety of
blocks that range anywhere from bronze to gold and that is what we are doing. I think trying
to say I could certainly say I would average it and am LEEDS certified silver, that is not right.
The project is going to be certified; the whole project; at what level; it would be our goal to try
to achieve something up at the higher level; this developer is committed to it, as a planner I am
committed to it and our team is.
Chair Miller:
• In terms of the primary things we are looking at and what I see is the unifying elements and
the connectivity, the compatibility of the projects, the continuity between the projects and the
synergy among the projects, I think the plan the applicant presented is done very well and
addresses all the issues that I have thought about including sidewalks, lighting, trees, furniture,
bicycles, pedestrian-friendly, eta I think Vice Chair Giefer had some good ideas that I also
support in terms of native trees, drought resistant trees and addressing trash receptacles and
some of these other items that go along with connectivity and giving people the look and feel
of a complete project, not just a collection of individual site specific projects.
• On the question of sustainability, my tendency is to be incentive based instead of government
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 July 8, 2008
regulation based, and I think that we are seeing particularly in solar energy that there are
incentives to install solar energy, on the buildings now with the number of different
agreements, the power purchase agreements (PPA) and other ways of doing it, and we want to
encourage the developer to do that but I also am hesitant to put a specific number and say you
must do that. We are asking the developer to meet a lot of goals and objectives from many
stakeholders and this is just one more which I want to be careful not to overburden the
developer because he is providing a good project, and has spent a lot of money and time and
effort on this, and we want to make sure this goes ahead, and not put on any show stoppers in
there that we haven't researched. I am also sensitive to Com. Brophy's comment that we
really don't want to do sustainability and green building on an ad hoc basis; we really want to
do it from a citywide standpoint and I support that point of view as well. I am also am
appreciative of the applicant's intent to be certified, and at this point, I personally am satisfied
with going in that direction, and my feeling is he will do the best he can.
• The other comments were made about parking on Stevens Creek and also Com. Brophy had a
good point with respect to the retail. There are a number of sites in Cupertino that don't have
good street parking, where the retail is languishing and the retail on the Metropolitan side is a
good example. They aze having difficulty renting it, they don't get tenants in there; there are
similar retail on DeAnza Boulevard at Town Center which has been vacant for a long time and
it is difficult to get tenants to buy into there, and I think we need to be smarter about putting
this retail on the street and it not being successful. If the parking is the way to do it, then the
decision is whether or not to put the retail there at all or if the parking seems to have to go with
the retail, is my general feeling as well.
• There were discussions about housing; I personally would like to see; we are all sensitive
about housing that generates lots of kids that go to the school system; however, there is a need
for housing for young professionals and senior housing; to the extent that this project can
accommodate both those groups of people without gene4rating a whole lot of traffic back and
forth to the schools, I think it would make for an even more successful project in terms of
integrating it with the other things going on in the area, specifically what is going to happen in
No. Vallco as Apple develops that property.
• We have all talked about the creek access, and everyone agrees that is a great idea; and making
it pedestrian friendly so that there is that pedestrian connection between the two sides of Hwy.
280 is an excellent way to go.
• The other excellent thing is we all agree that we want some type of focal point in the area there
and the concept that the developer has come up with seems to make a lot of sense and
distinguishes us in effect from what we see at those other shopping centers in Stanford and
Valley Fair.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Relative to sustainability, if we had a citywide policy with regazds to green building that we
could refer to, I would agree that we would not need to have it in a site specific plan. It
seemed that this Plan covers multiple owners; I think we are doing them a disservice if we
don't tell them up front what we want, which is why I would include it in this. I guess that is
my first comment on why I do think we need to include it in this site specific plan; what is the
right level and what should be the components of it I think are worth some discussion. We
heard from the developer that they believe they will bring in a project that is LEED certified; if
it is certified or if it is gold or platinum level, they are not willing to commit at this point to;
and I understand that. I think we have to encapsulate that there is a requirement that those
projects be brought in at one of those levels; maybe not stipulate exactly what it is, so I guess I
am interested in hearing other thoughts on that and al'so with regards to energy generation on
the campus site; the entire area.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 July 8, 2008
Com. Brophy:
• Said it was an important issue and the way to do it is to have a public hearing in which people
who are knowledgeable about the costs and environmental benefits of any proposals speak out
so we can make an informed decision. This is not my background, and I have no way to make
any judgment as to what would be an appropriate level for this project or any other one. That
is why I feel that sustainability issues should be dealt with on a citywide basis in a formal
public hearing; in our work plan we have sustainability issue that is going to be handled by our
former City Planner working as a consultant. As a practical matter on this project or any
project that comes before us in the next few months, that the reality is that by the time they are
ready to pull a building permit, it seems to me that we will have already entered and hopefully
completed the process of evaluating what a sustainability process is for the city. Therefore, it
seems to me that these projects would almost certainly be subject to whatever the citywide
policy is, even though they are going through the initial phase tonight.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• From a planning perspective, do you (Com. Brophy) think that we are fair to the applicant, if
we don't put it in the plan and for each specific project that is brought into us would have to
adhere to this, wouldn't we by adding sustainable features to that project, be adding them ad
hoc to each one as they come in. When I think about fairness, if I were someone building to
this plan, I would like to know that there is a level measure that we will all be judged against.
Com. Brophy: .
• Said he agreed, but felt tonight was not the night we have people speaking as to what the costs
and benefits of various policies are; so what I would suggest is that we not get involved in that
issue at this level, which is just a master plan issue; we haven't even started on the specific site
plan process, which cannot occur until we and the City Council have finished with the area
plan, so I think it should be incumbent on the staff to inform any prospective applicant that the
city is in the process of looking at a sustainability process and they should be ready to
comment upon it as we go through it in the next few months, and make the appropriate plans
in terms of whatever design and financial feasibility analysis that they need to do. In terms of
tonight's issue, we should defer making specific recommendations on sustainability as it
relates to the So. Vallco Master Plan and deal with it on a citywide basis as we already planned
to through working with Ciddy Wordell.
Com. Kaneda:
• In view of the fact that this a master plan, we had a number of projects come up and we
conditioned to be LEEDS silver; I personally don't think that is a tremendously high hurdle to
jump over; if not faultless, but it is certainly not tremendously difficult in my mind. Perhaps
one way to take the middle road on this is to put this in as a goal since it is a master plan
anyway, and not the specific requirements for a specific project. If nothing else, it will remind
us when we look at individual projects that we are trying to set some kind of bar. I agree that
it would be nice to have a citywide policy on what the requirements are, but the fact remains
that we don't and I would like to see something and not just say because we have no city
policy, we are going to throw up our hands and say we can't do anything.
Com. Rose:
~ Concurred with Com. Kaneda's comments.
Chair Miller:
• Said that if they put it in as a goal so it is not mandatory, we are just saying we would like to
see it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 July 8, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he felt it made sense to do it that way because as we get individual projects, there may be
things about individual projects that in fact make it extremely onerous. It may be that it wants
to be green point rated or something similar, so it sends a message and sets a level they are
looking at; but gives the ability to look at an individual project and say, in this case it is not
appropriate and actually condition something else, as we look at individual projects.
Chair Miller: .
• Asked if it is a goal for the entire So. Vallco area. We are talking about the master plan
tonight, not just the Sand Hill property.
• Asked Com. Brophy for his comment on a goal vs. mandatory requirement and the concern
about doing it on a citywide level.
Com. Brophy:
• It would be a reasonable middle way to deal with it; we need to focus on the sustainability
issue in a focused way. He said he was concerned with the process of discussing it every time
there is a specific hearing. He said he felt Com. Kaneda's suggestion was a wise one.
Steve Piasecki:
• Suggested wording to complement what Com. Kaneda said: "Applicants with individual sites
within the master plan area are expected to address the level of LEEDS certification and
sustainability principles that will be incorporated into their project with the goal of striving to
attain a LEED silver certification or above."
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Also said that she brought up energy generation on site throughout the project area. What is
our position on that?
Ken Rodrigues:
~ Said on a recent project, they were looking at above two of the four parking decks in
Sunnyvale solar power, photo voltaic panels; and are going through an entire cost analysis
now, looking at the short term investrnent vs. long term investment, what those are costing.
