PC Agenda Packet 01-28-14Table of Contents
Agenda 2
draft minutes of the 01-14-2014 meeting
Draft MInutes 01-14-2014 4
Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Committee representatives
Staff Report 12
1- Committee Appointee list for 2014 14
2- 2014 Meeting Calendar 15
Conditional Use permit for a weekly food truck event
Staff Report 27
1- Draft Resolution 31
2- Project Description 35
3- Traffic Analysis 40
4- Plan Set 46
Director's Report
Directors Report 51
1
AGENDA
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: draft minutes of the 01-14-2014 meeting
Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes
Page: 4
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law
will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the
agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Subject: Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Committee representatives
Recommended Action: make selections and recommend ERC appointment to Council
Discuss meeting calendar for 2014
Page: 12
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Subject: Conditional Use permit for a weekly food truck event
Recommended Action: Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a weekly food truck event
Description: Application No.(s): U-2013-09
Applicant(s): Benjamin Himlan (Whole Foods Market)
Location(s): 20955 Stevens Creek Blvd
Conditional Use Permit to allow a weekly mobile food truck event in the parking lot of a
commercial establishment
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
2
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Page -2
Page: 27
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4. Subject: Director's Report
Recommended Action: accept report
Page: 51
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that
Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals
to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department
located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the
agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JANUARY 14, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Vice Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Commissioners absent: Chairperson: Don Sun
Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the December 10, 2013, Planning Commission meeting:
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Requested clarification on Page 7, Aarti Shrivastava’s statement that if a heritage tree is dying and
needs to be replaced, the owner has to either replace the tree or provide funds for a public tree. Page
10 states that a fee is not charged if the tree is dead.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Explained that Ms. Shrivastava was likely referring to the application fee for the tree removal
application which is going to be retroactive because the tree is dead already. Previously she is
discussing a replacement; if a tree is dead staff acknowledges that it is caused by nature and it is not
their original intent; therefore they are not charged for staff time to review the case; however, they do
need to come in to the Planning Department and apply for the paperwork; in which case if the tree is
a specimen tree then staff requests that the tree be replaced with something in kind.
• If for whatever reason physically the site does not lend itself to any replacement, there is the option of
the in-lieu fee that goes into the street tree fund. (The second remark refers to the fee for permits)
• Acting Chair Brophy clarified his comment on Page 15, about Douglas Fir trees, stating that his point
was that Douglas Fir is not native to the flat lands and that there were issues about watering trees, if
they tried to encourage them to be a heritage tree in flatlands.
4
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
2
MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 4-0-0, Chair Sun
absent, to approve the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented
following clarification from staff.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
2. Review of 2014 Work Program.
Discuss Work Program prior to submittal to City Council.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said their goal was to discuss the Planning Commission’s recommendations to City Council for the
Planning Commission’s work program for 2014/15. A copy of the Council’s goals and objectives
from last year which spills over to 2014 are included in the staff report. The Council have not yet set
their goals and objectives for the coming year; historically the Planning Commission’s discussion
occurs after the Council has discussed their goals and objectives for the coming year. The Council has
tentatively scheduled discussion of their work program in March; the Planning Commission’s
comments will be forwarded to the Council for their consideration.
• He highlighted the items recommended to be included in the work program. The first item is the
city’s General Plan Amendment (GPA) process which is the biggest current project which will
continue to 2015. The purpose is to address development allocation, replenishing that, looking at
study areas, various corridors in the city as well as some of the key sites including Vallco. It is
already under way and will be committing most of staff’s resources and time.
• The second item, which stems from the GPA process is the state requirement for the city to update the
housing element. It is running in conjunction with the GPA process because it requires some
additional considerations of outreach. On January 23, 2014 a joint study session of the Housing
Commission and Planning Commission will be held to discuss the housing element goals and
objectives, and requirements for this year. During that meeting discussion will include potential sites,
parameters and the Commission’s input will feed into that process.
• The third item is the tree ordinance, which is going to City Council in March for their final
consideration. It will potentially come back to the Commission because based on community
feedback staff is asking Council to look at the parameters and directions again; they may reach a
decision or come back to the Commission for additional analysis.
• The fourth item is the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP) amendment which is an item from
Council’s work program from last year. There has been no specific discussion regarding what they
would like to see, but are looking at side yard setbacks, some of the calculations for density etc.
Depending on the GPA it may result in more items to be addressed within the HOCSP. If there are
any policy changes or anything that changes within the HOC corridor, the HOCSP would have to be
updated to follow suit.
• The fifth item is to update the Below Market Housing Manual and nexus study for the housing
5
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
3
mitigation fees. The project came up a few years ago, but since the housing element is being updated
it will follow the housing element effort; the Council and Planning Commission will be part of a
study that will review the residential BMR housing mitigation program and fees.
