1
00:00:03,820 --> 00:00:10,300
May 13, 20, 25, and let us stand for the pledge of allegiance.

2
00:00:30,390 --> 00:00:31,270
Thank you.

3
00:00:31,830 --> 00:00:34,210
Madam City Clerk, may we have the roll call, please.

4
00:00:35,710 --> 00:00:36,390
Commissioner Fung.

5
00:00:36,950 --> 00:00:37,210
Present.

6
00:00:37,990 --> 00:00:38,990
Commissioner Lynn Scott.

7
00:00:39,710 --> 00:00:39,810
Here.

8
00:00:40,670 --> 00:00:41,370
Commissioner Sharp.

9
00:00:41,630 --> 00:00:41,750
Here.

10
00:00:42,510 --> 00:00:43,610
Vice Chair, Kisol-Shrown.

11
00:00:44,110 --> 00:00:44,390
Present.

12
00:00:44,830 --> 00:00:45,410
Chair, Rao.

13
00:00:45,610 --> 00:00:45,790
Here.

14
00:00:46,270 --> 00:00:46,770
All here.

15
00:00:47,910 --> 00:00:48,490
Thank you.

16
00:00:48,870 --> 00:00:52,910
The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the April

17
00:00:52,910 --> 00:01:00,870
2020, 20 second, 20, 25 minutes if you may take a minute to look at the minutes and then

18
00:01:00,870 --> 00:01:02,770
I may have a motion please. Thank you.

19
00:01:21,440 --> 00:01:22,880
I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

20
00:01:23,300 --> 00:01:24,300
I'll second that.

21
00:01:39,790 --> 00:01:41,150
The motion carries unanimously.

22
00:01:42,670 --> 00:01:45,750
Thank you. The next item on the agenda is oral communications,

23
00:01:45,970 --> 00:01:49,470
this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission

24
00:01:49,470 --> 00:01:53,390
on any matter within the jurisdiction of the commission and not on the agenda.

25
00:01:53,390 --> 00:01:59,210
speaker is limited to 3 minutes. In most cases, state law prohibits the commission from making any

26
00:01:59,210 --> 00:02:03,690
decisions with respect to matter not on the agenda. Madam City Clerk, do you have any

27
00:02:04,450 --> 00:02:10,850
whole comments, speaker? I see no speaker cards in person and no hands raised on Zoom.

28
00:02:11,070 --> 00:02:16,730
Okay, very good. Thank you. And seeing no items on the consent calendar, the next item on the

29
00:02:16,730 --> 00:02:22,510
agenda is the study session for multi-family and residential mixed use objective design standards.

30
00:02:23,570 --> 00:02:25,250
Do we have a staff report?

31
00:02:25,710 --> 00:02:28,690
Yes. Good evening, Chair. We actually have with us here.

32
00:02:28,950 --> 00:02:30,770
Greg Goodfellow from PlaceWorks.

33
00:02:30,950 --> 00:02:32,890
Our consultant was working on this project.

34
00:02:32,930 --> 00:02:34,930
We'll have a presentation for you tonight.

35
00:02:36,090 --> 00:02:38,670
And with no further ado, I will introduce Greg,

36
00:02:38,890 --> 00:02:40,190
who's right here.

37
00:02:40,930 --> 00:02:41,830
Thank you.

38
00:02:42,890 --> 00:02:43,050
Welcome.

39
00:02:43,490 --> 00:02:45,550
Thank you. Thank you for the entire commission for having me.

40
00:02:45,570 --> 00:02:46,150
Thank you, staff.

41
00:02:47,430 --> 00:02:48,370
So as was mentioned,

42
00:02:49,590 --> 00:02:51,650
am I seeing a connection to my presentation on the board?

43
00:02:53,450 --> 00:02:55,030
I'm not seeing it here,

44
00:02:58,860 --> 00:03:00,520
everybody can see it.

45
00:03:25,020 --> 00:03:25,800
Are you seeing it on your screen?

46
00:03:26,060 --> 00:03:27,940
I'm sorry, we had a connection earlier.

47
00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:29,320
I thought we did.

48
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:30,320
Then it vanished again.

49
00:03:33,670 --> 00:03:34,210
Oh, here we go.

50
00:03:35,810 --> 00:03:36,030
All right.

51
00:03:36,310 --> 00:03:39,490
Staff mentioned we're here for a planning commission study session

52
00:03:39,490 --> 00:03:42,970
about multi-family and mixed use objective design standards.

53
00:03:44,710 --> 00:03:45,790
Quick overview of my agenda.

54
00:03:45,970 --> 00:03:47,370
We'll do a quick project welcome.

55
00:03:48,150 --> 00:03:53,230
I'll do sort of a 10,000 foot background into the ODS

56
00:03:53,810 --> 00:03:58,450
process and what they are. I'm going to give a quick overview on Cupertino's design priorities,

57
00:03:58,770 --> 00:04:05,590
looking into past design guidelines and documents. I'll explain how ODS are developed and then

58
00:04:05,590 --> 00:04:10,250
while go over some community insights, we solicited during our community meeting and finally there'll

59
00:04:10,250 --> 00:04:14,810
be a plan and commission discussion based on some questions that we put together, but of course

60
00:04:14,810 --> 00:04:18,990
you're welcome to ask questions at that point and offer insights on any topics.

61
00:04:23,320 --> 00:04:23,440
All right,

62
00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:25,720
First of all, I've been working closely with Luke and Pew.

63
00:04:25,900 --> 00:04:28,960
You know, well, again, my name's Greg Goodfellow with PlaceWorks.

64
00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:31,740
I'm working with Charlie Knox, also at PlaceWorks.

65
00:04:31,740 --> 00:04:34,300
I think you know our name from many projects here in Cupertino.

66
00:04:34,980 --> 00:04:36,220
Thanks again for having me.

67
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:40,940
All right, in short, this city is in the processing

68
00:04:40,940 --> 00:04:43,080
of developing objective design standards.

69
00:04:43,280 --> 00:04:45,500
I'll use the acronym OGS from here on out

70
00:04:45,500 --> 00:04:49,740
for all types of multi-family and residential mixed use development projects.

71
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:51,960
I'm hoping to achieve three things tonight.

72
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:54,780
I want to explain what ODSR and why the city

73
00:04:54,780 --> 00:04:56,660
is working to develop them.

74
00:04:56,720 --> 00:05:01,720
All those great potential approaches to ODS, as well as existing objective design standards

75
00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:04,340
that we at place works have developed throughout the state.

76
00:05:04,540 --> 00:05:07,500
I really want to show the commission that the diversity in these standards.

77
00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:12,640
And finally, like I said, we'll solicit commissioner feedback on overall design priorities

78
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:17,260
for the city and different approaches to the ODS process of which there are many.

79
00:05:20,080 --> 00:05:22,580
All right, some background on objective design standards.

80
00:05:23,640 --> 00:05:25,880
Really moving up to a high view.

81
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:38,940
And I think we're all aware now that there's an insufficient supply of housing in the state of California, some quick statistics, about 80,000 units have been built in the last decade versus the 180,000 a year that are needed.

82
00:05:39,300 --> 00:05:40,920
There's higher rates of unaffordability.

83
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:48,380
We're at the lowest ownership rates since 1940 about 1.5 households in California, 1.5 million households,

84
00:05:48,380 --> 00:05:51,220
excuse me, devote 50% of their income tremendous.

85
00:05:51,220 --> 00:05:54,300
That's considered severely rate burdened.

86
00:05:54,300 --> 00:05:57,580
California has 22% of the national homeless population,

87
00:05:58,460 --> 00:06:00,840
and the major challenges to housing and the state

88
00:06:00,840 --> 00:06:03,360
or material labor and state and local regulations.

89
00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:09,340
Now, a result, to that statewide crisis

90
00:06:09,340 --> 00:06:11,420
has been a statewide legislative response.

91
00:06:11,520 --> 00:06:15,620
And this really goes back to about 2017, with Jerry Brown.

92
00:06:15,620 --> 00:06:22,280
And there are two major themes to all of the statewide legislation in response to the

93
00:06:22,280 --> 00:06:22,860
housing crisis.

94
00:06:23,180 --> 00:06:28,400
First theme is that California needs, multi-family housing, single-family housing just

95
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:31,460
won't cut it in terms of producing the number of units needed.

96
00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:37,420
And the second theme is that discretionary view constraints housing production in terms of delays.

97
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:43,860
And in response to this, there's really a common provision that is spread throughout much

98
00:06:43,860 --> 00:06:50,860
of the housing laws that have been passed, and that is that subjective criteria can't be used

99
00:06:50,860 --> 00:06:55,920
to deny multi-family development for screenlining and fast tracking, and of course that's

100
00:06:55,920 --> 00:07:00,920
related to those themes, the state wants to get multi-family development built, and it wants

101
00:07:00,920 --> 00:07:07,180
to avoid delays based on subjective criteria and the associated discretionary view that goes

102
00:07:07,180 --> 00:07:07,980
with it.