Again it is the goal of the developer to try to make that work on that project, and again I just
can't tell you right now if in fact we are going to do that; we are probably six months away
from knowing that. That would be our goal here is to look at the exact same type of system,
we will have already done a lot of the research. It is different here than some of the other
projects that you evaluated; I would like you to consider the word "campus" again because it is
an important part of the certification process vs. shell and core. You look at a lot of individual
projects, i.e., an office building, someone from the public mentioned on Tantau, very simple to
get a project certified that is a shell and core office building; it is difficult when you have the
following components: hotel, retail, office, senior housing, parking structures, possibly an
athletic club; those are all uses we are looking at, and we would want to look at it holistically
as this larger whole. I wanted ot mention that so you knew it was very different from probably
a lot of other projects you have seen.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Hearing staff's recommendation for adding some language as a goal, would that be something
you are comfortable with? (Ken Rodriguez said it was a good idea)
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 July 8, 2008
Kevin (Applicant):
• Said he did not have any objections; for Sand Hill we are very supportive of sustainability; it
is just that we don't want to be in a situation where we are promising something now and we
don't know what we can deliver, certain things; so I understand that is a goal; I also want to
make sure that we remember it is a goal, not necessarily the standazd. We are definitely trying
to move in that direction and have sustainability; we just don't want to get in front of
ourselves. That is the only concern; I don't want to make a precocious statement that this is
something we will be able to achieve when we don't know yet.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• If we added something with regards to energy generation to that goal, is that something you
feel that yourself and the other property owners would be comfortable with.
Kevin (Applicant):
~ We are definitely supportive of energy savings; we just don't know to what level or degree.
Maybe some suggestive language in terms of what was said was "new developments within
the So. Vallco area will strive to incorporate green measures and sustainability programs when
possible; and the public spaces not limited to park strip areas so it would be designed to
support sustainable measures." Those are the things we definitely know that we are moving in
that direction; we just don't know to what level or what degree we will be able to achieve
because we are so early in the plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I think if it is a goal you don't have to add the "when possible"
Steve Piasecki:
• If you added where it said "sustainability principles including renewable energy onsite" and
not specify a percentage, they would be expected to address that before you when they come.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• It achieves the consensus that I am hearing, plus it doesn't tie you into having to deliver a
specific because we don't know what is going to be on the campus; we don't know what
opportunities we have, and we would hate to miss opportunities and you would hate to be tied
into things you cannot deliver.
• From a planning perspective, if we add a sustainability goal which Steve Piasecki just read,
that will help us, if it is something that the landowners feel it is essentially a goal you can live
with.
Kevin (Applicant):
• Definitely as Ken had mentioned, even for Sunnyvale Town Center, we are focusing on
LEEDS certification; as a campus even for example the project we did on DEAnza
Boulevard the office building, it was LEEDS certified silver; that is different than this campus
as a whole; so in terms of applying that type of framework for the campus, it is different.
Com. Kaneda:
• I could see that you would end up doing the decertification building by building. One of the
issues with renewable energy that potentially is a problem, is if you have something like senior
housing and you have a building with multiple meters; it starts getting pretty dicey; because
you have it connected to a meter and you end up chopping the whole system up and it makes it
difficult.
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 July 8, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Said he supported something more general. My concern with the specific goal was that we are
making it without knowing if we are making something that is achievable or not; goals should
be achievable.
Steve Piasecki:
• That applicants within the master plan area are expected to address the level of LEEDS
certification that would be attained with their buildings, and the level of sustainability
principles including renewable energy onsite, that their project is expected to attain; and that
the goal would be to achieve a LEEDS certification of LEEDS silver over the project area or
campus area.
Chair Miller:
• The next issue is connectivity; a creek trail between the north and the south areas; are we all in
agreement.
Steve Piasecki :
• Said it was in the Plan, page 3-20. It has the pedestrian circulation; if you wanted to make sure
there is some wording that supports that further, you could add some wording to the effect that
"new development shall contribute to implementing the plan for the creek trail connection
from Vallco Parkway under Hwy. 280 and eventually connecting out to Tantau Avenue".
• You could add a Policy to state that.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Recommended that Policy 5.2a be added regarding creek connectivity.
Steve Piasecki:
• Something to the effect that "new development within the master plan area is expected to
contribute to, and help implement the bike/pedestrian connections along Calabazas Creek from
Vallco Parkway under Hwy. 280 and eventually out to Tantau Avenue". You could figure out
as projects come in how that is done.
• All Commissioners were supportive of the language
Trash Receptacles:
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I would like, thinking under furniture; it is actually not just trash receptacles, but the pairing of
trash recycling; you could make a statement that it goes under sustainability but I am not sure
where it goes, but potentially under Streetscape or Furniture would be one area.
Com. Brophy:
• Improving the quality of street furniture, whether it is trash receptacles or bike racks, having a
consistent look would be important for the community.
• All Commissioners were supportive.
Native and DrouQht Resistant Landscaping:
• All Commissioners were supportive.
• Vice Chair Giefer asked that the redwood trees be included in the landscape plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 July 8, 2008
Vice Chair Giefer:
• One more because it is not specifically stated here; and as we are talking about street parking
and other parkings, we are going to have abutting uses to one another, and I want to make sure
that wherever possible, we are not chopping up parking lots and that we are providing
ingress/egress between any varied ownership. For example, if for any reason Rose Bowl had
parking access that abutted up to the Sand Hill property, and there were two different parking
lots, I would want one to be able to travel between both of those land ownership parking lots
and not have any batriers separating the two parking lots; so I would like it to be specifically
stated that "all parking lots be accessible between the different ownership groups." Said she
agreed with amending it to allow for the protection of residential areas. It is between the
commerciaUretail spaces; residential I agree should be protected, so I am not including that,
but for your commercial parking, anybody should be able to park anywhere where they can
find a space. She said because it is under multiple ownership, she would like it to be very
obvious that that is the expectation.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to recommend approval
of the Master Plan as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Miller declared a recess.
4. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family R1 Ordinance
City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second
Citywide Location floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The
Revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to
facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or
decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the
required second story setbacks. Continued
from the May 13, 2008
Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date.• Not Scheduled.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the application for discussion of the R1 Ordinance first floor to
- second floor ratio requirements, as outlined in the staff report. On May 6, 2008 the City
Council amended the Planning Commission work program for 2007-08 to include a limited
review of the R1 ordinance, specifically regarding the size of second floor ratio compared with
the ground floor, with recommendations to be presented to the City Council by October 2008.
Citywide notification was mailed out as well as the creation of an information webpage with
hearing information, related resources regarding Rl and the current regulations
• Relative to the review framework, the focus will be considering whether there should be any
adjustments to the required ratio of the second floor size to the ground floor. We also think
that if the Planning Commission desires some adjustments, the rule pertaining to the total
allowable exposed second floor wall height should also be considered since it goes hand in
hand. Currently the ordinance requires second floor to not exceed 45% of the ground floor, or
750 sq. ft. whichever is geater. In addition, the existing ordinance also has a provision that
says all the perimeter second floor walls shall not be over 6 feet in height exposed up to 50%.
• He emphasized that it was a limited review, meaning for the viewers that the Council did not
want us to look into tweaking the building areas or second story setbacks, and they want to
look at ways to look within the existing ordinance infrastructure and see how we can facilitate
greater architectural diversity. The City Council has expressed concerns and some concerns
expressed by the residents that the exiting R1 Ordinance limits diversity of architecture. As
part of the last R1 process, one of the changes at the time was to allow for a slight increase of
the second floor ratio from 35% to 45%; at that time it was a reasonable accommodation to
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 July 8, 2008
allow people to have a third bedroom upstairs to have enough room to have reasonable
functionality of a second floor. In this case, the consideration is different; it is not to allow
people to have a larger second floor per se, but the focus should be on allowing people some
flexibility of the ratio so that other types of architecture could be fitted within the envelope.
We have been hearing that the existing 45% second floor to ground floor ratio restricts, even
though it covers mass and bulk, but it prevents other types of architecture such as Victorian
style, true Craftsman style, and the fact that the 50% second floor wall exposure also
contributes to that limitation. As a result, what we are seeing more is the repetitiveness of the
"wedding cake" architecture as the dominant architecture and there is not going to be a lot of
flavor and character, if you will that one would agree from a community like Los Gatos or Los
Altos would have. Because of the restrictio0n on the size and second floor, people are trying
to increase their ground floor to accommodate for the size of the second floor that they want.
It is counter intuitive, people don't necessarily need the square feet, but they are providing it to
get the sufficient room they want upstairs.
Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner:
• Reviewed the various architectural styles in Cupertino, which are illustrated and detailed in the
staff report. She also reviewed the design guidelines of other communities such as Los Gatos
and Los Altos which are outlined in the staff report.
Gary Chao:
• Said that staff believes that in order to achieve architectural diversity, one doesn't necessarily
have to tweak the setback or the floor azea ratio; they are proposing ordinance solution that by
incorporating appropriate design review process and the finding design principles that one can
apply, that you can achieve architectural diversity through that process. Therefore homes may
be allowed potentially to exceed the 45% second floor limit and/or exceed the 50% second
floor exposed wall rule if they are designed appropriately. Staff is suggesting that the Director
of Community Development may grant the approval to allow the second floor to exceed the
45% and at the same time to exceed the 50% wall rule provided that the following principles
and techniques are met:
~ Ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood design
theme and character;
Ensure appropriate building mass and scale;
Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain symmetry,
proportion and balance).