• The sixth item is the climate action plan; the city is in the process already to solicit RFPs from
consultants to help staff with the process, Staff has already received numerous RFPs or proposals
from environmental firms that can help the city guide them through the process and evaluation,
outreach efforts and conducting interviews. Staff plans to go to City Council in about a month to have
them authorize the contract, formally initiate the project and return it to the Planning Commission.
The targeted timeframe is summer/fall 2014 to return for review and recommendation.
• The seventh item is Council’s desire from last year to consider evaluation of a teacher housing project
with a non-profit developer. As yet, there has been no interest shown or proposals from a non-profit
developer.
• When considering some of the projects and recommendations for staff to focus on in the next year or
two, it is prudent to consider some of the projects in the works that may go before the Planning
Commission for consideration, which is also demanding staff’s time.
• Some of the noteworthy projects include parkside trail; live/work project; apartment complex on
Foothill; some of the projects may come in shortly after the GPA process is approved because the
property owners have expressed interest of having a project that runs along the side of the GP
anticipating favorable approval from the City Council and they will follow up the GPA process with a
project immediately for the city’s consideration to benefit from the policy or the allocation and the
development parameters that the Council may consider approving. The projects may include but not
be limited to Cupertino Inn, Prometheus office complex and Vallco redevelopment.
• The work program will be based on the Council’s ultimate direction, goals and objectives; usually
they will consider staff resource and time commitment, knowing what is on the books already, and
they will prioritize Commission’s comments with community input. Once Commission’s
recommendations go forward to Council, and they in turn provide direction, staff will bring it back to
the Commission for a second look.
Gary Chao:
• Said the HOCSP had to be reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission; it is an integral
part of the amendment process because most of the projects, if not all, are reviewed that would trigger
some of the development regulations.
• Said that teacher housing could be a sub-category of BMR housing. It is the Council’s desire to have
a project constructed that the city could partner with. The BMR housing manual and nexus study
relates to policies, fees and infrastructure that would guide the BMR project.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Asked staff about the combined working on the GPA and the housing element; presently it is
envisioned that in the GPA they look at additional non-residential development on key sites; but at
the same time are facing a housing element which has always been a difficult subject to discuss in
Cupertino, especially as it affects possible impact on the school enrollment, etc. Does it make sense
to be looking at those two issues together because some of those sites may be able to have potential
apartments; they would have low impact on the school district and still help the city to meet the
RENA goals that are set by the regional planning agency.
Gary Chao:
• Said it did make sense; that is the purpose of the joint study session with the Housing Commission on
January 23rd. It is overlap and concurrent to the GPA process. As staff studies the special areas within
the corridors when the Council and communities engage in conversations about the non-residential
desires of the city or goals, it is inevitable to have the conversation with the community, Council and
Commission about housing opportunities; and also just as a bargaining chip as well because the
6
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
4
reality is some of the projects may require a supplement benefit for developers to realize some of the
non-residential products they like to see, such as Vallco.
• There has to be something that would inject interest and benefit the developers and builders to be able
to do something worthwhile for the city’s consideration; as well as looking at existing sites. There
are opportunities to evaluate whether that’s the best and greatest use for the site and also the location.
• Does the theme for that corridor in that area lend itself to support residential; staff internally are
talking about allocations and development policy alternatives and the various levels of intensity of
recommendation, and are also considering the potential of housing in light of those recommendations
of options for the Council to consider. The Commission’s input would contribute towards that
recommendation, ultimately to City Council.
Com. Takahashi:
• Briefly discussed the reconciliation of current Vallco activity and possible development vs. the GPA.
There was mention that potentially something might be coming forward soon. He said he assumed
they were working under the existing General Plan as far as what they are allowed to; in terms of
submitting applications, it is a matter of timing and effectively trying to beat a revision to the General
Plan if there were a relatively large change in terms of Vallco.
Gary Chao:
• Said when the Council considered at the initiation of the General Plan, discussing the parameters and
consideration, they specifically clarified to staff and the community that because it takes a long time
for the General Plan to develop and there is some concern that they don’t want business to stop and
not know the outcome of the General Plan, the Council clarified that if there is a project that the
developer or owner is ready within Vallco that they can bring it to the city as with any process, if
there is no moratorium. They have to consider elements like circulation, connectivity because the
whole concept of the General Plan is to look at Vallco comprehensively. Ultimately it avoids a
piecemeal phase not knowing exactly the final outcome. Council and community would like to see it
as a whole division so that the policies could be developed to achieve that vision. Any project that
would come in during the interim before that vision is defined would have to work hard to
demonstrate to the community and the Council that there is provisions put in place; connections,
walkways and interface considerations for that future comprehensive master plan of Vallco.