103
00:07:07,980 --> 00:07:12,700
I brought up one of the major legislations associated with this.

104
00:07:12,700 --> 00:07:19,440
That's SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act in order to really give you some insight into where design fits into this.

105
00:07:19,500 --> 00:07:25,060
And a direct quote from that legislation, cities can't disapprove of multi-family housing project,

106
00:07:25,500 --> 00:07:31,640
including through design review, unless the project is shown to be inconsistent with quote objective,

107
00:07:32,120 --> 00:07:37,300
quantifiable standards, and I'll get more into what this means and other laws that

108
00:07:37,300 --> 00:07:40,800
call out these, quote, objective quantifiable standards.

109
00:07:43,540 --> 00:07:48,620
Again, the statewide response to housing crisis, multiple laws have been passed since

110
00:07:49,360 --> 00:07:54,020
2017 with SB 35 that tough law on this list.

111
00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:58,080
That's screen line ministerial approval that goes straight to the heart of the matter, which

112
00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:04,060
calls out the need for objective standards to be used to deny any fast track housing.

113
00:08:04,060 --> 00:08:21,180
Since that time we've got SB 330, SB 167, SB 6, SB 9, AB 2011, these are just a few of the laws that have been passed that site the need for objective standards to be used as the criteria for fast tracking housing.

114
00:08:21,180 --> 00:08:27,700
I point out 167 here because this really hits home this idea of objective standards and this

115
00:08:27,700 --> 00:08:31,840
leaning towards approving fast track housing rather than denying them.

116
00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:36,460
That law states that a project must be considered consistent with objective design standards

117
00:08:36,460 --> 00:08:42,000
as long as, quote, their substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude

118
00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:42,940
it is.

119
00:08:43,160 --> 00:08:48,140
In other words, the state is leaning very heavily towards approving project as opposed to denying

120
00:08:48,140 --> 00:08:53,060
even in the case of objective standards where, presumably, there is no right and wrong.

121
00:08:53,300 --> 00:08:59,480
Even in this case, there is this evidence leaning towards approval, as a bit rather than denial.

122
00:09:02,420 --> 00:09:03,920
All right, so where does this leave us?

123
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:09,620
It leaves us with the need to adopt objective design standards in order to preserve local design control.

124
00:09:10,060 --> 00:09:16,600
And this is somewhat ironic because we think of design control as really being in the hands of traditional design guidelines that are subjective.

125
00:09:16,600 --> 00:09:22,240
they're descriptive, they're very detailed. But unfortunately, those guidelines no longer have

126
00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:27,160
this approval authority in these fast track multifamily hasn't projects that we're seeing

127
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:32,140
so many of them and that the state has really deemed so vital throughout all these laws.

128
00:09:33,740 --> 00:09:38,980
So what is this official legal definition of an objective design standard? These are standards

129
00:09:38,980 --> 00:09:45,800
that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and that are uniformly

130
00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:52,600
verifiable buyer reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria on that is a very

131
00:09:52,600 --> 00:09:57,520
worthy way of staying, saying these are quantifiable standards, much like a traditional zoning

132
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:03,880
standard or development standard. Now there are ways to shape ODS that are not just a number,

133
00:10:04,120 --> 00:10:10,040
they can be measurements, they can be definable requirements, rates are common, true false statements,

134
00:10:10,040 --> 00:10:17,320
scores based on a selection of required elements, numeric ranges, and percentages, or required

135
00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:21,860
quantifiable options. There are ways to shape objective design standards that aren't

136
00:10:21,860 --> 00:10:28,480
simply, you need to be this high or this wide. And I'll give you many examples of adopting

137
00:10:28,480 --> 00:10:32,600
guidelines throughout the Bay Area and the state that place works as a work done that really

138
00:10:32,600 --> 00:10:37,740
demonstrate this diversity. But again, the irony in these new laws is that what we think

139
00:10:37,740 --> 00:10:44,420
as offering this local control, the subjective guidelines simply cannot be used and the way

140
00:10:44,420 --> 00:10:48,920
to regain this control is to adopt these objective design standards.

141
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:54,600
A quick idea of what

142
00:10:54,600 --> 00:10:58,820
the difference is here. I'm not going to cite all of these, but if you look at that red language

143
00:10:58,820 --> 00:11:05,400
in the first column, that is sort of a typical subjective language and then the green and the other

144
00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:11,960
home is a way of turning that subject of language into an object of quantifiable standard.

145
00:11:13,100 --> 00:11:15,040
So, you know, a phrase like sensitive to the neighborhood.

146
00:11:15,540 --> 00:11:17,100
Well, what exactly does that mean?

147
00:11:17,720 --> 00:11:20,380
One reviewer could see a project as being sensitive,

148
00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:23,780
where another reviewer does not see a project as being sensitive.

149
00:11:23,860 --> 00:11:26,560
That's where we get into this issue of discretionary view,

150
00:11:26,700 --> 00:11:30,420
and that is the type of review that the state does not allow

151
00:11:30,420 --> 00:11:37,560
In its eligibility for fast tracking should need to turn into shelves ample with or what does that mean?

152
00:11:37,720 --> 00:11:41,920
Note that should let's change that to shall be at least 8 feet.

153
00:11:42,280 --> 00:11:49,420
So it's really this transformation of should to shelves and a parent to actual numbers and things like that.

154
00:11:50,820 --> 00:11:52,900
But again, there are many ways to achieve this.

155
00:11:56,660 --> 00:12:00,980
All right, so let's make sure that everybody here understands the applicable development for ODS.

156
00:12:00,980 --> 00:12:03,940
What does this, what do these standards apply to?

157
00:12:04,340 --> 00:12:05,160
It's very broad.

158
00:12:05,480 --> 00:12:08,140
Basically, it's all multifamily residential projects,

159
00:12:08,160 --> 00:12:11,220
and that's any project with two or more units of any type.

160
00:12:11,460 --> 00:12:15,920
This includes the town homes that are so popular in Cupertino and throughout the Bay Area,

161
00:12:16,160 --> 00:12:19,080
and it also includes all residential mixed-use projects,

162
00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:23,660
where at least 30% of the square footage is devoted to residential units.

163
00:12:24,100 --> 00:12:27,760
Of course, those are the common three to four story mixed-use projects,

164
00:12:27,760 --> 00:12:31,060
with the retail in the bottom floor that we see so many of in the Bay Area.

165
00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:35,780
What are not subject to objective design standards are all single-family homes.

166
00:12:36,780 --> 00:12:41,820
Non-infilt sites, there are some specific requirements for infilt, one of the main ones

167
00:12:41,820 --> 00:12:48,460
being that a site that is less than 75%, less than 70% percent of the perimeter is developed

168
00:12:48,460 --> 00:12:55,020
as included a non-infilt site, and he has it as sites that would impact natural resources,

169
00:12:55,020 --> 00:13:00,180
wetland sites, sites that would impact historic resources, these really go back to those requirements

170
00:13:00,180 --> 00:13:07,440
we see and seek with so much. So typically those types of sites are not subject to ODS because

171
00:13:07,440 --> 00:13:11,420
of course they will get such a rigorous review and environmental review process in

172
00:13:11,420 --> 00:13:14,060
another zoning development and standards, et cetera.

173
00:13:18,020 --> 00:13:20,440
A quick differentiation between

174
00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:25,720
Zoning standards and objective design standards. Zoning standards, as I think most people

175
00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:30,960
understand regulate all types of uses, commercial, industrial, et cetera. They regulate

176
00:13:30,960 --> 00:13:38,380
development basics such as building heights, setbacks, lot sizes that are so familiar

177
00:13:38,380 --> 00:13:43,240
to us in development standards, and the intent of zoning going all the way back 100 years

178
00:13:43,240 --> 00:13:49,440
is safe, consistent, and context, sensitive, built environment. It is not to streamline projects

179
00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:54,880
in any way, shape, reform. Whereas ODS are limited to housing projects, those types of

180
00:13:54,880 --> 00:13:59,760
projects I just described, they regulate design and aesthetics and the

181
00:14:00,040 --> 00:14:05,540
stated goal is screen line review and in light of that existing zoning

182
00:14:05,540 --> 00:14:10,520
standards for those applicable projects still apply and a key part of this is

183
00:14:10,520 --> 00:14:14,060
that objective design standards do not repeat or conflict with zoning

184
00:14:14,060 --> 00:14:18,540
standards. We don't want these confusing overlaps and we don't want applicants to

185
00:14:18,540 --> 00:14:22,540
run across zoning standards that are in conflict with objective design standards.