• It preserves the existing 45% rule, but if one wishes to exceed that, we could facilitate that
process in exchange for better architecture and more diversity. The principles are to ensure
appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with the neighborhood design in terms of
theme and character, and some of that are adding visual interest such as balconies, porches,
overhangs, and trellises, many of the things already touched upon. The decision of the
Director may be appealed to the Design Review Committee.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the Rl
Ordinance amendment as proposed with the provision to also cover the 50% maximum second
story wall exposure rule.
Chair Miller:
• Asked staff to review the process and the type of review that goes on today for two story
residences in Cupertino.
Gary Chao:
• All two stories are discretionary review; it is staff level approval; however, we would advertise
Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 25 July 8, 2008
the proposal to adjacent neighbors or neighbors within 300 feet. When an application is
received, story poles are required to be erected, notice boards to be posted in front of the
project site to disclose a floor plan and a rendering of the development. The adjacent
neighbors are given a two week comment period before staff entertains approval or a decision;
a decision of the Planning Department is appealable to the Design Review Committee.
• The process for a second story greater than 45% is the same as what is being done now; it has
been noticed already. It will be treated at staff level with neighborhood notification. Staff is
suggesting that the decision of the Director can be appealed to the DRC. Presently there are
no design guidelines or instructions how to treat some of the plain facades that may be
prevalent in a more traditional architectural style.
• Staff is suggesting that there be a special process and review process for that purpose with
detailed guidelines for people wishing to exceed their second floor ratio.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Recalled than when the R1 was reviewed, she and Com. Miller were the only two
Commissioners still serving who were part of the process; the Committee determined that they
wanted it to be as prescriptive as possible to eliminate the necessity of design guidelines and to
incorporate as many of those features directly into the R1.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that when an applicant comes in and is informed they have some options, you can come
in with a 45% second floor to first floor ratio; it is essentially one-third of the second, two-
thirds on the ground floor. We were using the ground floor building area to act as that
softening of that second story building wall. You can come in that way; you still notice your
neighbors and they still have the opportunity for input. The alternative is you can go higher
than that; essentially you are stripping away that softening element but you need to replace it
with something else, and staff has described all the something elses that we would expect. We
still notify the neighbors, but the applicant should talk to the neighbors before they apply for
one of the options to make sure their preference isn't just privacy is the most important issue.
You would replace it again with other elements, and then you would hopefully work it out
with your neighbor before you come into the city. We would review it, notice the neighbors
and if the neighbors want to appeal it to the DRC, it would be resolved in that format and/or
the Planning Commission. Staff will not be in the middle.
Com. Brophy:
• Has staff received any feedback from architects or local home builders relative to the proposed
changes?
Gary Chao:
• Said they have spoken to several local architects who have done work in town and they all
agree that if you were to tweak the second floor 45% ratio without tweaking the 50% rule, it is
not going to work. Many of them admit what we have now; they have their system down in
terms of satisfying their clients needs, and at the same time designing something that is
acceptable to staff. However, they do recognize the fact that it is preriy much it; everything is
going to look like a wedding cake and that precludes their ability to provide any other type of
azchitecture and that the direction they are headed toward is a positive one.
Com. Brophy:
• In a lot of the town the wedding cake style of architecture is so predominant that people would
find exceptions to that on new lots to be objectionable. I was wondering if that was a problem.
People get unhappy if you want to build something that is different from what the neighbors
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 July 8, 2008
have; and I was wondering whether or not we are opening up a new can of worms here.
Gary Chao:
• We have heard that before as well. That is why the term wedding cake came about. We get it
both ways; often times people complain about repetitiveness of new style of architecture which
is prescribed by our current ordinance; but then there are some who are resistant to the
different theme or style of architecture. It is important to note that a lot of the things we are
discussing are to still respect the theme and character of the neighborhood. It is the main focal
point of this proposal.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it was important to note that what is being suggested is if you want to go in this direction,
you need to replace it with something like this.
Com. Brophy:
• Said that coming back from the most recent DRC meeting that he and Vice Chair Giefer
attended, they both had some second thoughts as to the vote we had on allowing exception to
the second story setbacks. He said he would feel better if they are going to allow larger second
floors; they could add a clause that makes it clear that the policy is to be skeptical of exception
requests, especially for those homes that are at or near the maximum FAR.
Com. Rose:
• Asked if someone today wanted to exceed the second floor ratio as it stands, do they have the
option of asking for an exception, but it will not fit t he 45%; is there a process for that or is it
automatically not allowed.
Gary Chao:
• There is a process for that; it would be an R1 exception request; it would go directly to the
DRC instead of staff level review. We haven't had a formal proposal as such since the last
ordinance change. A lot of the times people's fear is that the word exception is not really
accepted to neighbors once it is being noticed. Now we would likely entertain something like
that if the architecture is superior; however, being that there is no case study in the past, it will
be interesting how the DRC is going to treat that as well.
Com. Rose:
• Using the same argument you are using, you are suggesting a change if it was an attractive
house that had treatments and landscaping, and side wraps and high quality materials and
preserve mature landscaping and positive conversations with the neighbors; then it could very
likely happen for that person.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it could be approved; it would need two exceptions: the second floor to first floor, plus
the 50% wall plane and you have no rules or guidance about how to judge that. All this would
do is give you some rules and language that would back up the granting of that. It wouldn't be
called an exception.
Com. Rose:
• If this were to move forward as proposed with the typical noticing of the neighbors within the
300 feet, would it call out the change to the second floor area ratio as something that is
different about this house?
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 July 8, 2008
Gary Chao:
~ Said it would be part of the legal description of the project on a notice that goes out.
• Explained the 50% wall plane rule. If you take all four walls of the second floor; the lineaz
walls and stretch them out, you will get a total linear feet of the perimeter walls; the ordinance
says that 50% of it has to be 6 feet or less in height exposed; and it goes into specifics as to
how that could be accomplished. It cannot be just a trellis or lattice structure or some type of
fake architectural skirt or roof around the ground floor; it has to be an enclosed structure down
below with its roof going up to cover that wall up to 6 feet. You can have in theory two sides
• of the wall completely flushed all the way from ground floor to second floor; however, the
other two have to be e~rtremely recessed and indented. We don't normally see that happen;
usually it is a combination of some vertical wall on the same elevation and some roof being
used to serve as that cover
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was under the impression that you could not have a two story wall anywhere at any
time.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that people have been complying with that after a lot of explanation from staff. It is one
of the most difficult things people have to comply with.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that he generally supported what you are going for, but one of the issues becomes, there is
a fine line between some of the projects you shared that were bad and some of the projects that
you shazed that were very nice and it boils down to architectural aesthetics. It is a good idea to
ask the Planning Commission and City Council to make their judgment calls; that is the big
difficulty. Palo Alto has an ARB that is famous; the buildings are nice, but difficult for the
architects to get a building through the process. He said even though he liked the concept,
how would it be done in real life?
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it was a good point; this is where the rub is; you end up bringing in a greater level of
design review and process and you are correct, and the communities that exercise this level of
design review, it can be torture.
~ For the record, staff did not bring this forward, but we are trying to give you a method that will
be between the two extremes, and the only one we can think of is we have a higher expectation
of design, the proof is in the pudding, talk to your neighbors, bring it to the DRC or staff first,
and if it looks like some of the pictures shown, we are likely going to approve it and anyone
can appeal it. If it is anything significantly less than that, then we are not going to approve it;
it will go to the DRC, and you are likely going to have a fight with your neighbors. The
biggest rub here is people spend a lot of money designing houses, and they don't want to get
too far down the line before they know that they have a winner. It can be 10% or 15% of the
project costs, a half million dollar home is pretty expensive. You are identifying one of the
real issues that comes up.
Com. Kaneda:
• Is there any value in coming up with a sliding scale based on lot size for the 45%.
Steve Piasecki:
~ Said there is; the Commission can make any_ recommendation to the Council; you can look at
other options such as sliding scales, lower FARs, but it was not the direction from Council.
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 July 8, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was concerned about matching the predominant style of the neighborhood. Some of
the neighborhoods have a lot of variety and the Eichler neighborhoods are also amactive. Said
he was concerned about putting in a set of rules for neighborhoods, especially for those that
already have two story wedding cake, Mediterranean style, developer-looking California
suburban homes which are now locked into that, and all the homes in that neighborhood
theoretically have to match that style.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it was an excellent point, and said it was offered on numerous occasions to
neighborhoods who have strong opinions about being one-story ranches or Eichlers. A case
can be made if you can show that there is a dominant style, and that is what the super majority
of the neighborhood wants to live with; however, it is extremely difficult to get the super
majority to agree.
Com. Rose:
• Asked questions how many homes are torn down and rebuilt per year, single family tgwo story
residences; (staff responded about S0; major remodels with removal of a large portion of the
house would be between 100-1 SO per year.)