• There are a select few property owners who are looking at options to take advantage of the current
General Plan and there is nothing to lose because they could get a project approved and still wait and
see if they may benefit from and assess their options later on. The market is there, the financial
investment is there, there are many possible considerations that may be iunning ahead of the General
Plan process that warrants their interest in coming before the city before the General Plan process is
done. Staff will try to connect the project as it comes in beforehand with the vision they are talking
about with the Council and community in Vallco as a whole. There are five general entities that own
land; there may be entities that are very involved that own long term leases with Vallco; staff has
reached out to all of them, and they are fully aware of what we are doing; and many of them are
excited about the opportunity.
Acting Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak; the
public hearing was closed.
Com Lee:
• Said she supported the work program as presented.
Com. Takahashi:
• Said it was comprehensive and well aligned with what they were attempting to accomplish.
7
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
5
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Discussed the BMR nexus study and reviewed the law passed by the legislature a few years ago
called the Vacancy Decontrol law, which specified that any rent control units upon the tenants
moving out were subject to what could be rented at market rate uses. The State Supreme Court ruled
in a Los Angeles case that affordable housing units were subject to this law and that notwithstanding
any commitments required by the city on affordable housing, that once the initial tenant left, that unit
was then available for market rate rentals. This year the legislature passed a law to overturn that
decision; however, Gov. Brown vetoed that bill and his argument based on his experiences as Mayor
of Oakland was that developing housing in California is extremely complicated and expensive and
that he felt that this attempt to bring this back in would be counterproductive to the long term interest
of the state in terms of developing new housing to serve the growing population. The point of the
whole BMR nexus study is to skirt around that, the law as it was currently set by the Supreme Court
and left in tact by the governor saying that the construction of new market rate housing somehow
generates a demand for more low income housing independently of everything else.
• Said his background in real estate development has been in retail and industrial building, not
residential, but he knows how difficult it is to develop to make residential rental units work. Given
that the city has several million dollars in their BMR housing fund courtesy of the Apple deal, he
recommended to the Commissioners and then to City Council that they consider dropping the item
and not try to further complicate it to develop market rate rental housing in Cupertino.
City Attorney Colleen Winchester:
• Said whether or not the nexus study is legally required in conjunction with the BMR housing project,
is something they would need to defer to a determination at the time when doing the BMR housing
and the nexus study and whether or not that is a legally required component of the entire program.
Com. Brophy’s recommendation has been noted and staff can confer with the consultants with respect
to the BMR issue. It would have to be determined legally whether or not that is something they could
or could not drop as opposed to being a legal component of the BMR.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said as a result of the Apple transaction the affordable housing fund was a rich fund. He asked why
they were required to do a nexus study; his understanding being that the study was only needed if
they wanted to impose affordable housing charges onto a market rate rental project.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that the BMR manual was an update of the existing program; there has been a mitigation
manual for many years. He said he could not speak to the legality in terms of the Supreme Court
decision or requirement of the city.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said the term “nexus” came about as a result of the Supreme Court decision; it was clearly a way to
get around the decision to be able to impose fees on the developers at market rate rental. Said he did
not believe there was anything in the state law that requires them to get around it and it’s not even
clear that the so-called nexus studies will stand up in court. He said to say now that they are required
to do them seems to make a huge leap that is not in the record; I think the fact that the governor when
given the opportunity to overturn the decision by signing the bill that the legislature passed, clarifying
what the term vacancy decontrol, specifically chose to veto that bill on the grounds it was making the
development of rental housing more difficult in a place where it is already difficult. It seems to be a
major policy decision to go against the governor and against what the law is. He said they may be
required to have a BMR handbook, but there is no requirement to do a nexus study unless they are
looking to extract funds or units from future developers of rental units. He said they should take the
governor’s position, especially given that they have such a huge affordable housing fund already, and
8
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
6
are not short of funds.
• He suggested as a policy issue they recommend to City Council to consider dropping the nexus study;
he was not arguing against the BMR handbook, but arguing against the nexus study portion of it.
Gary Chao:
• Said it would be part of the Commission’s comment to the Council regarding the item depending
upon how the Commission feels about it. If it comes back, it will likely be a topic of discussion for
that process.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said he would like the issue to go before the Council for their consideration. Affordable housing is
one of their biggest problems in the Bay Area; it is not just the traditional poor people, but people
who have lived in traditional middle income market rate housing are finding it harder to live in
Cupertino and it appears the best solution is to encourage the production of more housing as long as it
meets the design standards they have and doesn’t have an impact upon the school district. It is
imposing an additional burden.