186
00:14:26,860 --> 00:14:42,740
All right, I will just share, and this was my staff report, some design priorities that I highlighted in a very extensive review of past planning documents and design documents in Cupertino, because I think we've moved a link in some direction for the city.

187
00:14:42,740 --> 00:14:49,420
First of all, the general plan has a lot of focus on enhancing streetscapes in its multi-family residential projects.

188
00:14:49,980 --> 00:14:59,140
It's very focused on diverse architecture and articulation of buildings, active frontages that invite pedestrian and pedestrian environments, linking these...

189
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:15,860
Different elements of the urban environment, blocks, boulevards, and nodes. And when that comes up, quite a bit is reduced in visual impact of parking, which is very tied to enhancing streetscapes and friendly pedestrian environments. These are just a few.

190
00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:28,940
Looking closer into the city's specific plans, you find some repeat, but some also different design priorities, screening, and slightly building features that could be anything from transformers and front of the building to waste enclosures.

191
00:15:28,940 --> 00:15:33,080
I'll get into both of those later, allowing for special architectural features.

192
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:39,040
This again speaks to this desire for a diverse architectural environment, livable common

193
00:15:39,040 --> 00:15:43,600
and private open spaces, whether it's shared open spaces in large apartment buildings

194
00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:47,520
or private balconies, promoting variety and building facades.

195
00:15:47,640 --> 00:15:53,140
Again, this goes back to articulation and a desire for variety in exterior, excuse me, exterior

196
00:15:53,140 --> 00:15:53,920
articulation.

197
00:15:56,420 --> 00:16:03,120
And something that's quite rare in Cupertino is that really has a jumpstart in design in the city's only court.

198
00:16:03,600 --> 00:16:12,740
There are a lot of standards. These are already objective for different elements of design, including building stepbacks, not to be confused with setbacks.

199
00:16:13,220 --> 00:16:17,540
Setbacks are these reductions in height for different building levels and stories.

200
00:16:17,940 --> 00:16:23,420
There are standards for visual privacy, standards for balconies and private open spaces, vehicle entryways,

201
00:16:24,520 --> 00:16:29,460
design standard dedicated just to town homes as well as building glass and lighting

202
00:16:29,460 --> 00:16:34,520
standards. All of these things are often in objective design standards and are often

203
00:16:34,520 --> 00:16:42,260
not in zone cities own encodes. So again it will be important to look for overlaps in

204
00:16:42,260 --> 00:16:46,040
objective design standards that come out of this as well as ensuring that they are not

205
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:50,120
conflicts between the zone encode and the objective design standards.

206
00:16:53,510 --> 00:16:56,870
All right, I'd like to introduce you to the process of developing ODS.

207
00:16:57,550 --> 00:17:02,510
My next slide is a little esoteric, but bear with me this is something I've used in a lot of my presentations.

208
00:17:03,470 --> 00:17:07,390
But when we think about objective design standards, it's really a process.

209
00:17:07,510 --> 00:17:11,670
I mean, process of deciding how you want to balance design control with streamlining.

210
00:17:12,790 --> 00:17:15,910
And the way I've developed this slide is basically using geometry.

211
00:17:15,910 --> 00:17:28,810
And if you think of the shape of objective design standards, start with a very simple broad objective design standards, that's represented by the square, perhaps each side is a standard.

212
00:17:29,230 --> 00:17:40,910
So there are very few decision points here. And the result is rapid screenlining. It is very easy for a staff member to go to that checklist, see that those standards are met and it's easy for an applicant to follow those.

213
00:17:41,710 --> 00:17:46,590
On the other side, the city has less control of design detail.

214
00:17:47,330 --> 00:17:51,750
Now there are cities who have argued and I've been doing objective design standards for the last six years.

215
00:17:52,150 --> 00:17:55,810
There has been sort of a sea change where, of course, we would say, well, why would we do that?

216
00:17:55,990 --> 00:17:59,810
Why do we seed control for so many of these details that are important to us?

217
00:18:00,110 --> 00:18:05,470
There's now been a sort of change towards what that does as it puts control back in the architectural professionals

218
00:18:05,470 --> 00:18:09,370
and leads to that diversity that we so value.

219
00:18:10,370 --> 00:18:15,910
An example of that is I just finished objective design standards for the entire unincorporated area of

220
00:18:15,910 --> 00:18:16,750
Contracastic County.

221
00:18:17,350 --> 00:18:22,850
This is a huge county, as you know, with very diverse unincorporated areas, everything from

222
00:18:22,850 --> 00:18:33,750
you know, waterfront historic homes in Rodeo to the Pleasant Hill, Bart station, which has a very

223
00:18:33,750 --> 00:18:40,150
building, sort of mixed use buildings, how can you possibly create design standards that fit

224
00:18:40,150 --> 00:18:46,130
both those two dairy divers types of housing? And the way the county decided to do that was

225
00:18:46,130 --> 00:18:50,990
just pull back, excuse me, and do a broader take instead of trying to cover all those elements

226
00:18:50,990 --> 00:18:59,310
of design for what could be a duplex in a waterfront, rodeo, or a six story multi-family building

227
00:18:59,310 --> 00:19:04,190
near the Pleasant Hill Arts Station, let's just find those common areas of design that we want

228
00:19:04,190 --> 00:19:09,490
to prioritize and stick at that broader level. Now, as you move further and further down, this

229
00:19:09,490 --> 00:19:14,710
level of detail, and I've ended this with a circle which strangely, as you know, really has no

230
00:19:14,710 --> 00:19:19,330
sides, there are infinite decision points, which of course this is what the state does not allow

231
00:19:19,330 --> 00:19:24,350
to be used as criteria. That's where there's no streamlining, but there's the most local control.

232
00:19:25,130 --> 00:19:29,430
So, I think it's important for you as a plan of commission and the city is a whole to sort

233
00:19:29,430 --> 00:19:33,870
of brainstorm where do we want our objective design standards to fall, how do we want to balance

234
00:19:33,870 --> 00:19:40,390
this process of facilitating screenlining but at the same time maintaining control while fitting

235
00:19:40,390 --> 00:19:45,570
within our prioritization of architectural diversity and things like that.

236
00:19:45,970 --> 00:19:51,330
So, this is sort of the way I've shaped this idea of balance in moving from a broader level standards

237
00:19:51,330 --> 00:19:56,230
to all the way to subjective, which, of course, is what we're moving away from.

238
00:19:59,920 --> 00:20:04,260
Now, I have to see years of slides here that are actually adopted standards throughout the

239
00:20:04,260 --> 00:20:08,520
Bay Area and some in Southern California, all of which were created by placeworks.

240
00:20:09,300 --> 00:20:12,060
And really, these are not trying to cover a certain type of topic.

241
00:20:12,240 --> 00:20:14,600
They're really just a show to the level of diversity and approach.

242
00:20:15,420 --> 00:20:19,320
So here is for the city of Sunnyvale, where this was an interesting process.

243
00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:21,040
This is the topic of site design.

244
00:20:21,040 --> 00:20:24,800
And as we put together many different standards for site design with

245
00:20:24,800 --> 00:20:28,960
associated graphics, they like the idea for site design of the simple plan level drawings,

246
00:20:29,080 --> 00:20:30,500
as opposed to anything three-dimensional.

247
00:20:32,380 --> 00:20:36,500
What happened was we realized, you know, this is a lot of text and a lot of

248
00:20:36,500 --> 00:20:40,260
associated graphics, the city decide, you know what we should do is

249
00:20:40,260 --> 00:20:43,620
condense all of this if we're really trying to make this readable, but at the same time

250
00:20:43,620 --> 00:20:48,040
maintain our graphics and create a table out of this where, you know, different columns are

251
00:20:48,040 --> 00:20:52,560
different built-in types, we have multi-family residential, and mixed use commercial and residential,

252
00:20:53,500 --> 00:20:57,540
and embed those figure names into this table with ends. So imagine you're looking at these

253
00:20:57,540 --> 00:21:02,300
guidelines, these are two sides of the page. So again, this was an example of one city who

254
00:21:02,300 --> 00:21:09,920
decided they liked tabular guidelines or excuse me standards associated with figures to illustrate

255
00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:15,000
them. And these were focused mostly on the overall layout of the site, building orientation,

256
00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:18,460
in pedestrian access, frontages, parking location,

257
00:21:18,900 --> 00:21:20,720
what to do on corners, things like that.

258
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:24,540
A very different take on site design

259
00:21:24,540 --> 00:21:27,720
was in Southern California, and this was a city

260
00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:30,260
that was really focused on site-wide aesthetics.