• Are a lot of builders building less than they are allowed to based on their lot ratios and second
floor ratios; is there a trend toward people being more concerned about a certain style of home
or are they prioritizing how much house they can get on the lot based on the ordinance.
Gary Chao:
• Said the current ordinance does an adequate job in allowing a reasonable size of houses
compared to the lot size; we are not hearing people complain about why they can't build a
bigger house, but most of the houses coming in are m~ed out. What we are hearing is people
saying they wished they could have done something different; you are designing my house for
~ me; the home owner doesn't have a lot of flexibility, but doing as prescribed.
Com. Rose:
• Said that the photos of homes illustrated a style of home she did not see a lot in Cupertino; and
wondering if you have, what I tend to see is the Mediterranean style and I am curious how that
is going to look with the proposed 50% second floor ratio. Although the homes were
attractive, she did not see that as a preferred style within the development that tends to happen
residentially in Cupertino. She questioned if it was misleading to put that out there because
that may not be what will be seen if the second floor ratio is changed.
Gary Chao:
• Said there were some Mediterranean styles that work; they tend to be boxy, but there are
appliques and features that one could incorporate into it that will address the concern. He said
that many of the Mediterranean homes in Cupertino are not true to form. The genuine style
have a lot of recessed windows, cantilivers, attractive materials that go into the design.
• He said that indirectly the design is locked in when a plan set is approved, especially a two-
story proposal, all the features are part of the approval. A covenant could be entertained to
disclose to the future property owner that there should be special review if something on the
house is changed.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that people max out to the 45% overall floor area ratio; if the house sells and sells again
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 July 8, 2008
and the new property owner applies to put in a shed and his request is denied. You pre-empt
all flexibility when you go to the maximum FAR, and it creates problems because every new
owner wants to put their stamp on it.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Matthew Klein, Cupertino resident:
• Back in the 1930s, 40s to 70s, we didn't build 3,000 square feet second stories over 1,000
square feet first stories; we didn't have houses like this. A few people on Prospect decided to
was offended. Hence, back to Com. Rose's question, why can't you build this house in
Cupertino; because if you look at the second story you will see that it is more than 45%, it is
more than 50%; in fact if you have it over the enclosed porch, call it 125% ar 130%. We have
125% roughly second floor to first floor; it incorporates an enclosed porch which is the state of
design goal of the Cupertino Planning Commission but there is no affected enforcement of it
or affected encouragement of it because if you do a 45% second story over something like this
enclosed porch, you cannot build it. This is impossible today to build a building like this in
Cupertino. Why is it people are building monstrosities/wedding cakes? It goes back to Com.
Kaneda's comment, this 50% exposed wall is very complicated but it is the single most
objective thing and the single most important thing that is driving the wedding cake design. It
is in fact a defacto additional setback of the second wall plane over the first wall. Forget the
general setbacks 20, 25, 15 feet surcharges; in order to get that 6 foot exposed on your second
wall, you have to come up with a structural feature against it, typically a roof line, so every
new building monstrosity in Cupertino, we are forced to look at people's roofline at the mid
horizontal plane of their building. I don't want to look at your roofline, I don't want to look at
your molars, but why is it that every single building we are forced to look at people's
rooflines, because the architects and designers are forced to give you that feature in order to
satisfy the exposed wall requirements. People don't want to build monstrosities and wedding
cakes, they have to because people in Cupertino have children; if you want to add a second
story to an existing building, i.e. a remodel which is different than new construction and you
want to have your children live on the same floor as you, you want to have enough square
footage to do that. But with an existing ranch style L-ranch, you are limited to 45% of your
existing; typically these houses have 6,000 to 8,000 square foot lots, but to do a remodel you
have to satisfy 45%, and with requirements for staircases and foyers, you are going to spend a
lot of money to get 700 usable square feet upstairs; and the reason is because the 50% rule
requires an imposed setback from the first plane. The existing house doesn't have sheer walls,
or a foundation sufficient for that so you have to remove the roof and spend a fortune to get a
small second story addition. The family decides to sell and move to another city. The ne~rt
buyer purchases the home and demolishes it and builds a monstrosity home. We have no
design guidelines for windows.
• Delete the 50% exposed rule; delete the 45%; owners know what to do; no one is going to
build a 4,000 square foot second story over 1,000 square foot. You can't do it because the
setbacks won't permit it and the FAR won't permit it. Hence, regulations and setbacks on top
of the setbacks are ridiculous; it is producing the monstrosity buildings which have been in the
last ten years, and we scratch our heads and wonder why we have this mess; it is because of
your design guidelines.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• She questioned why they were reopening the R1 ordinance; it is completely different than
what was discussed in March. How did we wind up having this go to 50% and breaking up
the sheer wall plane. This is contradictory to R1; we are basically reopening the entire thing.
• She expressed concern about the monster homes and creating big boxes, and Rancho
Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 8, 2008
Rinconada is going to have to have a special zoning, Rl-R, just lake Fairgrove, the Eichler
community. We have lots that are less than 5,000 square feet, my house is 800 sq. ft., now if
we ever put a second story in, I am committed to putting in second story setbacks because I
respect my neighbor's privacy. We have a balcony going up; across the street and that has
completely upset the neighbors. Gary Chao designed a wedding cake house which has made
the neighbors okay with the balcony, and the balcony looks right into all our homes. I saw
the first story going up today; my neighbor across the street with two small children is going
to have a balcony looking directly into her kitchen and backyard. The reason why we have
R1 today; if we are going down this road, let's reopen the entire thing; I have spent hours and
hours in this city in these meetings discussing R1, so let's talce it to the entire limit; my
brother when they put a second story on their 1892 Victorian home in Los Gatos, it took 9
months to go through the code. Let's do it; let's have every possible little building restriction;
let's limit the colors to six colors like you do with the Victorian in Los Gatos. In my
neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada we need second story setbacks, we need neighbors'
privacy to maintain our lovely wedding cake homes and some of our old Rancho homes.
Matt Kamkar, Cupertino resident:
~ In favor of application.
• I would like to urge to support and change the 45% rule. Here are some of the issues that
were not discussed.
• When you make the second story larger compared to the first story, that gives you a bigger
back yard; I believe a bigger back yard goes into both more green space and better quality of
life for your family. It would also be less strain on city resources as parks. The other reason I
believe we need to do that is Vice Chair Giefer referred to purple pipe. The purple pipe will
allow a bigger back yard gives you better more room to do rainwater capture on a small well
within your site and use the water for irrigation and landscaping. Second story, the current
regulations will discourage solar panels because the angle of the roofs that come into the
walls so a smaller first story which would be the result of this regulation being passed will
create smaller roofs and smaller foundations which is more resource conservation. Finally, if
a potential homebuilder has a choice between the property on our side of the border vs. San
Jose that goes to Cupertino schools, they would chose the San Jose side and take the city of
the opportunity to get funding and properiy tax upgrade that comes with more transactions
within the city. For these reasons, I believe we should go ahead and increase the 45% rule.
Dennis Liu, Cupertino resident:
• I am a developer and currently working with an architect to design a new house in Cupertino
area and I just found out it is very difficult with the 45% law; my architect said it was
impossible to build a two story house with three bedrooms on the same floor. As you know
most of the family in this area that still have more than one child, so with this 45% rule, you
can only build a maximum of two rooms on the same floor. We have forced the family to
separate the children on a different floor, which creates a difficulty for some of the families. I
work with many realtors in this area and they told me that they are all facing this problem; the
young family moving into the area really like the education system in Cupertino and have to
sacrifice and put the young children on different floors. I think this is a tremendous difficulty
for many young families, and I agree with many other architects; I would like to support and
have this amendment to increase the 45%.
• He said in return for being able to do up to 100%, he said it was worth the effort to have a
higher level of architechual review.
Terry Brown, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was in favor of eliminating the 45% rule. It is another example of efforts to reduce
Cupertino Planning Commission 31 July 8, 2008
good architectural design to mathematical formulas; and it will fail every time.
• Relative to the 50% rule, he said he hoped they were talking about the wall plane issue, not
just changing the FAR upstairs to .5. (Staff said the SO% was wall plane area)
• Said he was generally opposed to architectural review of any sort. I think that I prefer to have
architects practice their trade; people build homes that they like the looks of, not necessarily
some one else's choice; but I am certainly answer that question you put to the last speaker in
pretty much the same way; if you can get rid of the .45, get rid of the mathematical formulas,
then I guess we can put up with increased architectural review.
Seema Mittal, Cupertino resident:
• Said she designed homes in Cupertino, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, all neighboring
cities, and it is interesting how different the cities are and how the products of architecture are
different in different cities. Most of the issues have been addressed between the people who
spoke here and the Commissioners.