Gary Chao:
• Said there are many recent court rulings, overturns and clarifications on the mitigation fee as it relates
to rental apartments. Staff is not prepared this evening to discuss the final verdict or if a final
determination has even been reached. Staff understands the comment, and will provide additional
information to Commissioners on the side or after the fact in terms of providing the current status of
things and the legality of the mitigation and nexus study.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said it was his last year on the Commission, and he was again suggesting they study the parking
requirements. Certain uses are grossly under-parked such as grocery stores and restaurants; while
other uses are over-parked. He cited a good combination such as the Lucky Center where Ranch 99
Market soaks up too much parking, but CVS doesn’t need that much. There is clearly a problem with
Marina or Whole Foods or Ranch 99 in Cupertino Village. As they look to becoming a more
intensively developed city, they need to relook at the parking issue.
Com. Lee:
• Said she supported Acting Chair Brophy’s comment; it was apparent on some of the reviews Ranch
99 market still had a bad parking problem.
Com. Takahashi:
• Relative to the nexus study comments, he referred to the second paragraph of Item 9 where it
mentioned a possibility of a joint study with other cities.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• From his perspective he said he felt it was a bad policy, given that it is one of the top public policy
issues in the Bay Area; Silicon Valley Leadership Group lists that as their number one issue. He said
he did not feel that to join in a conspiracy with other cities to make it harder to build rental housing
was his idea of a step forward.
City Attorney Colleen Winchester:
• The study determines if there is an appropriate nexus between the fee and a fee for not developing
affordable housing. Com. Brophy’s concern relative to increasing a fee on the developer, the city
should be using other funds for affordable housing rather than imposing the burden on the developer.
9
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
7
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said the funds already in the affordable housing fund were augmented by the Apple deal; he was not
advocating taking money out of the general fund. To the extent is called a study, there should be no
confusion that it is a neutral study looking at the issue with no prejudgment; it is a study aimed to
justify putting additional burdens on developers of market rate housing.
City Attorney Colleen Whitaker:
• Said she would not correct Com. Brophy on his perception of the components, but legally the goal of
the study is to determine the appropriate level of fees to be imposed when non-affordable housing or
market rate housing is being built. The study then determines the nexus between the construction and
affordable housing, which is the purpose of the study.
Com. Lee:
• Said there still has to be programs in place, which is the reason for the study.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said they already have an affordable housing fund and programs to encourage BMR housing; fees
charged on For Sale housing on office and commercial which is a much stronger argument to say that
office and commercial development generates a demand for housing rather that somehow market rate
housing generates a demand for more BMR housing. Said he was not objecting to methods of
collecting money; but questioning why they would spend time and money on a study aimed at making
it harder to develop market rate rental housing.
Gary Chao:
• Reiterated that they would pass the concerns on to the City Council for their consideration. The topic
is a very complex topic.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Said he has had concerns about the parking for many years. He asked for input from the
commissioners in the event a slot became open.
Com. Takahashi:
• Parking is always a sensitive issue when there is a shortage of parking; and having under-parked large
paved asphalt parking lots are just as big an issue. The advantage of challenge parking is it will give
an incentive for alternate modes of transportation; which needs to be considered in the parking
equation; given real estate is in such demand, striking that balance is something to pay attention to.
Com. Gong:
• Said it is also a factor of the success of the business; if no one wants to go to the restaurant, there is
not a parking problem.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• He cited examples where there was not enough parking such as BJs restaurant; Elephant Bar has
parking problems but it has other uses which offset the lack of parking. A better parking ordinance or
more accurate parking ordinance would encourage larger developments that have mixed uses as
opposed to free standing grocery stores or restaurants; it would result in better quality retail
development.
Com. Gong:
• Said if it was freestanding, the options for developing parking would be not just a flat surface; it is
costly to go up or down but that could provide incentive to the developer in a different way.
10
Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014
8
Com. Lee:
• There are certain cities that call for more parking requirements per square foot for retail than a
medical office; it may be beneficial to evaluate Cupertino’s parking ordinance compared to other
cities, and drive around the city to see which uses are under-parked and which are over-parked.
Acting Chair Brophy:
• Suggested that it be added to the list if Council was interested and they decide there are additional
resources.
Discussion concluded; no action was needed.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No report.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
• December meeting cancelled; no January meeting. Com. Lee will attend the February meeting.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Gary Chao reported:
• City Attorney reminded them to set the agenda for the January 23 Joint Housing/Planning
Commission Study Session/Workshop, at 6:30 p.m.
• 2014 Planning Commission Academy, March 26-28 in Burlingame, register ASAP since it fills up
early. Contact Julia
• State of the City Address: January 29, 2014, 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned to the January 23, 2014 Joint Housing Commission/Planning
Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. EOC Conference Room, City Hall Building.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: Planning Commission Election Agenda Date: January 28, 2014
RECOMMENDATION
Elect a Chair and Vice Chair
Recommend an Environmental Review Committee (ERC) representative
Appoint a Housing Commission representative
Appoint a Design Review Committee (DRC) member and an alternate
Appoint an Economic Development Committee representative
Discuss the Hearing Schedule for 2014
BACKGROUND
Terms
The terms of office of the Chair, Vice Chair and Design Review Committee members are
for one year and end in January of each year.