261
00:21:30,780 --> 00:21:33,360
They wanted design themes to be held throughout

262
00:21:33,360 --> 00:21:36,700
the different sites, unity and architectural styles,

263
00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:39,840
visual consistency, and things like roofs and facades.

264
00:21:40,340 --> 00:21:43,680
So their standards were much more photograph-based

265
00:21:43,680 --> 00:21:50,780
an illustrative and it's this is just two ways of approaching the same type of topic of site

266
00:21:50,780 --> 00:21:55,340
design and site planning. So I wanted to sort of present these two as just one example of

267
00:21:55,340 --> 00:21:56,460
the diversity of approaches.

268
00:22:00,400 --> 00:22:04,620
Another example here's the topic more of massing and articulation

269
00:22:04,620 --> 00:22:09,900
and roof line. This is an example of a common what we call axonometric or 3D drawings that

270
00:22:09,900 --> 00:22:14,600
are more common in these massing guidelines. So these are required setbacks that are dependent

271
00:22:14,600 --> 00:22:20,440
building height, use of setbacks, pitched roof standards, flat roof standards. So again,

272
00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:25,860
this city wanted to focus on brakes and buildings to break up that massing. And it's important

273
00:22:25,860 --> 00:22:32,080
to remember here that these don't result in the boxy development and buildings that you're seeing

274
00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:35,880
in these standards, or excuse me, in these illustrations. Because again, these are all paired with

275
00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:41,820
the more detailed articulation standards, window based standards, things like that. So again,

276
00:22:41,820 --> 00:22:47,500
we need to simplify the graphics that go along with a lot of standards, but they do not mean

277
00:22:47,500 --> 00:22:51,620
that the resulting product is going to necessarily look just like them, because this is a

278
00:22:51,620 --> 00:22:53,360
pattern, of course, with so many other standards.

279
00:22:56,700 --> 00:22:59,260
An example of landscaping, here's a city

280
00:22:59,260 --> 00:23:04,900
that had this interesting focus on what they called focal point landscaping, instead of developing

281
00:23:04,900 --> 00:23:09,980
so many different quantifiable standards for different types of landscaping, they really wanted

282
00:23:09,980 --> 00:23:16,080
focus on what they call focal points, so creating land safe standards near the entries of

283
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:22,100
multi-use or excuse the multifamily developments around plasas or in-plasas at the terminal

284
00:23:22,100 --> 00:23:27,000
points of pedestrian walkways where you walk in, where you walk out, and then they really

285
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:34,240
like this graphic approach of more landscape-style sketches. They also wanted to make sure

286
00:23:34,240 --> 00:23:40,240
they regulated parking lot landscaping, so buffers next to residential units, plantings in

287
00:23:40,240 --> 00:23:44,960
those landscape islands, or what they call fingers, those extensions that separate out

288
00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:51,500
parking spaces. Again, this was just a unique approach to landscaping into two different

289
00:23:51,500 --> 00:23:55,840
sub-topics within landscaping. And again, I don't know any of the cities at this point

290
00:23:55,840 --> 00:23:59,840
who really did focus it in that way, but there are so many different diverse ways of doing

291
00:23:59,840 --> 00:24:02,860
it, and that's why I'm bringing this one up now, because I thought it was interesting.

292
00:24:06,350 --> 00:24:13,790
something common that you'll see are regulating trash and service areas. Here's an example of a graphic we did for a city that really

293
00:24:13,790 --> 00:24:20,930
wanted to make sure that trash and closers were finished using materials from the primary building that they were

294
00:24:20,930 --> 00:24:27,030
that any trash and closers that were visible from the upper stories of adjacent structures had opaque covers

295
00:24:27,030 --> 00:24:33,190
so neighboring residents working working in a trash cans. Again, that's a standard I hadn't seen anywhere else

296
00:24:33,190 --> 00:24:38,210
it speaks to, you know, using your priorities and creating standards that you see fit.

297
00:24:39,450 --> 00:24:43,710
They also set a standard that storage areas, shall not be closer than 20 feet from doors

298
00:24:43,710 --> 00:24:46,690
or operable windows, education structures, that was more common.

299
00:24:47,170 --> 00:24:49,990
That's actually quite typical throughout design standards.

300
00:24:50,690 --> 00:24:55,570
I've seen some ODS documents that separate out trash and services as their own entity.

301
00:24:56,170 --> 00:25:00,030
Others don't build, you know, more into the site plan as a subsection.

302
00:25:00,230 --> 00:25:02,330
Again, there's so many ways to do this.

303
00:25:05,940 --> 00:25:11,560
Here's an example from daily city. They like the idea of their standards being associated more with

304
00:25:12,560 --> 00:25:15,320
Photographs of their neighborhoods. They didn't want to get too technical and

305
00:25:16,160 --> 00:25:23,480
They here's some standards for lighting lighting comes in sometimes as it's own chapter other times dropped in to separate sections for exterior

306
00:25:23,480 --> 00:25:24,020
Standards

307
00:25:24,020 --> 00:25:27,300
But they want to make sure that their lighting fixtures

308
00:25:27,300 --> 00:25:32,440
We're oriented away from the street and they were fully shielded. You know that comes up again

309
00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:38,180
What is fully shielded mean, well, that's where you add in, so that no light is emitted above a 90 degree angle.

310
00:25:38,380 --> 00:25:42,140
That's an attempt at moving this language even more towards objectivity.

311
00:25:43,180 --> 00:25:51,400
Entry illuminations, the front porch landing, and other recessed entryway lighting, is consistent with the design materials and color of the structure.

312
00:25:53,020 --> 00:26:00,600
And then a separate standard for ground mounted lighting, where we incorporated that threshold of three feet tall.

313
00:26:01,360 --> 00:26:09,160
So, you know, this is really a process of prioritizing a topic, moving towards a state

314
00:26:09,160 --> 00:26:12,540
of objectivity and the mid-realizing, you know, we've got to get a little closer.

315
00:26:13,100 --> 00:26:17,760
We need to, and this has come up a lot, and the standard I just mentioned, which is, you

316
00:26:17,760 --> 00:26:20,640
know, developing these trash or service enclosures, all right?

317
00:26:20,740 --> 00:26:24,200
We're going to make sure that the materials complement the primary building.

318
00:26:24,780 --> 00:26:25,440
What does complement?

319
00:26:26,120 --> 00:26:28,940
Well, you know, you have to use kind of the same materials, okay?

320
00:26:29,280 --> 00:26:30,120
How many of those materials?

321
00:26:30,120 --> 00:26:35,860
Alright, let's establish a stance of standard. You need to use one to three of the same

322
00:26:35,860 --> 00:26:41,180
exterior materials of the primary building. So it's working towards a standard that is

323
00:26:41,180 --> 00:26:48,040
easy to work with, but at the same time gets that priority across as close to that subject of priority

324
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:50,680
that was originally there in so many cases.

325
00:26:54,740 --> 00:26:57,260
This is something that we've really pushed for in our documents,

326
00:26:57,260 --> 00:27:03,840
which is this go back to that original intent of these laws, which is ensuring that design

327
00:27:03,840 --> 00:27:08,800
is ministerial. So in a lot of our documents at the end of the document, we have what's called

328
00:27:08,800 --> 00:27:15,120
an ODS checklist. This is where that planning staff can go through and actually check that box mark.

329
00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:24,520
So these are the, you know, in yellow there are the topical sections, and then white are each of

330
00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:28,860
as she or he creates this project can shut that box mark.

331
00:27:29,200 --> 00:27:30,980
All right, we've got those exterior standards, yes,

332
00:27:31,060 --> 00:27:32,780
it's three feet from the entrance.

333
00:27:33,520 --> 00:27:35,520
And then the planning staff reviewing this

334
00:27:35,520 --> 00:27:38,000
can really exemplify that ministerial process

335
00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:39,440
and also check those boxes.

336
00:27:39,820 --> 00:27:42,020
So it offers both sides of the chance to make sure

337
00:27:42,020 --> 00:27:44,660
they've gone through and they're consistent

338
00:27:44,660 --> 00:27:46,760
with the standards and they're saving that time

339
00:27:46,760 --> 00:27:48,300
and that is so valuable to the state

340
00:27:48,300 --> 00:27:50,540
and is so exemplified in this legislation.

341
00:27:54,930 --> 00:28:01,010
So, I've worked with staff to sort of sus out how we could develop this outline for Cupertino.

342
00:28:01,650 --> 00:28:07,510
And this is, you know, components of other similar, similar cities I've worked with in the Bay Area,

343
00:28:07,850 --> 00:28:13,810
looking at those priorities that I believe from going through this exhaustive study of past documents.