• Said she supported removal of the upper story restriction and having design guidelines,
because presently Cupertino does not have them. While it is subjective, there is nothing you
can point to when working with your client. However, what happens when you change the
rules in the middle of the road, we were building to 35% upper story, then a couple of years
ago we started building to 45% and now inching up. There are certain homes that have
already been built on that premise; they were 1,000 square feet on the upper level and they
assumed that the neighboring house would do the same. As a result, privacy views, sunlight,
solar devices, are at stake. It is difficult to bring up those objections because they are not
quantitative; they are qualitative. It is easy to enforce numbers but difficult to enforce
something subjective. I think if there were gaphic design guidelines and if the R1 code said
that neighbors' concerns regarding view, sunlight, privacy; because there are options how you
design upper stories; you have to keep the context in mind; you have to see what is going on in
the neighboring houses; you can't just completely ignore it and say that you meet your
numbers, so I have met the design criteria and I will sail through.
~ Said she had no objection to the increase, provided there are graphic guidelines and provided
that the planners can enforce views, privacy.
Chair Miller:
• Pointed out that they did not change the second story setbacks; so your comment about it is
going to change access to light and privacy is not completely on target, because the setbacks
for the second story are exactly the same as they are today.
Seema Mittal:
• Said that the Rl did not address the upper story balconies. You can have 1,000 square foot
upper story balcony because it is not counted in the FAR and have a huge upper story mass,
and it can't be questioned quantitatively because it adds to the mass but doesn't add to the
square footage.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Rose:
• Said she appreciated the speakers providing input, and was in favor of keeping the status quo.
• We are tasked with only to consider the current second floor ratio to first floor ratio and the
argument that is asking us to look at this concern is that homeowners, the current situation
encourages homeowners to increase the size of their first floor to get the most they can out of
their second floor, which allows a certain number of bedrooms, children on the same floor.
• The second thing we are addressing is the current ratio also encourages sort of one style of
Cupertino Planning Commission 32 July 8, 2008
home which is referred to as the wedding cake style, and it is not allowing people to design
and build other styles of homes.
• I wish I could feel confident that what we are discussing tonight would change some of the
architectural houses we are seeing coming up in Cupertino. I wish that the list of treatments
that are proposed to soften a house that perhaps has a larger than 45% second floor would
always be included in the architectural plans. Unfortunately I am skeptical for two reasons. I
live in a neighborhood that used to have no requirement for a second floor setback or ratio, so I
am surrounded by homes that have that block feeling on very large lots. I think that is
indicative that when you are given the opportunity to build as big as you can, you do. Staff
validated that point and a speaker also said he would build as big as he can. I am not certain
this is the answer to getting smaller homes; generally it is just an open door to build larger
homes that have more of a bulk appearance and that you are going to have to cross your
fingers that the builder and the stafF are going to be working in sync to use architectural
features to minimize the bulk of that house. I just don't feel comfortable with that much gray
area when it comes to new development.
• What staff was saying about the 45% rule must be changed with the 50% rule, I am not
comfortable with the fact that we have separated those two, and I think that it is difficult to say
a house has to have a friendly presence to the street. I think everyone could have a different
idea of what that means, so although I like all the ideas presented to soften the look of a house
that potentially has a second floor that is greater than 45% of the first, I am not confident based
on what I see happening currently, that those suggestions will be carried through in an
attractive manner. I don't think we are going to see homes different than what we are
presently seeing.
• It needs to be thought of a lot differently and a lot deeper than it is. If we are going to open up
the R1, we should be looking at the much bigger picture than what we are trying to do today.
Com. Brophy:
• I would agree that I would prefer to see a more comprehensive look at R1, but he Council has
decided otherwise. Given that theoretically it has always been possible for a home builder or
applicant to ask for an exception, I don't see that this change is a huge change; apparently
home builders have chosen not to exercise the right to ask for an exception or they feel that is
not an area that can open up. I think I would with some hesitation, flip on the other side and
think that it would hopefully lead to improved quality of architecture.
• The one change I would make from the proposed ordinance, is include a class discouraging
exceptions for second story setback requirements for homes that are at or near the ma7cimum
FAR.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Agreed with Com. Brophy that there is an avenue available to builders today that if they do
want a building larger second floor and reduce the reduce the first floor, that the process does
exist today. I share the same concerns that Com. Rose had that it isn't really going to make a
big difference; we are still going to see people move forward in the easiest path with the lease
resistance which is the status quo today.
• Recalled as one of the Commissioners when the last R1 Ordinance revision was done, one of
the reasons they went to a very prescriptive format, we did have design review guidelines, and
it put staff in conflict with the property owners quite a bit of the time, and property owners we
frequently heard that they were delayed by staff, so when I think about putting the design
guidelines which when we approved the R1, which I don't think I voted for the current R1,
when we did approve that as a body, the major sentiment by many Commissioners was we
needed to be highly prescriptive because otherwise the property owners felt that staff was
dictating what could be built; which is some of what we are hearing today as well.
Cupertino Planning Commission 33 July 8, 2008
• Expressed concern about putting staff back into the point of conflict with the public, which
could occur; we don't have design guidelines; I find the suggested language conflicts and will
create greater confusion with our current R1 policy. I think that we are not directed to review
the 50% wall ratio and so if we are going to go back to Council and say yes let's do this and
we recommend further review of the 50%, there are a lot of other things I would rather review
• in the Rl than the 50% wall ratio and the change to the first second story ratio. I think there
are a lot more compelling things we should look at in the Rl. When we moved forward on the
last R1 we said we felt as a body we should review it every five years; we are at the five year
mark, and perhaps we should open up the entire R1 as has been suggested. Put more thought
into design guidelines.
• I would like to see more varied architecture in Cupertino; it is possible today.
• My final comment in reading all the other ordinances that staff provided us for part of our
review for this evening, I was struck by how all of the cities were really community focused;
they acknowledged that the people wanted to move into a specific neighborhood was because
they wanted to be part of that neighborhood, and if you care about a neighborhood and you
want to be part of that neighborhood, you are not going to disrupt the neighborhood; you will
improve your property because it will vis a vis improve the neighborhood, but our R1 doesn't
really care about the neighborhood; it cazes about the rights of the incoming property owner to
come in and build whatever they want to build, and if it is an attractive building, I support it. I
think we need to do that. If it is a spec home that is being built as cheaply as can and as large
as possible, then I think it needs greater scrutiny.
• If we were going to move forward on the Rl, I would support taking more of a neighborhood
buy-in process in the neighborhood orientation with where we go.
~ Said she did not support what is shown today; I like the idea of further design scrutiny, but that
is available today.
Com. Kaneda:
• Conceptually I support the amendment, but at this point I don't support it. I take exception to
the way the ordinance is set up now; I think the wedding cake design pushes architects into
doing mediocre design at best.
• Talking about sustainability, there are some real sustainability issues involved in that too,
because if you are forced to go in, there is a resource issue, there is a structural issue, the sheer
walls can't carry out; the framing gets more complicated. It forces an architect to do things
that are structurally unnatural, and so I think we have built a lot of buildings like that that
haven't done a great service to the community. On the other hand, the whole reason that was
put in place was because of some pretty egregious two story massive buildings that were built
in Cupertino and those in their own way are as bad or worse architecturally. I am willing to
look at a change that will allow people to do buildings that are two story and styles that are
different, but I think it really needs to be thought out that there has to be a lot of care and time
and effort put into putting the guidelines together, to make sure that it is done.
• The other thing is I suspect that it is going to be frustrating for the architects that are designing
buildings in our community because I think a lot of times what will happen is you will be
working within the rules still, but you have this layer of people telling you it doesn't look good
because of this and this change or design. I am concerned; I am not sure how we will do it, but
evidently a lot of the other cities have figured out how to do it. Look to the other cities to see
how they are doing it, and find the best practice among them.
Chair Miller:
• I have never been in favor of limiting the second story, for many of the reasons that the
speakers have addressed.
• Matt Kamkar discussed the fact that you get more green space and you have less runoff to deal
Cupertino Planning Commission 34 July 8, 2008
with; from that standpoint it is more of a green design by allowing people to go up. It also
promotes better solar usage because you get more access to roof area to do that, as opposed to
having the little roofs here and there that you can't put a significant solar system on.
• I think that this change doesn't, if the concern is that it affects privacy or it affects access to
sunlight, I don't believe that is correct because second story setbacks are not being adjusted;
and that is the governing rule that affects both the privacy and the access to sunlight, and we
address privacy with different treatments of the windows and address it with landscaping and
the fact that there maybe a vertical wall plane, it is going to be 15 feet from the property line,
instead of 5 feet from the property line. In effect you are increasing the space between
yourself and your neighbor if you chose to go vertical and to my way of thinking that is a good
thing. If you go back east, all you see is vertical buildings and I have looked at this in Boston
and Connecticut and in New York and other places, and the difference between there and here
is the horizontal space between the buildings. The further you are away from your neighbor,
the less objectionable the higher elevation is when you deal with houses. The 50% wall plane,
I agree with staff, we cannot do one without the other and since the Council did not direct us
not to talk about the 50%, I think that is appropriate; otherwise we can't put this into effect.