Environmental Review Committee
Typically, the City Council reviews the staff members of ERC annually. Historically,
the Planning Commission recommends its Chair to serve on the Environmental Review
Committee. The Planning Commission recommended ERC member will be reviewed
and formally appointed by the City Council.
Housing Commission
The Planning Commission sends a representative to the Housing Commission to
provide better communication between the Commissions. The Planning Commissioner
is not a voting member and there is no term of office. New appointments occur from
time-to-time; the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may
be selected. Usually the selection is determined by the level of interest of a particular
Planning Commissioner.
Design Review Committee
The Municipal Code provides that the Chair of the Design Review Committee is the
Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, so only one member and an alternate need to
be appointed.
Economic Development Committee
Each year, the Planning Commission sends a representative to the Economic
Development Committee to help enhance awareness and communication with the
business community. The Economic Development Committee is an ad hoc committee.
There are no term limits, the same representative may be re-appointed or a new
representative may be selected.
12
DISCUSSION
Chair and Vice Chair: The selection of the Chair typically is the Vice Chair, who is Paul
Brophy (re-appointed in February 2013, second term ends 2015). The selection of the
new Vice Chair typically is based on seniority and rotation. The following
Commissioners are listed below based on seniority and rotation:
1. Winnie Lee – re-appointed in February 2013 (second term ends 2017)
2. Alan Takahashi - appointed in February 2013 (first term ends 2017)
3. Margaret Gong - appointed in February 2013 (first term ends 2017)
4. Don Sun – appointed January 2011 (first term ends 2015)
Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk
Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1 - Planning Commission Committee Appointees
2 - Tentative 2014 Planning Commission Hearing Schedule
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\MISCELL\2014\pc appointments 1-28-14.rtf
13
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE APPOINTEES updated 2/6/14
Planning Commission Meeting / 2nd & 4th Tuesday, 6:45 p.m.
- Chair
– Vice Chair
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Design Review Committee / 1st & 3rd Thursday, 5:00 p.m.
- Chair
- Commissioner
tbd- alternate
Economic Development Committee/ To Be Determined
– representative
tbd– alternate
(City Council representatives: Rod Sinks, Orrin Mahoney)
Environmental Review Committee / 1st & 3rd Thursday, 9:30 a.m.
– representative
tbd– alternate
(City Council representatives: Barry Chang, Rod Sinks (alternate))
Housing Commission Meeting / 2nd Thursday, 9:00 a.m.
– representative
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting/ 2nd Wednesday, 4:00pm, Conference Room A
Winnie…February 12th
…March 12th
…April 9th
…May 14th
…June 11th
…July 9th
…August 13th
…September 10th
…October 8th
…November 12th
G:\Planning\MISCELL\pcreps.doc
14
◄ Dec 2013 ~ January 2014 ~ Feb 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
HOLIDAY
2
3
4
5
6
7
City Council meeting
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Planning Commission
meeting
15
16
17
18
19
20
HOLIDAY
21
City Council meeting
22
23
Housing & Planning
Commission meeting
24
25
26
27
28
Planning Commission
meeting
29
30
31
Notes:
15
◄ Jan 2014 ~ February 2014 ~ Mar 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
City Council meeting
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Planning Commission
meeting
12
Mayor’s monthly meeting
13
14
15
16
17
HOLIDAY
18
Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
meeting
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Commission
meeting
26
27
28
Notes:
16
◄ Feb 2014 ~ March 2014 ~ Apr 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
meeting
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Planning Commission
meeting
12
Mayor’s monthly meeting
13
14
15
16
17
18
Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
meeting
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Commission
meeting
26
27
28
29
30
31
Notes: City Council will also be discussing their Work Program this month
17
◄ Mar 2014 ~ April 2014 ~ May 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
City Council meeting
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Planning Commission
meeting
9
Mayor’s monthly meeting
10
11
12
13
14
15
City Council meeting
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Planning Commission
meeting
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Notes:
18
◄ Apr 2014 ~ May 2014 ~ Jun 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
5
6
City Council meeting
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Planning Commission
meeting
14
Mayor’s monthly meeting
15
16
17
18
19
20
City Council meeting
21
22
23
24
25
26
HOLIDAY
27
Planning Commission
meeting
28
29
30
31
19
◄ May 2014 ~ June 2014 ~ Jul 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
City Council meeting
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Planning Commission
meeting
11
Mayor’s monthly meeting
12
13
14
15
16
17
City Council meeting
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Planning Commission
meeting
25
26
27
28
29
30
Notes:
20
◄ Jun 2014 ~ July 2014 ~ Aug 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
City Council meeting
2
3
4
HOLIDAY
5
6
7
8
Planning Commission
meeting
9
Mayor’s monthly meeting
10
11
12
13
14
15
City Council meeting
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Planning Commission
meeting
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Notes:
21
◄ Jul 2014 ~ August 2014 ~ Sep 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
5
City Council meeting
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Planning Commission
meeting
13
Mayor’s monthly meeting
14
15
16
17
18
19
City Council meeting
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Planning Commission
meeting
27
28
29
30
31
Notes:
22
◄ Aug 2014 ~ September 2014 ~ Oct 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
HOLIDAY
2
City Council meeting
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Planning Commission
meeting
10
Mayor’s monthly meeting
11
12
13
14
15
16
City Council meeting
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Planning Commission
meeting
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Notes:
23
◄ Sep 2014 ~ October 2014 ~ Nov 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
City Council meeting
8
Mayor’s monthly meeting
9
10
11
12
13
14
Planning Commission
meeting
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
City Council meeting
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Planning Commission
meeting
29
30
31
Notes:
24
◄ Oct 2014 ~ November 2014 ~ Dec 2014 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
City Council meeting
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Planning Commission
meeting?