344
00:28:14,070 --> 00:28:21,210
This is how we could see this, you know, most ODS start with this sort of grand-purpose chapter to explain to users why this is here,

345
00:28:21,210 --> 00:28:24,630
what's the definition, how the document is organized.

346
00:28:24,990 --> 00:28:26,490
And then again, of course, the administration

347
00:28:26,490 --> 00:28:29,450
and the review process, how these applications

348
00:28:29,450 --> 00:28:30,950
will go through the city staff.

349
00:28:33,310 --> 00:28:35,790
We talked about the diversity of uses.

350
00:28:36,270 --> 00:28:41,110
We simply can't, unless, as the county of Contercost

351
00:28:41,110 --> 00:28:44,150
did and made their ODS more like a zoning code,

352
00:28:44,510 --> 00:28:48,090
to really capture this diversity of uses a duplex

353
00:28:48,090 --> 00:28:55,230
in a neighborhood versus a six story mixed use building on a major corridor, I found that it's

354
00:28:55,230 --> 00:28:57,690
usually best to separate out into two chapters.

355
00:28:58,070 --> 00:29:00,690
See, you've got a chapter of standards for mixed use and multifamily.

356
00:29:01,690 --> 00:29:06,370
These are sort of those block scale projects, more than two stories, more than 10 units,

357
00:29:06,930 --> 00:29:11,270
typical typologies, are those vertical mixed use buildings and residential buildings and

358
00:29:11,270 --> 00:29:12,170
town homes.

359
00:29:12,170 --> 00:29:18,570
I see that as split, and each of these chapters would open with a guiding principle section.

360
00:29:18,910 --> 00:29:20,830
That is not an objective section.

361
00:29:21,210 --> 00:29:26,250
That is the city's chance to really demonstrate to the reader and to the developer in the applicant.

362
00:29:26,750 --> 00:29:30,310
Look, these are objective standards, but this is what we're trying to achieve here.

363
00:29:30,470 --> 00:29:36,530
This is the way to lead the reader in to those standards and repeat what we really want to achieve here.

364
00:29:36,530 --> 00:29:42,410
So the guiding principles in this section would be high quality design, of course, pedestrian orientation,

365
00:29:42,930 --> 00:29:46,010
coordination of the project, site and surroundings.

366
00:29:47,310 --> 00:29:53,170
And then the major topics would be site design and their subtopics that I will read through each one,

367
00:29:53,490 --> 00:29:58,290
building form, pedestrian experience, and common open space and landscaping.

368
00:29:58,770 --> 00:29:59,970
And those subtopics you see there.

369
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:07,520
There are prepared largely in what I found in reviewing past documents. And then the other side of the

370
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:12,280
document would really focus on small-scale residential. And those are typologies such as due

371
00:30:12,280 --> 00:30:18,120
plexus, tri plexus, other multiplexus, courtyard style apartments. And this is a whole different

372
00:30:18,120 --> 00:30:25,640
quote, house scale of 1 to 3 story buildings with no more than 10 units. And again, this would

373
00:30:25,640 --> 00:30:29,860
have their own approaches. Some of the same topics but different approaches and different standards

374
00:30:29,860 --> 00:30:36,540
of course to fit these different style buildings. Again, this is absolutely a draft proposal

375
00:30:36,540 --> 00:30:38,980
in assessing all these things out.

376
00:30:44,750 --> 00:30:47,670
Alright, we did hold a community meeting here in this room

377
00:30:47,670 --> 00:30:53,990
in early February. You had the quantitative results in your staff report and I just wanted to

378
00:30:53,990 --> 00:30:59,030
share some of the qualitative insights. We've got some good written comments and posted notes.

379
00:30:59,470 --> 00:31:03,790
I'm not going to go through every single board that would take a little bit too long, but one of

380
00:31:03,790 --> 00:31:09,050
major boards was for large projects and the topic was kind of TV. You can see that the

381
00:31:09,050 --> 00:31:13,330
first is just the JPEG of the board itself, the second image there is a photo of the

382
00:31:13,330 --> 00:31:19,270
completed board. And we got a lot of comments on on entrances and driveways. A quote that I

383
00:31:19,270 --> 00:31:23,310
thought was interesting was driveways with just garages, do not create communities.

384
00:31:24,530 --> 00:31:28,730
Projects with four more units must have at least one entrance driver and a separate exit

385
00:31:28,730 --> 00:31:33,430
driveway. There was a lot of talk about, you know, crowding at drive

386
00:31:33,430 --> 00:31:36,710
ways and making drive ways less pedestrian friendly if they're too large.

387
00:31:40,280 --> 00:31:44,300
There was also a lot of comments. You can see those post-it notes on ground floor

388
00:31:44,300 --> 00:31:51,120
design. Ground floor glass can't be reflected due to glare. Ground floor double

389
00:31:51,120 --> 00:31:56,200
heights is a waste of space. One of the topics was should those ground floor

390
00:31:56,200 --> 00:32:03,660
retail spaces, the double the height of the above residential units. You should define

391
00:32:03,660 --> 00:32:08,760
a number of entries and three points to projects per linear foot. Good design allows

392
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:13,140
for maximum separation between the residential units. This is, I think, more of a density

393
00:32:13,140 --> 00:32:13,840
comment.

394
00:32:17,660 --> 00:32:21,620
Interesting comments about neighborhood context for smaller projects. Again, this

395
00:32:21,620 --> 00:32:29,640
goes back to these duplexes and other small projects. One person wrote that we need to

396
00:32:29,640 --> 00:32:37,480
materials, the building, step-ups, window locations, event locations, those ugly HVAC units that are often in front of

397
00:32:37,480 --> 00:32:43,580
these small projects. Someone asked, are you considering resiliency, climate factors and hazards? This was a very

398
00:32:44,280 --> 00:32:51,140
good question and a lot of this. There are objective design standards that integrate resiliency and let's say

399
00:32:51,680 --> 00:32:59,060
drought-resistant landscaping into their landscape standards, but typically larger issues of hazards and climate factors

400
00:32:59,060 --> 00:33:02,100
are not included just given the amount of state law

401
00:33:02,100 --> 00:33:04,800
or given the number of state laws that

402
00:33:04,800 --> 00:33:05,980
guide both things otherwise.

403
00:33:07,260 --> 00:33:11,320
But you can always integrate claimant-related standards

404
00:33:11,320 --> 00:33:12,540
into different topics.

405
00:33:13,200 --> 00:33:14,960
I've seen cities where we've worked with cities

406
00:33:14,960 --> 00:33:17,700
who wanted to just do a whole section on bird-save guidelines,

407
00:33:18,320 --> 00:33:20,120
which has everything from glare resistance

408
00:33:20,120 --> 00:33:23,440
to avoiding landscaping that funnels birds

409
00:33:23,440 --> 00:33:24,180
into a building.

410
00:33:24,380 --> 00:33:27,600
And so they created actual angles of landscaping

411
00:33:27,600 --> 00:33:31,500
that open up to ensure that birds fly away if they don't

412
00:33:31,500 --> 00:33:33,560
links right and then getting funneled towards them.

413
00:33:33,780 --> 00:33:35,620
That just, again, speaks at a level diversity.

414
00:33:40,240 --> 00:33:43,040
All right, this is where I'm going to add some questions here.

415
00:33:43,240 --> 00:33:44,520
Before I do, what are I going to stop?

416
00:33:44,700 --> 00:33:48,440
And let any of you ask a question if you have any?

417
00:33:48,540 --> 00:33:49,480
I'm happy to keep going as well.

418
00:33:49,580 --> 00:33:50,880
I have a good question.

419
00:33:52,380 --> 00:33:54,100
How many people completed the survey?

420
00:33:55,620 --> 00:33:57,000
When he said the quantitative results?

421
00:33:57,400 --> 00:33:59,620
I think they were 13 to 15 people here.

422
00:33:59,620 --> 00:34:03,940
some people then answer every board, you know, not everybody put a post that

423
00:34:03,940 --> 00:34:08,580
know. So that's that's the quantitative story you're referring to.

424
00:34:08,760 --> 00:34:13,000
Got it. Yeah. Okay. So under under 15, it sounds like. Yeah.

425
00:34:13,520 --> 00:34:20,020
Under 10? No, not under 10. Okay. Great. Thanks. And probably a good time to

426
00:34:20,020 --> 00:34:23,360
pause to let commissioners ask some questions, take it all in, and then you can

427
00:34:23,360 --> 00:34:26,780
continue. Is that okay? Yeah. Absolutely. And how many more

428
00:34:27,820 --> 00:34:30,020
It's just a remaining question slides.

429
00:34:30,680 --> 00:34:32,020
Okay, okay, great.

430
00:34:32,660 --> 00:34:33,640
You know what I'm going to go first?