• I agree with Com. Brophy that if we do this we want to discourage changing giving exceptions
to the second story because then we would be compromising the privacy of the neighborhoods
and their access to light and sun.
• The comments that Matt Klein made, specifically with respect to remodels is so on target, that
in order to do a remodel on a small house today, you basically have to tear it down and build a
whole new house because of the limitations. The limitations we impose are far too onerous, so
we are forcing people to do more development on their property than they really need to do.
• The other issue that seems to come up here is neighborhood compatibility and that has always
been a difficult area for me because I don't see anything wrong with eclectic and if you go into
some older neighborhoods in Willow Glen where all the houses were built by different
builders and every house is different and yet the neighborhood seems to fit together nicely; it
is quaint and the landscaping works; and even though the houses are different the area looks
great. Willow Glen's resale values are up there with Cupertino's. What has a lot to do with it,
is how well that architectural design works there, or the non-existence of architectural design,
because the fact is when we talk about neighborhood compatibility, some people take it to the
point of what I call neighborhood conformity. Every house has to look the same; and we have
had people come up and argue in neighborhoods where most of the neighborhood was ranch
houses built after World War II and argued that it has to be a ranch house in the World War II
style and I just don't agree with that. I don't think that adds to the character of Cupertino.
• The other issue that staff brought up as another strong reason for moving ahead on this is that
we are losing the style and the tradition of Cupertino houses to some extent because you can't
build them under the current regulation, where you could be more compatible if we allowed
more flexibility.
• Summarized that there were two Commissioners in favor of the changes, and two against, and
one on the post.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that he was against the changes, because the regulation needs to be thought out more and
cleaned up. If there is a way we can do that here, he would be willing to look at it.
Chair Miller:
• Asked Com. Kaneda if staff came back with a specific set of guidelines for the Planning
Commission to review, would that be acceptable.
Cupertino Planning Commission 35 July 8, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it would be acceptable if staff presented a specific set of guidelines for further review.
Com. Rose:
• Said the examples everyone is giving of this new plan are homes that people aren't wanting to
build in Cupertino, and I don't think it is a matter of not being able to because as pointed out,
there is an avenue to build any kind of home you want; you just have to get an exception and
the process that we are looking at would include additional DRC review anyway.
• I am wondering if we should list some certain design styles, because I would be comfortable
with that. My concern because what I see is a predominant Mediterranean style home and I
see it where there were not second floor ratios that were built 10 to 20 years ago and I see a
consistent desire to m~ out whatever building size you can do. I don't see this interest in
bringing in new design and maybe if I could just do this; and I am not hearing from staff that
people are asking how they can get their two story Craftsman or their New England
Connecticut style home; I am hearing that everyone wants to build as big a home as they can
and that tends to be the Mediterranean style so that is what concerns me. So if we want to go
specific, why don't we list out some typical styles that are comfortable and if you want to task
staff, they could outline what is a soap box home and that could be an example of how you
could have a larger ratio than 45% of the second floor.
Chair Miller:
• I am not sure why not; the first comment we made is just get an exception; and therein is the
key issue because you have to spend a lot of money to do a design these days. You go to an
architect and he wants $30,000; if you go in for an exception, and the owner has to put up the
money, the architect will say you have 50% chance they will let you do the exception, and he
will say it is not worth the money, because they are on a timeline and they are on a budget and
they don't have money to gamble with. The comment "just get an exception" is a very
significant hurdle; that is why people don't do it.
Com. Rose:
• It sounds like we are still asking people to go through a design process; if they say they put
their trellis; and there is argument whether it is a trellis; they are told to go to DRC.
Chair Miller: '
• The difference is you can do some sketches and work with staff and the cost is not that high•
that is the issue why people don't go and people will not go for an exception. It is too
expensive.
Com. Rose:
• Said she felt it was still not adequately thought out.
Chair Miller:
• We have a difference of opinion on that. The other thing I don't think we want to do is say we
are only going to allow certain styles; then we are getting into the job of being architects.
Com. Rose:
• Said she agreed, and knows what the architect does; but I also feel that what is going to
happen if this happens; it is not that people will say they don't have to build such a big first
floor; I can build a big first floor, I can build a big second floor and as a speaker mentioned,
what is happening it is lovely to think that people are running around with their plans saying
neighbor, I just got the lot and here is what I am going to do; the reality is that it is not
Cupertino Planning Commission 36 July 8, 2008
happening. My feeling is that before we jump into something like this, there needs to be more
discussion around what we are trying to achieve. Because what this will achieve is stucco
walls from the first floor to the second floor.
Chair Miller:
• The reality is that it is happening because everyone who does a second story house has to put a
rendering in front of their house and the story poles, so that no neighbor can possibly miss it.
Even though some people go and talk to their neighbors, at this point what we force them to do
is, you don't want to talk to your neighbor, you want to stick it our in front like a big
advertising sign. If the neighbor becomes upset when he sees it, he will come knocking on
your door; and if he doesn't knock on your door, he will come down to the Planning
Department and say that he is upset about what is going up there, do something about it.
Nothing is getting past the neighbors anymore; we fixed that when we changed the ordinance 3
years ago.
Com. Rose:
• Nothing is getting past the neighbors but then when they bring it to our attention we tell them
what the ordinance allows, and if they do not like the ordinance, the community has to get
. together and make their neighborhood a single story only neighborhood like Fairgrove. If the
ordinance allows it, it is very rare that you are going to get a situation in which the DRC or this
body is going to overturn something if the ordinance allows and you will argue that you are
selling houses to people and they are looking at our ordinance and saying if I can build 45%
then I should be able to build 45%. If we put it in the ordinance, then people are going to
expect it. We are relying on this list of design treatments to soften it, and that is when we get
into the architect's business that we were saying we didn't want to get into. I am not saying
this is all a very bad thing, but it is a big thing and it is something that needs to be thought
about and if we are really trying to have houses like Gary put on here, which I am not really
seeing unless you go out to Rancho. If we really want that and that is what we are working
toward, then we need to think about how we are working towards that; we don't just change a
percentage.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he recently went through a home remodel; the architect said not to do two stories and he
now has a sprawling house because he followed the ordinance.
Com. Rose:
• If we are going to change this ordinance, let's be careful about. Maybe Chair Miller's
suggestions are right, maybe we tax staff with defining all these different details for each type
of house we are going to get; but I think the reality is, is what people really want to build is a
much bigger Mediterranean house with stucco walls.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Has staff sat down and said with the setback requirements that we have, what is the maximum
second story percentile that is achievable? (Staff said it was 100%)
• Has staff evaluated the conflicting language of the proposed modifications to the ordinance
based on the rest of the language in the Rl, because you are giving different directions.
Steve Piasecki:
• Clarified you could even go more than 100% if you take out the 45% rule, second floor to first
floor. You have two distinctive processes in the ordinance; that is why you lost the conflict.
You can follow the old rules or you can come in and follow the new rules in which case you
Cupertino Planning Commission 37 July 8, 2008
are going to have greater design scrutiny based on these words in the ordinance. Some
Commissioners feel it needs to be more than words, maybe we need some design guidelines so
that it is more specific. We don't have a problem with that; the examples we looked at in other
communities were developed by architects but they ~have a much longer more scrutiny in the
process; they cost a lot of money, none of which were part of the tasks that came from the
Council so the Commission has a couple of options. You can say we really can't deal with this
the way it is; we need more design guidelines and you need to authorize every expenditure to
get that done and then we will feel more comfortable with it. You could also task staff with it
and they will come back with pictures and the best we can do; homes don't look like they fit in
Cupertino. You could give that a month try. We could talce a shot at it and provide more
specificity based on the comments from the Commission and the public. The other option is
you can say that we cannot get agreement, send it back to the Council without agreement and
we can explain the debate, because you had a good discussion and this is so typical of Rl;
there is so much passion that goes into it; we heard it the last time we went through this;
everybody has an interest in R1. It couldn't hurt to wait 4 to 6 weeks and let us take a shot to
drill down on some of the questions and issues to see if we can find better language that will
provide better levels of comfort.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she did not feel it accomplished the goal; I think we are going to have a lot of unintended
consequences of this because we are taking a quick swag at this; which is what I think it is;
let's just take the dial and move it over here now and wait 5 years and see what is billed to the
city. I don't think we can do that.
Steve Piasecki:
• Asked if the concern was that they would end up with stucco boxes with concrete roofs with
appliques and a few trellises.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• The public is going to feel as though we are back to the pre-existing ordinance where the
public is going to say that staff is an impediment to building; we cannot get anything approved
in Cupertino. Everybody's opinion of existing vs. future is different; I am not saying we don't
need to re-think this; I am just saying that this will not solve the problem that we have been
asked to address and solve; and that is why I am not supporting it. I am completely supportive
of saying let's take a look at FAR, having meaningful design review put back in, and I would
support that. I think that just trying to fix this one little ratio isn't going to achieve what we
wanted to achieve. I think we are going to have unintended consequences.