11
HOLIDAY
12
Mayor’s monthly meeting
Planning Commission
meeting?
13
14
15
16
17
18
City Council meeting
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Commission
meeting
26
27
HOLIDAY
28
HOLIDAY
29
30
Notes:
More Calendars from WinCalendar: 2013 Calendar, 2014 Calendar, Reference Calendar
25
◄ Nov 2014 ~ December 2014 ~ Jan 2015 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
City Council meeting
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Planning Commission
meeting
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
City Council meeting
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Planning Commission
meeting
24
HOLIDAY City Hall closed
25
HOLIDAY City Hall closed
26
City Hall closed
27
28
29
City Hall closed
30
City Hall closed
31
HOLIDAY City Hall closed
Notes:
26
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: January 28, 2014
Applications: U-2013-09
Applicant: Benjamin Himlan (Off the Grid)
Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Blvd. (APN 326-31-022)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Use Permit (U-2013-09) to allow the operation of a weekly mobile food market in the parking lot
of an existing commercial establishment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit in accordance with
the draft resolution (Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation Commercial / Office / Residential
Zoning Designation Planned General Commercial and Residential
P(CG, Res)
Lot Size 232,959 sq. ft. (5.34 acres)
Existing building area (no change) 67,144 sq. ft.
Existing building height (no change) 45 ft.
Existing parking supply (no change) 376 stalls
Hours of operation:
Current Whole Foods Market hours 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week
Proposed hours for Off the Grid 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM, every Tuesday
Project Consistency With:
General Plan Yes
Zoning Yes
Environmental assessment Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND:
Application Request
The applicant, Benjamin Himlan, representing Off the Grid is requesting a Use Permit to
operate a weekly outdoor mobile food market at the Whole Foods Market on 20955 Stevens
Creek Boulevard. The mobile food market is a collection of individual food truck venders that
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
27
U-2013-09 Off the Grid January 28, 2014
gather weekly and operate similar to a farmer’s market. The General Commercial (CG)
Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit at Planning Commission Level for any
commercial uses which are neither permitted uses nor excluded uses and which are, in the
opinion of the Planning Commission, consistent with the character of the general commercial
zone.
Other Community Markets
Cupertino currently has two outdoor markets operating weekly events. In 2000, Cupertino’s
original farmers market at Vallco Shopping Center was approved on a temporary trial basis and
obtained a permanent approval in 2002. Currently, the Vallco farmers market operates every
Friday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. In 2011, a second
farmers’ market at the Oaks Shopping Center on Stevens Creek at Highway 85 was approved
operating every Sunday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Existing Center and Surroundings
The project site is located within the parking lot of Whole Foods Market, on the intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road. To the west of the site is the Cupertino Sports
Center and Schell; to the east is the Stevens Creek Office Center; to the north is the Abundant
Life Assembly of God; and to the south and across the street is a commercial shopping center
and the Union Church of Cupertino. The nearest residential property is approximately 265 feet
away from the property line.
DISCUSSION:
Mobile Food Market Operation
The applicant is proposing a Tuesday
market with opening hours from 5 p.m. to
9 p.m. Typical setup and clean up times
are approximately 1 hour before and after
the opening hours for a total timeframe of
4:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m. The proposed
market area is the most southerly parking
lot aisle, encompassing 38 parking stalls,
which the applicant estimates can
accommodate a maximum of 9 vendors
who will be offering a range of specialty
food items (See figure on right).
Key Issues
Staff has identified the following key issues
and placed conditions in the resolution to
address them.