431
00:34:34,300 --> 00:34:35,700
I know the Vishal Linscox gone already.

432
00:34:35,860 --> 00:34:36,700
You have more questions.

433
00:34:40,910 --> 00:34:44,130
We're going to just do some questions and then go back to the slides.

434
00:34:44,470 --> 00:34:44,890
Just so we can.

435
00:34:48,610 --> 00:34:49,130
No questions.

436
00:34:51,050 --> 00:34:53,130
So yeah, go ahead.

437
00:34:53,610 --> 00:34:57,990
Yeah, maybe a little curious about where this fits in the timeline to,

438
00:34:59,570 --> 00:35:01,330
to, you know, objective standard.

439
00:35:07,190 --> 00:35:15,650
is your question when when is this uh yeah I'm curious I'm curious but you know

440
00:35:15,650 --> 00:35:21,170
we'll we see this again it's a great question I think the next time you

441
00:35:21,170 --> 00:35:27,980
probably see it again as the fall I think at the latest yeah excuse me my

442
00:35:27,980 --> 00:35:35,700
voice is cutting in and out but the goal tonight this is trying to get

443
00:35:35,700 --> 00:35:37,620
and having Greg show up with a draft document,

444
00:35:37,860 --> 00:35:40,340
where there had really only been the February meeting.

445
00:35:40,560 --> 00:35:42,380
So the goal is, yes, to bring this back,

446
00:35:42,540 --> 00:35:45,500
when you have an actual document that's

447
00:35:45,500 --> 00:35:48,300
hopefully addressing the themes or major topics

448
00:35:48,300 --> 00:35:50,920
that you want to see this focus on.

449
00:35:51,120 --> 00:35:52,660
And then it also a big question, Greg,

450
00:35:52,900 --> 00:35:55,340
has two, the degree of control you want to have, too.

451
00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:57,680
These could be very broad, they could be very specific.

452
00:35:59,500 --> 00:36:01,480
So yes, you will definitely see it again.

453
00:36:01,860 --> 00:36:04,120
It will go to the city council after this, as well.

454
00:36:04,120 --> 00:36:09,400
this has not been presented to the city council, so we're expecting to have at least one more

455
00:36:09,400 --> 00:36:13,220
planning commission look and the council would look at it two times at least.

456
00:36:14,860 --> 00:36:21,400
Thank you, commissioner. So I'm curious, you know, just given the nature of the kind of

457
00:36:21,400 --> 00:36:26,440
import that we get, you know, usually, again, no offense to those that show up, but it is a small

458
00:36:26,440 --> 00:36:33,040
subset of our population. And we struggled to represent the needs of the vast majority of

459
00:36:33,040 --> 00:36:38,640
So, I'm curious when you've done this across cities, how have you balanced that import?

460
00:36:38,920 --> 00:36:46,500
For example, have you spoken to or had the commission speak to developers that are actually

461
00:36:46,500 --> 00:36:52,620
able to give input on what cells and what community likes and what to buyers like?

462
00:36:53,240 --> 00:36:59,360
So, it's one thing to get community import from a small subsection that gravy may or may not be professionals in the space

463
00:36:59,360 --> 00:37:04,760
but are also getting input from professionals like the developers or from staff and what other sources

464
00:37:04,760 --> 00:37:10,680
of input do you factor in? Well in past projects we've done what we call stakeholder input

465
00:37:12,380 --> 00:37:19,080
and over the few years of doing this now it's become less and less successful in terms of the

466
00:37:19,080 --> 00:37:25,220
type of input received and the type of participation you know before there was more input on

467
00:37:25,220 --> 00:37:30,620
more about feasibility to level, how standards might make it more difficult for a developer to,

468
00:37:30,620 --> 00:37:38,400
you know, to finance a project and how it would impact a project, and I have decided in doing this

469
00:37:38,400 --> 00:37:45,380
that given, and this is a whole other issue, but given the number of exemptions, whether it's

470
00:37:45,380 --> 00:37:49,940
through density bonus or things like that, there's simply less interest on the part of the

471
00:37:49,940 --> 00:37:57,460
person architects in participating in this. And the type of input is sort of the same each time.

472
00:37:59,260 --> 00:38:05,520
And that's why I am more interested in hearing from the commission. And keep in mind also that

473
00:38:05,520 --> 00:38:11,180
there'll be a public draft of this report available for 30 days for any of it for the city to look at.

474
00:38:11,500 --> 00:38:18,500
I've done so many meeting meetings in different places. And community interest has not been high.

475
00:38:18,500 --> 00:38:24,940
You know, I'll be honest. It's an esoteric idea. I think that's hard for people to latch on to and again

476
00:38:24,940 --> 00:38:26,620
That's why I really want to take that

477
00:38:27,240 --> 00:38:32,240
That 10,000 foot view for you and everyone listening to it is about what this is and why it's happening

478
00:38:33,480 --> 00:38:38,740
Yeah, I'd like to sort of double click on that a little bit if you look at the kind of

479
00:38:38,740 --> 00:38:39,900
interest that

480
00:38:39,900 --> 00:38:43,160
Cooper Teno's had as you pointed out earlier. It's a lot of town homes and

481
00:38:43,760 --> 00:38:48,300
the town home buyers are pretty selective on what they want and what sells and what

482
00:38:48,500 --> 00:38:54,000
what people will buy. And so it would be actually a interest to hear from the town home developers

483
00:38:54,000 --> 00:39:03,320
on what it is that we're both a hinder and foster creation of properties that sell for them

484
00:39:03,320 --> 00:39:08,760
and that people want to buy and move into the neighbourhood. So I'd push back a little bit on that.

485
00:39:08,780 --> 00:39:14,360
I think that there's a difference between sort of high density mixed use where the density

486
00:39:14,360 --> 00:39:19,000
drives a lot of the conversations versus what it's selling nowadays where there is an appeal

487
00:39:19,000 --> 00:39:25,220
factor that goes within and we don't want to handle that obviously. So maybe through staff,

488
00:39:25,360 --> 00:39:29,320
we can look at other ways to really get import from a diverse set of stakeholders and maybe

489
00:39:29,320 --> 00:39:35,240
it's offline import but whatever we can do to hear from more than just a small subset of 10 or 15

490
00:39:35,240 --> 00:39:40,280
people that give us import. And that way the commission can also weigh those factors in.

491
00:39:40,280 --> 00:39:45,380
Yeah, no, and staff has been very clear that we need to have a separate section for

492
00:39:45,380 --> 00:39:51,860
count homes, which is why we did why we included that, you know, in that in that first chapter of the ODS.

493
00:39:52,340 --> 00:39:59,280
And I'm sure commission can provide important what might be suiting the community versus what is perhaps

494
00:39:59,280 --> 00:40:05,100
leading towards interest that more or more density or otherwise. So I think we can apply that filter,

495
00:40:05,300 --> 00:40:08,980
but getting the input is useful so that we can get all all points for you.

496
00:40:10,480 --> 00:40:10,960
Sure.

497
00:40:11,820 --> 00:40:12,960
Sorry, I had a couple more questions.

498
00:40:13,660 --> 00:40:15,360
One is, are we expected to vote today?

499
00:40:15,800 --> 00:40:17,800
No, it's just a study session, right?

500
00:40:19,000 --> 00:40:24,080
And then the second thing was, are you looking for input like you showed multiple styles of

501
00:40:24,080 --> 00:40:30,580
developing ODS, right, with the photos of the flat maps, the diagrams, 3D, you know, whatever.

502
00:40:31,500 --> 00:40:35,840
Are you looking for guidance from us in terms of, you know, which style we would prefer?

503
00:40:37,380 --> 00:40:37,860
Yeah.

504
00:40:37,860 --> 00:41:05,160
And then that's why I showed you so many of the different ways any, any guidance and then the follow-up question is how does this, you mentioned density bonus right, how does this play with, if somebody, you know, if a developer does a density bonus request like so, like how much, how much do the audience standards apply in that case.

505
00:41:05,760 --> 00:41:12,240
Unfortunately, they can wave them. Exactly. Okay. That was my question. Yeah. Is there anything at all that they cannot wave?

506
00:41:15,400 --> 00:41:25,920
I, you know, I just want to make it clear. Right. And that's that's the nature of the state legislation with housing right now. And you know, that's an ongoing issue. There's not much they can't wave.

507
00:41:26,780 --> 00:41:55,140
Okay, guess if I could just add to that as the way I look at this now is odds are not gonna give you the authority or control you once had, but it gives you something that right now you lack entirely, because discretionary standards don't have any teeth don't carry any weight, so I think the hope is that the better you do with the odds, the more likely developers will not wave them, but of course through density bonus they're gonna want to get the project they want.