Chair Miller:
• Said he understood what they were saying; and would rather try to address the problem than
not address it, and Council has not given them the latitude to open the entire R1, so it is what it
is and there is a consensus for letting stafFgive it a try.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to let staff take another look at
it; to include some language about strong discouragement of exceptions to second
story setbacks requirements for any changes.
Steve Piasecki:
• Suggested that the motion provide at least 6 weeks to go back and restudy it. Relative to the
exceptions, eliminate them; with this route there is the variance option which is a harder
standard to meet; discouraging exceptions doesn't work.
Cupertino Planning Commission 38 July 8, 2008
Second: Com. Kaneda
Com. Kaneda:
• Does it make sense to get some outside professional help to try to come up with your
guidelines; staff is understaffed and there are no staff architects; and in my mind a fair amount
of this is highly architecturally related.
Steve Piasecki:
• That is what the other cities are doing. The Los Gatos guidelines were developed by our
architectural adviser at considerable expense and considerable time. The concept doesn't
really change from city to city a lot; we can try to call from the examples we have given you
and other examples; maybe we can put something together. If we are not successful maybe we
would still want to have an architectural adviser come in and look over our shoulder. We will
look into different options to try to do it with less expense and time. If that fails, you can send
it to the City Council and say you really cannot do this without doing more elaborately and
opening the whole R1 box up. It would be a year and a half and a quarter of a million dollars.
Chair Miller:
• Maybe there is a middle alternative; perhaps staff does their best shot at coming up with some
guidelines. We have heard tonight from at least one person who is an architect; I know of
others who do business in Cupertino who would be happy to meet with staff and give further
input and perhaps refine it, so it wouldn't take a lot of time from any individual architect to do
that.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they would give it a try, and likely would seek their architectural adviser on an hourly
basis
(Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Chair Giefer No; Com. Rose No.)
5. Discussion of the pre-review option for the development proposals.
Steve Piasecki presented the staff report:
• Said that the Council sent it back to the Planning Commission asking that they expand the
noticing and look at some other options, specifically the one seen in So. Vallco that in the
cases of some larger developments, perhaps some sort of expanded community review process
is appropriate; otherwise talce another look at all the options for early review. We have given
you the verbatim transcript which was to make it clearer exactly what is intended. This is one
given the lateness of the hour, we could make a greater outreach and with more notice, we
could get more developers to participate.
Keith Murphy:
• Said the proposal was baffling as to what its real benefit will be; I understand the idea of
talking with developers about future applications they may want to bring in front of the city
and how maybe the community might feel about that or how staff feels about that. I have a real
problem that it sets up the city for a lot of legal problems, would like the city attorney's input,
and if he feels it will be more of a problem for the city or is it really going to solve the
problems that we think it is. Is the city attorney going to be part of this process to be able to
monitor some of these meetings and see if they really aze going in the right direction which the
Planning Commission and City Council would like them to; or are they going to be more of a
Cupertino Planning Commission 39 July 8, 2008
hindrance also wonder about public input, is there going to be people from the community
participating in these two wars; it is strictly going to be where the public is only going to hear
about these afterwards and have little input.
Jennifer Griffin:
~ Said it was important especially based on what happened in the last hearing. Since we seem to
be going down the road of creation of monster houses again. Please don't do things to
streamline development just so we are developing monster buildings, monster houses so we
will have a monster city. My neighborhood is doing due diligence in the eastern area for the
Sand Hill projects. We had the meeting tonight and there is a two hour meeting on Thursday;
this is summertime; someone asked me tonight why did this come up this week. Other people
are enjoying their summer; my neighborhood of eastern Cupertino and No. Cupertino care a
great deal about what happens in this city. They care about the neighborhoods, their schools
and the character of the city. We came in from the county as did other pockets that were
annexed into the city and I don't expect those pockets to be treated any differently because we
are in Cupertino now. What we saw and what we fought for and what we went through in the
County contributes the betterment of Cupertino. Cupertino needs retail, active businesses;
there has been a desire in the neighborhoods not to over impact the schools. If this goes
through, we need to make sure that the public is aware every step of the way; we are not
moving; we don't build spec houses and sell them; we live here and I intend to live here for a
long period of time.
• Said she expected that any project okayed by this city is going to be a quality project where
she wants to shop, and take her family to, that some family members may want to move to if
they have senior housing. The public is here, now; we are a part of the community, part of the
process and please do not do anything to keep the public out.
Terry Brown:
• Said he supported any revision to the process which would allow more input sooner before
more money is spent on renderings, drawings, etc. I don't specific requirements or any good
ideas how that would work, except that I am aware other cities do some pre-application
discussions with commissioners and/or council members, and if you can design a program
where that could be done where we can get more information sooner and less money spent, I
am in favor of it.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller provided the feedback received from Evershine and Sand Hill Properties.
Oaks Shonping Center Proiect •
~ Said it was a perfect example of where a change in the process could have been a benefit.
They were totally blindsided by the issue of parking vs. landscaping and giving up some
parking spaces. Apparently it never came up before it came before our Planning Commission
and the other issue they didn't appreciate or have a feeling for was the condominium map.
According to the developer who has already spent $400,000 on plans and consultants to this
point and is feeling like he is seriously considering dropping the project. The question is,
could we have avoided that if we had a pre-look at things, and I think in this particular case the
answer is yes. If there was some type of study session with the Planning Commission up front
before he spent a lot of money on these things, those issues would have come out and we
wouldn't be necessarily in the particular situation we are in now. That is why I see this is
important; I can tell you also from personal experience because I do some development in
other towns, and the first thing I want to do, which I perceive most developers want to do,
Cupertino Planning Commission 40 July 8, 2008
nobody wants to do a project and then drive it by force through the city. It doesn't work; the
neighbors get upset, the Planning Commission and Council gets upset. The mindset of the
developer is what is it that I can do that will be a quality project that will be financial viable
that will meet the needs or approximate, most or good portion of the needs of the stakeholders,
and the residents, the neighbors, the Council and the Planning Commission. The more
information that I can get on that up front, the better job and the higher quality job that I am
going to be doing in terms of design. If I have designed something; Evershine said the same
thing to me; and if I design something and I spend $100K doing it and then I come in and it
gets shot down and changes have to be made, I will not go back and redesign the whole thing
for another $100K; I am going to make some little adjustments here or here for a smaller
amount of money. If you get the input up front, then you design things in a quality way
instead of adding them as add-ons in the end. That is why it is important to be looking at
changing the process so we can improve the result that we get and nobody is suggesting we not
include the public in this process; anything we do will be a public hearing. The objective is to
improve the result, and perhaps streamline and become more efficient, both from the
developer's standpoint and also from the staffls standpoint. How much extra stafftime does jt
take every time staff goes through a project, brings it here and then it has to be go back
because of Planning Commission changes and they have to redo things and it has to go back
because of Council changes, and they redo things again. We are not doing ourselves any
favors at the city side, and we are not doing the developer any favor on the other side. I am a
strong believer in more information up front is better upfront is better than the hit and miss and
take your best shot and we will look at it and decide at that point in time whether we like it or
not. I am looking for a more professional approach. What we decided here was the ERC was
one way to go and I don't believe so because it doesn't give the developer what he wants; it is
just one person from the Planning Commission and the City Council and these issues might
not come up, where they would, for example, it was the whole Planning Commission body
listening to the developer and working with them. Staff has said there is the concern about the
perception of the hearing before the hearing and I believe it is just a perception, not a reality.
My answer to that is I would rather take the risk on perceptions and work for a better process
for both us and the developers than not do something and not take a step forward, and we can
it a trial period and not try it because we are worried about perceptions.
Com. Brophy:
• The reality is that the applicants are already talking to the staff confidentially and most
applicants who have been active in town are talking to members of the City Council privately.
The advantage of an ERC type meeting is that it allows a staff inember, one Planning
Commissioner, one City Council member to at least be in the same room at the same time. The
meeting is listed on the city website so any residents can attend and listen and that it is an
informal presentation. The one suggested change from Steve Piasecki's suggestion is not even
have the staff produce a staff report ahead of time so there is no sense that the staff is
manipulating the facts and the developer can talk about whatever he wants to, get the
feedback, and talce it for what it is worth considering that we hazdly ever seem to have a
unanimous vote. Given the conflict which has existed regarding development issues in
Cupertino in recent years, I believe a Los Gatos type model where you have a substantially
larger group would be counter-productive because there would a need for not only listing the
public hearing but sending out notices; at that point I do not see what the benefit would be in
terms from an applicant's perspective if he has to have a voluntary public heazing in addition
to all the other hearings.
Com. Rose:
• Asked Chair Miller if he was suggesting that the whole Planning Commission body be who
Cupertino Planning Commission 41 July 8, 2008
they come in front of. (Chair Miller response was Yes)
• What if we just had them come to one of the Planning Commission meetings; it is a public
meeting.