• Parking - Should parking demand for
the site exceed the parking supply the
applicant is required to come back to
28
U-2013-09 Off the Grid January 28, 2014
obtain another Use Permit to create a formal shared parking agreement between Whole
Foods Market and the adjacent Abundant Life Assembly of God Church.
• Outdoor Live Entertainment –Amplified entertainment activities are prohibited at the
market, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development for special
events.
• Cleanup - The applicant will be responsible for cleaning up the parking lot after each
market event.
• Review of Operations – Staff is recommending an automatic one year review of the permit.
Traffic
Off the Grid held a trial event at Whole Foods Market on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 from 5 p.m.
to 9 p.m. The event involved setting up mobile food trucks in the second row of the parking lot
and the City Traffic Consultants were present to observe the traffic and parking conditions.
Traffic was observed during peak traffic periods of the event and congestion was found to be
within acceptable City-adopted traffic congestion standards.
Traffic operations were observed to function adequately during the event. Little to no queues
formed at the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road parking lot entrances. Based on the Traffic
Consultant’s recommendation, the applicant has agreed to move the truck setup are a to the
parking aisle closest to Stevens Creek Blvd. and block off access to this parking aisle to
minimize any vehicular conflict or queuing near the driveway entrance along Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Parking
Presently the Whole Foods Market parking supply exceeds the City’s parking requirements by
aproximatly 95 parking stalls. Vendor and customer parking will be primarily in the Whole
Foods Market lot and secondarily in the adjacent Abundant Life Assembly of God parking lot.
During the trial run the studied parking area had little utilization and adequately
accommodated the market area vendors and established customer parking demands.
OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW
The City’s Public Works Department; Building Division; the Santa Clara County Fire
Department; Cupertino Sanitary District; and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department have
reviewed the request and have no objections to the project. Their pre-hearing comments have
been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves a negligible
expansion of use and section 15332 (In-Fill Development) because the proposed use occurs
within the city limits and is surrounded by urban uses.
29
U-2013-09 Off the Grid January 28, 2014
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964).
The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project received: November 5, 2013
Deemed incomplete: December 5, 2013
Deemed complete: January 16, 2014
Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until March 16, 2014) to make a
decision on the project. The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless
appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda
Site Signage
(14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
68 notices mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the project site
(10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the request since it is not anticipated to have significant impacts to
the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed market provides an opportunity for the
community and neighborhood to gather in a commercial location.
Prepared by: Kaitie Groeneweg, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1 - Draft Resolution U-2013-09
2 – Project History & Business Description
3 – Traffic Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants)
4 – Plan Set
30
U-2013-09
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A WEEKLY MOBILE FOOD
MARKET IN THE PARKING LOT OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED
AT 20955 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s).: U-2013-09
Applicant: Benjamin Himlan (Off the Grid)
Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 326-31-022)
Subject: Use Permit (U-2013-09) to allow the operation of a weekly mobile food market in
the parking lot of an existing commercial establishment.
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Conditional
Use Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 28, 2014 in regard
to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has
satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the Planning Commission hereby approves Application No. U-2013-09 based upon the findings
described in section II of this resolution, the public hearing record and the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of January 28, 2014, and subject to the conditions specified in section III of this
resolution.
31
Draft Resolution U-2013-09 January 28, 2014
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received August 5, 2013 consisting of ten sheets entitled “Off the
Grid: Cupertino @ Whole Foods” except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. OPERATIONS
a) The market shall be operated with the area delineated on the site plan exhibit.
b) The market is capped at a maximum of 9 trucks/vendors.
c) The market is approved to operate on Tuesdays between 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., allowing for one
hour set up before the market opens and one hour for break down and cleanup after the market
closes at 9:00 p.m.
d) The market shall be swept cleaned and all trash removed at the end of each market event.
4. OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
Amplified entertainment activities are prohibited at the market, unless otherwise approved by the
Director of Community Development for special events.
5. NOISE CONTROL
Noise levels shall not exceed those as listed in Community Noise Control Ordinance, Cupertino
Municipal Code Chapter 10.48. If there are documented violations of the Community Noise Control
Ordinance, the Director of Community Development or Noise Control Officer has the discretion to
require noise attenuation measures to comply with the ordinance.
6. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT
Should parking demand for the site exceed the parking supply the applicant is required to come
back to obtain another Use Permit to create a formal shared parking agreement between Whole
Foods Market and the adjacent Abundant Life Assembly of God Church.
7. TEMPORARY SIGNAGE
The applicant shall apply for a temporary sign permit for any signage used in conjunction with the
event. No signage is approved as part of this use permit.
8. BUSINESS LICENSE
The business owners and individual vendors shall obtain a City of Cupertino business licenses.
9. PREMIT REVIEW
A permit review shall be conducted by staff after one year from approval. If complaints have been
received regarding market operations that have not been addressed immediately by the applicant,
then the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the permit at which time, the
approval may be modified or revoked.