508
00:41:55,920 --> 00:42:00,600
But it does give you some measure of control and some assurance

509
00:42:02,120 --> 00:42:07,180
Right, and that's that's kind of what I was leaning at in terms of stakeholder input

510
00:42:07,180 --> 00:42:15,100
Is there input is generally going to be whatever makes it easier as opposed to what the city's excuse me what the city's priorities for design are and

511
00:42:15,700 --> 00:42:22,040
You know, that's why I want to put these decisions mostly in the commission in the council and the and the community's court

512
00:42:22,040 --> 00:42:50,520
Sorry, I had one final question and this is to staff right so you said there would be one more planning commission review of this and then it goes to council so it would be great if we get more than one so that we get a chance not just to you know review and improve and check check it off and basically say yes or no but to actually get maybe one more meeting in between we get to have some input in the draft and then have it come back as a more

513
00:42:50,520 --> 00:42:54,260
finalized draft. So, you know, two meetings instead of one.

514
00:42:54,940 --> 00:42:59,500
I'm happy to do that. My only issue is always managing contracts. Other than that,

515
00:42:59,680 --> 00:43:04,640
I get it. This is a kind of abstract new topic for a lot of people, including us.

516
00:43:05,880 --> 00:43:10,080
So, I think it's sort of getting familiar with, you know, what do you want to get out of it

517
00:43:10,080 --> 00:43:12,600
in terms of, like, you'd ask, even the format of the document.

518
00:43:13,380 --> 00:43:17,640
So, I could see where it would take multiple meetings. So, I think we'll see what we can do.

519
00:43:17,640 --> 00:43:24,900
To Greg's point with talking to developers. I think that's something we could do fairly informally. We did that through the housing element

520
00:43:24,900 --> 00:43:32,300
I will say the comments were fairly predictable and there was not huge rush to participate on behalf of developers.

521
00:43:33,100 --> 00:43:38,640
But I think it's something we could get there input outside of having a formal meeting like this.

522
00:43:40,020 --> 00:43:40,540
Absolutely.

523
00:43:41,760 --> 00:43:43,720
I just had a quick follow-up question.

524
00:43:43,980 --> 00:43:47,760
You mentioned waivers for density bonuses and other exemptions.

525
00:43:47,940 --> 00:43:50,300
Are there other exemptions that we should be aware of?

526
00:43:52,290 --> 00:43:58,750
With objective design standards, I mean there's just, there's the, I think, Luke and

527
00:43:58,750 --> 00:44:01,070
you can speak better to this than I can.

528
00:44:02,030 --> 00:44:09,950
I mean, overall, and this is why I brought up SB 167 in this, the state is just pushing

529
00:44:09,950 --> 00:44:16,390
to make it easy, even with object design standards, to push for the applicant's side.

530
00:44:18,610 --> 00:44:24,750
And, you know, the overall teeth for any form of housing standards, you know, those teeth

531
00:44:24,750 --> 00:44:25,950
are dulling more and more.

532
00:44:30,000 --> 00:44:34,220
And I think, density bonus is the big one, I mean, that's one that people are using right

533
00:44:34,220 --> 00:44:40,500
now, because that is the one that, and the inclusionary housing ordinance in a lot of cities

534
00:44:40,500 --> 00:44:47,500
uses that as a tool to wave standards. That's often a, I'm not familiar.

535
00:44:47,640 --> 00:44:52,820
Disco-Partina have an adopted IHO. So a lot of incentives in contemporary IHO.

536
00:44:53,000 --> 00:44:59,300
So one of those incentives is a reduction or a streamlining of different standards in a review.

537
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:09,080
So, I've seen more recently, you know, awaiting a waiver of design standards as a part of I chose. That's a common one now.

538
00:45:10,380 --> 00:45:16,040
So, I'm curious, it's been maybe three to four months since the community meeting and this meeting.

539
00:45:17,280 --> 00:45:26,380
What has transpired, since then, and what is the bottleneck in making faster progress to either get more visibility or more frequent checkpoints or more community meetings?

540
00:45:26,380 --> 00:45:30,420
I mean, it seems like we're having these meetings

541
00:45:30,420 --> 00:45:34,880
a few months apart, is that typical of your experience

542
00:45:34,880 --> 00:45:37,120
with other cities, or is this schedule

543
00:45:37,840 --> 00:45:40,280
comparable to other cities and what drives that timeline?

544
00:45:42,080 --> 00:45:45,280
Well, this was getting on this agenda.

545
00:45:45,900 --> 00:45:48,020
And I've been working with cities staff

546
00:45:49,040 --> 00:45:51,940
to move this at the pace it was moving forward.

547
00:45:52,080 --> 00:45:53,620
I mean, there hasn't been any major obstacles.

548
00:45:54,140 --> 00:46:01,940
And, you know, like was mentioned after this, we'll go to the City Council for another study session, not for any resolution or passing.

549
00:46:03,240 --> 00:46:12,700
I think this is organizing and getting meetings on agendas is, you know, the stretched out point at the beginning,

550
00:46:12,920 --> 00:46:19,640
once we can sit down and start developing the standards, things move faster, and then, you know, we'll get into the process of another set of meetings.

551
00:46:20,420 --> 00:46:30,400
And I'd like to just make sure that getting on the agenda is not the bottleneck, we can always have as many special meetings as we need if needed, so you know the agenda should not be the bottleneck.

552
00:46:30,600 --> 00:46:35,140
So I want to make sure this task is not being a bottleneck in any way for progress.

553
00:46:36,040 --> 00:46:43,640
And if we can see this more often to, I think the point that was made earlier, I think that helps to get input at frequent checkpoints.

554
00:46:43,640 --> 00:46:47,520
and hate to see this like twice six months apart and then it's done.

555
00:46:49,000 --> 00:46:54,140
So we'd love to hear from you through staff what can be done to see this more often and

556
00:46:54,140 --> 00:46:54,540
iterate.

557
00:46:55,480 --> 00:47:00,040
You know, we have a saying in the tech industry act now when I trade or buys for action, depending

558
00:47:00,040 --> 00:47:04,080
on who you ask, but yeah, we'd love to see this more often.

559
00:47:04,420 --> 00:47:08,300
And so without much further ado, unless Commissioner Sharf who's had this questions.

560
00:47:08,300 --> 00:47:14,940
So I was looking at some ODS for other cities and I wonder if the one for Cupertino

561
00:47:14,940 --> 00:47:17,720
do you have open space requirements per unit?

562
00:47:19,300 --> 00:47:22,840
Well, those are in the code right now.

563
00:47:22,940 --> 00:47:28,120
That's an example of usually, that's not typically an ODS because it's usually a development

564
00:47:28,120 --> 00:47:33,040
standard, either the amount of open space per the square footage of residential space.

565
00:47:33,040 --> 00:47:35,960
So that's an example of a very close call

566
00:47:35,960 --> 00:47:39,620
whereas open space standards in an ODS,

567
00:47:40,800 --> 00:47:44,880
maybe pedestrian pathways with landscape buffers

568
00:47:44,880 --> 00:47:47,700
are required from each apartment building

569
00:47:47,700 --> 00:47:50,240
to that central open space.

570
00:47:50,900 --> 00:47:54,960
Or each open space needs two of the following amenities,

571
00:47:55,360 --> 00:47:59,000
you know, a barbecue area and a child's playground.

572
00:47:59,660 --> 00:48:02,500
So they're much more oriented to quality of life and design.

573
00:48:04,040 --> 00:48:09,020
And again, unlimited waivers so they can do whatever they want, basically.

574
00:48:09,740 --> 00:48:18,160
Yeah, I would urge you to, would the value I see in the existing design standards as well as objective standards that come out of it.

575
00:48:18,720 --> 00:48:21,440
They are indicative of the city's priorities and they're informational.

576
00:48:22,000 --> 00:48:27,820
And there are, I think, developers and architects have always looked at them and they're used to looking at them.

577
00:48:27,820 --> 00:48:33,860
And I don't urge you to not assume that's a reason to not focus on these answers.

578
00:48:34,120 --> 00:48:40,100
I mean, there are good developers and bad developers and, you know, hopefully we get some

579
00:48:40,100 --> 00:48:41,300
of the good ones.

580
00:48:42,220 --> 00:48:46,120
And on that note, maybe we should let you proceed and finish the rest of your session.

581
00:48:48,860 --> 00:48:48,880
All right.

582
00:48:48,960 --> 00:48:51,880
These are the same questions that I placed on your staff report.

583
00:48:52,260 --> 00:48:53,920
And again, they're just for guidance.