Chair Miller:
• Said he thought they could call it a study session; we could do it either way; maybe the size of
the project is so large that it is worth devoting an hour or two just to dealing with that project.
He said it did not involve the Council, just the Planning Commission. He said the developers
will typically try to get in touch with Council members in advance and they are spending time
with staff. The only people who are left out of the loop are us.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she agreed with Com. Brophy's input. If a developer wanted to do a study session with
the Planning Commission, it is available and can make it happen at any time. If someone is
going to come with a very large project such as Apple, they could do a study session; a special
process is not needed for that
• Suggested an addition to Com. Brophy's comment. If an early review was done, make it a
public meeting, no public testimony heard. She noted that when they reviewed the Oaks, she
did not know how important losing those street parking spaces were to the public, until they
had the hearing. Regardless if it were a study session or an early review session, I would not
have been able to make that call because it was only after we continued the item and I got
many emails about the importance of the parking, did it rise to the surface for me. Even if we
have a study session or an early review, by the time it gets to the public hearing, we may or
may not actually call everything correctly.
• Said she would support the model suggested by Com. Brophy.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he liked the idea of having to be able to get some comment out early. Initially it was
thought that the best way to do that was a Council member and a Planning Commissioner, and
the subject of a study session as part of the meetings came up. What is the best format so that it
can be used regularly.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that the developer can request a study session be held. It has not occurred with the
Planning Commission, but has with the City Council. He suggested offering the idea of a
study session to the next five developers to see if they are receptive or not. If a developer does
take staff up on the study session, use it to determine how much the process can be improved.
Com. Rose:
• Said she understood the need to give some thought or discussion before people invest money
in the process of developing a property. She expressed concern that just as a developer might
be frustrated on the end when they find out that parking on Mary Avenue was really important
and they didn't know that, and now they have all these changes; they also might still not have
been told that parking was very important. She felt if they didn't call up the parking, they
would still have some frustrated people at this stage of the game.
• Whatever we do needs to be documented and so public so there is a record to go back to and
we are not making promises that people think everything is fine. I am worried about that and
don't know what the answer is between balancing the need to try to help a project head in the
right direction, and then also be very careful that we are not making promises we can't keep,
or making comments may not really reflect what the public wants us to consider.
Cupertino Planning Commission 42 July 8, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Pointed out that he was not suggesting that the public be excluded. The public will be present.
Among the group, Com. Brophy saw the parking as an issue. The benefit of having all of us
look at it at the same time is that there is better chance that we will catch the major issues
rather than just one or two people looking at it and not catching the major issues. In terms of
the quiet period and the ways things happen, there is a period where you are negotiating and
you might want to go into staff and get some rough idea so that in your initial negotiations but
then there is a period of time where you are in contract on the property and have a contingency
period, and during that period it is not a quiet time; that is when you want to find out what you
can and cannot do. What typically happens is you start out with a conceptual design and when
you have your conceptual design you have something more concrete to work with and that is
when you want to get some feedback. There are basic issues that determine the overall scope
of the project which you don't know at this point until you deal with staff and come to the
Planning Commission and it may change a little. The whole idea is still more information up
front is better for all. I don't see how it is a negative; the one potential issue that Com. Rose
raised and the city attorney raised was the perception that the Planning Commission is pre-
judging an application and I think that with some careful guidelines and caution from the city
attorney, it is worth taking the chance as long as we are not actually doing that; it is worth the
effort. Vice Chair Giefer's suggestion was appropriate; maybe the issue is let's flush this out a
little more; ask staff to come up with some parameters and the answer might be that we
advertise the fact, we don't have to create a new process because it is here. We will refine the
process and do a better job advertising it to developers, that if they want, this is now available.
Com. Brophy:
• Unless you have a project the size of an Apple campus, or major addition to Vallco, I am not
sure that a study session is worth the effort. The reason I like the ERC option with having
somebody from staff, one each Commissioner and Council member, with the risk you take of
having only one from each group, that important points will be missed; is that my experience
working on both the development side and the city side, in terms of regulations, I think by
having people with different backgrounds, an applicant can get more feedback and more
insight would be gained than by having separate conversations that developers are already
having. By having three people in the same room at the same time, open to the public and
noticed on the website, there is a possibility that ideas and unexpected problems that none of
us might see by ourselves will come up in a group setting. He suggested Com. Miller or Com.
Giefer to represent the Planning Commission since they have both been on the Planning
Commission a longer period and have seen issues come before and know what kind of issues
are most likely to arise. It would be an effective way at helping applicants at a very low cost.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she agreed with Com. Brophy and would be willing to send it back to City Council.
Chair Miller:
• Said he spoke to two large developers in town and the solution was not acceptable to them;
they want a broader range of feedback. Those are two developers who have projects coming to
the city and they are looking for the kind of input that the full Planning Commission can give.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said they had a study session available to them now, and if the Planning Commission wanted
to have an additive review process that was made available to them, the pre-ERC meeting
would work. It is providing an additional opportunity for them. A study session is always
available and perhaps they don't know it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 43 July 8, 2008
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that if there is no staff involvement, there is no cost for a study session. If staff input is
needed, there are costs to be determined as staffhas to prepare reports.
• Said if an applicant came in and said they wanted to do a study session, he would respond that
they would be put on the New Business section on the Planning Commission agenda; it will be
posted and stafF will provide no input.
• Said part of his concern is that he did not want to prejudice the staff in any way; and had to
have all the information before making a recommendation. They would be invited to come
and talk to the Planning Commission. The meeting would be recorded and the city attorney
would be present at the meeting. No conclusionary statements could be made at the study
session. The city attorney would prepare guidelines for the Planning Commission.
Chair Miller:
• Said he liked Vice Chair Giefer's suggestion; it would be advertised and staff would come
back to the Commission and put some thought into it in terms of how it would actually work.
Com. Rose:
• Suggested promoting the process through the ERC. If promoting a process, it should be
diversified as to who is spoken to, and the avenue of the ERC should be promoted because of
its diverse membership.
MoNon: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Brophy, that the Planning
Commission encourages or invites anyone with a potential project that they
would like to have some input on, to be on the agenda for the ERC meeting
for a non-binding discussion about their project.
Com. Brophy amended the motion to add that any such items be listed on the agenda and
posted. (Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Miller No)
The agenda was moved back to Item 2.
2. MCA-2008-02 Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 17 allowing temporary
City of Cupertino outdoor signs or displays. Tentative City Council date:
Citywide Location August S, 2008
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Rose, to postpone Application
MCA-2008-02 to July 22, 2008. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that Cupertino is growing up; becoming a Saratoga, an Atherton, a Hillsborough; and is
reflecting wealthier cities around them and there is going to be increased rules for everything.
She commented that some of the adjacent cities have unattractive and messy signage.
Cupertino should strive for excellence and elegance in everything, and if there is going to be
sign improvements on the street to promote services of shops in town, they need to be
something that is elegant, refined, and that would be seen on streets in Los Gatos. She said
that Cupertino should strive for first rate.
Cupertino Planning Commission 44 July 8, 2008
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Jennifer Griffin:
• Expressed her concern that there is adequate posting of ineetings and when meetings are
cancelled. She said at the previous meeting she sat through the entire meeting and was certain
that she heard the second Planning Commission meeting in July had been cancelled. Please
make sure the website is updated regularly, including the development activity report.
(Note for the record.• The minutes of June 24, 2008 reflect that there is a July 22°d meeting
scheduled; and the first meeting in August was cancelled
for summer recess.)
NEW BUSINESS:
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked if a rep from the school district could attend a meeting and explain how an increase in
population, how it negatively affects the schools.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they were in the process of updating the housing element, and have hired Bay Area
Economics to address the question, and are holding stakeholder meetings on Thurs. July 10~'.
Chair Miller:
• Concurred with Com. Kaneda's suggestion in light of the fact that one of the school district
received funds to do some infrastructure upgrades and improvements and expanding the
number of classrooms and capacity. It would be worth having a school district rep come in
and talk about the increased number of students that the high school district will be able to
handle and in what timeframe they will be able to handle it.
Steve Piasecki:
• Suggested scheduling it in about one or two months to allow the process to run to gather data.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Vice Chair Giefer reported that the So. Vallco Master Plan
was discussed at the recent meeting.
Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported that Bay Area Economics has been selected to do a
housing element review and look at economic issues at the city level. There was also discussion
about the school districts and a loan program for teacher housing. The program has not been used
because of the high cost of housing in Cupertino; it was suggested to eliminate the program
because the funds are not being used.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetine with Commissioners: No report.
Economic Develo ment Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Steve Piasecki commended staff for working extremely hard on the So. Vallco, sign ordinance,
working with Sand Hill Properties, R1 Ordinance, and the Housing Element. He noted that
there were several employees on extended leave.