32
Draft Resolution U-2013-09 January 28, 2014
10. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
11. MODIFICATION OF MARKET OPERATIONS
The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the operation of
the mobile food market to address any documented problem or nuisance situation that may occur.
12. REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the
judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use
permit have not been implemented, or where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code.
13. EXPIRATION
If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been
suspended for two year or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit
application must be applied for and obtained.
14. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
15. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees,
and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further
notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section
66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. TRASH FACILITIES
Per Public Works Department requirements, the property owner must ensure that all lids for trash,
recycling, and yard waste bins remain closed when material is not being deposited into them. Bins
are not to be overfilled; material is not permitted to be stockpiled alongside bins and the area in and
around the bins shall be kept clean at all times. A yard waste bin is required at the property for food
33
Draft Resolution U-2013-09 January 28, 2014
waste and organics. Lack of compliance with the City’s litter control measures will result in a notice
of violation and a fine.
2. EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM
Expanded PolyStyrene Foam (EPS Foam) will not be permitted for use during the event. It is the
applicant’s responsibility to inform the food vendors of this restriction and to ensure EPS foam is not
used or distributed.
3. TRASH CLEANUP
Within 24 hours of each event, the applicant is required to clean off trash and litter all on-site storm
water facilities (the storm water treatment swales in the Whole Foods Parking lot), all areas within
25 feet of the event location, and the adjacent public sidewalk, curb and gutter areas. The applicant
and vendors are not permitted to spray down the event area to address clean up or spills. On site
storm water facilities connect to the public drain system which ultimately flows to creeks and the
bay.
SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS
Location of food trucks shall not obstruct required fire department emergency access and fire
applicances.
SECTION V: CEQA REVIEW
The conditional use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per section 15301 (Existing Fac ilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves a negligible
expansion of use and section 15332 (In-Fill Development) because the proposed use occurs within the
city limits and is surrounded by urban uses.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Gary Chao Don Sun, Chair
City Planner Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2013\U-2013-09 res.doc
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Project Update
The General Plan Amendment process began in March 2013 with City Council authorizing
a project to analyze increasing development densities City-wide and particularly at seven
opportunity sites. In addition, in November 2013, City Council authorized a project to
update the Housing Element as required by State Law. Among other required updates to
the Housing Element, it must provide an inventory of land adequately zoned or planned
to be zoned to accommodate the City’s fair share of housing allocation. The City’s current
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as determined by ABAG for this Housing
Element planning cycle is 1,064 units. The City must adopt a State Housing and
Community Development certified Housing Element by January 31, 2015. Additional
information about both the projects is available online at www.cupertinogpa.org.
The following is a list of anticipated public meetings and workshops through March 2014.
It is anticipated that the environmental reports will be prepared over summer 2014 and the
projects will be presented for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council in early Fall 2014.
Feb 13 Housing Commission Public Workshop and Meeting
6:30 to 8:30 p.m., City Hall EOC Room
Housing Element: Housing Element Update overview and discussion
Feb 18 City Council and Planning Commission Public Workshop and Meeting
3:00 to 4:00 p.m. – Workshop; 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. – Meeting; Cupertino Community Hall
General Plan Amendment: Concept Alternatives Report presentation, discussion, and
direction. City staff and consultants will update the Planning Commission and City
Council on the project, discuss the Concept Alternatives Report, and present feedback
received from the study area stakeholders, workshop participants, and other community
partners in the process. The Concept Alternatives Report evaluates how well each one of
the land use alternatives achieve urban design, mobility, economic, environmental, and
community health indicators. City staff and consultants will initiate the EIR and Draft
General Plan Amendment process after the Planning Commission and City Council give
their direction on their preferred alternative.
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
51
2
Mar 4 City Council and Planning Commission Public Workshop and Meeting
3:00 to 4:00 p.m. – Workshop; 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. – Meeting; Cupertino Community Hall
Housing Element: Housing policy and sites discussion and direction
Mar 11 Environmental Scoping Meeting
5:00 to 6:00 p.m., Cupertino Community Hall
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element: Environmental scoping discussion for
the EIR. This meeting gives the community the opportunity to comment on what topics
and concerns the EIR for the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element should
address.
Mar 18 City Council and Planning Commission Public Workshop and Meeting
3:00 to 4:00 p.m. – Workshop; 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. – Meeting; Cupertino Community Hall
General Plan Amendment: Draft General Plan Amendment concepts and direction. City
staff and consultants will update the Planning Commission and City Council on the
project, and solicit their feedback on the direction of the Draft General Plan Amendment.
Please note that these dates and times are tentative and may change.
Upcoming Dates:
Date Event Time Location
Wednesday, Jan 29 State of the City
Address
11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Quinlan
Community
Center
52