584
00:48:55,040 --> 00:48:59,540
And on these next three slides with the questions, these are literally examples of

585
00:48:59,540 --> 00:49:05,840
housing in a mile radius of where we stand and again this is just by way of really hitting

586
00:49:05,840 --> 00:49:10,360
home the diversity right now in this city and these are all projects that of course passed

587
00:49:10,360 --> 00:49:12,640
any form of design review in the past.

588
00:49:14,180 --> 00:49:20,580
So this first one goes back to this larger question of you know as a first thought what

589
00:49:20,580 --> 00:49:26,620
you see is more valuable standards that are briefer and focused on this broader perspective

590
00:49:26,620 --> 00:49:30,480
of these major priorities or that really regulate design tightly?

591
00:49:33,010 --> 00:49:34,330
Do you have any thoughts on that?

592
00:49:34,510 --> 00:49:40,570
Well, I'm curious who I, you've kind of boxed the choice as being. If you're brought, you'll

593
00:49:40,570 --> 00:49:45,330
love for diversity, but as if you're detailed, you don't, you could have a detailed ODS that

594
00:49:45,330 --> 00:49:52,230
accounts for the diversity as well. Well, because the broader, I mean, the point I'm making

595
00:49:52,230 --> 00:49:56,970
is that a broader simpler set is more in line with the screenlining and housing production

596
00:49:56,970 --> 00:50:04,970
that the state is looking at, whereas a more detailed set is, it harkens back more towards

597
00:50:04,970 --> 00:50:11,850
a longer process for an applicant and for the reviewer at staff, and it leads to a set of

598
00:50:11,850 --> 00:50:15,630
products that are going to look much more like each other, because they all follow everything

599
00:50:15,630 --> 00:50:18,650
down to the window framing and things like that.

600
00:50:18,910 --> 00:50:24,590
So it's this question of a very detailed set of standard that leads to a very common set

601
00:50:24,590 --> 00:50:31,770
products versus a broader set that leaves more room for flexibility in the final product and in the

602
00:50:31,770 --> 00:50:37,810
designer of that product. And we have an indication that this is a bottleneck for production of

603
00:50:37,810 --> 00:50:43,890
housing right now. It seems to me like financing seems to be the concern that I seem to run into

604
00:50:43,890 --> 00:50:48,670
most often. Well, we don't have designs standards right now, so it's hard to tell. But in terms of

605
00:50:48,670 --> 00:50:53,050
and applying discretionary standards, it's very detailed and

606
00:50:53,050 --> 00:50:56,890
cumbersome processes, if you will, if that is the extreme, as you showed in your spectrum.

607
00:50:58,130 --> 00:51:01,030
Does staff have an important, whether they see this as an impediment?

608
00:51:02,590 --> 00:51:07,750
No, sorry. I think you're commented that financing and other issues are by far the bigger

609
00:51:07,750 --> 00:51:12,550
impediment to housing getting developed. We're hearing that from everybody. I think

610
00:51:12,550 --> 00:51:18,650
where Greg is going to though is, and I guess an example I would have would be a place like

611
00:51:18,650 --> 00:51:21,450
you would have very detailed standards that are dictating materials,

612
00:51:22,690 --> 00:51:28,210
volumes in the window, limited color palette, tile roofs, things like that

613
00:51:28,210 --> 00:51:32,690
where you're getting a very tight detailed design that, while it's specific,

614
00:51:32,710 --> 00:51:35,510
it may tell you exactly what you can do, it doesn't allow a lot of leeway.

615
00:51:35,710 --> 00:51:38,690
I mean, you pretty much know down to a very small level,

616
00:51:39,270 --> 00:51:43,070
versus having broader standards that may focus on, say, defining an entry,

617
00:51:43,070 --> 00:51:49,730
or having landscaping at key locations, but while it's clear, it's broader and allows

618
00:51:49,730 --> 00:51:53,950
for more flexibility because I think where you're going with a detailed grade, too, is

619
00:51:53,950 --> 00:51:58,570
that detail can lead to monotony and can lead to uniformity.

620
00:51:59,550 --> 00:52:02,690
My perspective on Cupertino is that's not the city you have right now.

621
00:52:02,830 --> 00:52:05,090
You do have a pretty diverse city, mostly built later.

622
00:52:05,210 --> 00:52:06,750
You don't have a lot of historic buildings,

623
00:52:09,490 --> 00:52:11,650
like a city like Palo Alto where you have a strong

624
00:52:11,650 --> 00:52:16,170
craftsmen heritage, you have a lot of idler development, you have a lot of things where you

625
00:52:16,170 --> 00:52:21,630
might want to tie into those, depending on the location of a building. But again, this is a

626
00:52:21,630 --> 00:52:26,350
big topic that I think we're great as going as you have a lot of latitude, do you want to have a broad

627
00:52:27,490 --> 00:52:34,810
process that focuses on quality, but allows greater latitude and design versus something very specific.

628
00:52:35,370 --> 00:52:39,370
Right. And I didn't just drop the set of the blue, this goes back to my reading of the existing

629
00:52:39,370 --> 00:52:45,350
design guidelines which really focuses on this diversity of uses and product, the diversity

630
00:52:45,350 --> 00:52:50,930
of facade articulation and things like that which you will tend to lose with the very

631
00:52:50,930 --> 00:52:52,210
detail set of standards.

632
00:52:52,770 --> 00:52:55,810
Can you pick a couple of examples from our neighboring cities?

633
00:52:56,130 --> 00:53:01,490
Say Saratogal, Asarto, Sanivel, Miltbe, because if you had to sort of look at what saransas,

634
00:53:01,570 --> 00:53:02,430
this direction have they got?

635
00:53:03,070 --> 00:53:08,270
Sanivel is more towards that broader set of guidelines where a certain design style is never

636
00:53:08,270 --> 00:53:11,790
mentioned that, you know, the word Edwardian or craftsman is never there.

637
00:53:12,050 --> 00:53:18,110
There are not standards for something like mullions or, or, or, or, or fenestration

638
00:53:18,110 --> 00:53:23,970
with, whereas in Marin, their set for the county in Marin, their set of design standards,

639
00:53:24,490 --> 00:53:32,710
is literally a 500 page form-based code down to each individual city and, you know, representations

640
00:53:32,710 --> 00:53:35,490
of different craftsman styles and things like that.

641
00:53:35,490 --> 00:53:43,470
So that a whole idea of streamlining if you're going to build there is almost gone when you open up that 500 page document

642
00:53:43,470 --> 00:53:51,430
And you're trying to follow it, but what the city and county is going to get are these very defined styles of product and that's not a bad thing

643
00:53:51,430 --> 00:53:57,950
That's not a judgment call by any means, but I do think each city needs to try to make this decision of where they want to go.

644
00:53:57,950 --> 00:54:05,250
Sure, if I may also add to that, you know, the more complex the length the year this document gets or these standards get.

645
00:54:05,630 --> 00:54:14,610
It's just more, you know, for a developer to basically say, you know what, I just don't want to deal with this and I would much rather wave every standard you have or most of the standards you have.

646
00:54:14,890 --> 00:54:24,030
But if they were broader and they were a little bit more general and allow for that diversity, they may be more inclined to actually try to meet us, at least halfway, if not all the way.

647
00:54:25,410 --> 00:54:30,570
So, I mean, it sounds like we know what the answer is, at least the answer you're guiding

648
00:54:30,570 --> 00:54:35,490
us to words, which I happen to agree with.

649
00:54:35,570 --> 00:54:43,310
I think we should have broader guidelines, but we should try and have some targeted details

650
00:54:43,310 --> 00:54:44,650
in some key areas.

651
00:54:45,150 --> 00:54:45,270
So, yeah.

652
00:54:46,190 --> 00:54:48,230
So, it's like, I don't want you to think I'm guiding you, but.

653
00:54:48,230 --> 00:54:48,550
Right.

654
00:54:48,550 --> 00:55:14,770
So, you know, like, have a friend who lives in an HOA, where they tell you everything from the size of the windows to the material that has to be stucko and they have a color palette of like five colors, they can choose from to paint their walls, and during any serious, I mean it's hugely restrictive and it creates a very homogeneous neighborhood, which, you know, is a choice.

655
00:55:15,310 --> 00:55:20,710
I don't think we want that, so I think we want to allow some innovation, especially, you know,

656
00:55:20,810 --> 00:55:23,890
work with the home of innovation in the world.

657
00:55:24,070 --> 00:55:26,930
So we should be allowing for innovation, we should be allowing for creativity.

658
00:55:28,230 --> 00:55:31,770
So I do think we should try for a more balanced approach and I know balanced sounds like

659
00:55:31,770 --> 00:55:32,770
we want it all, right?

660
00:55:33,170 --> 00:55:38,330
But it is kind of like allowing for these broader guidelines, but then in areas where it really

661
00:55:38,330 --> 00:55:43,770
matters get very targeted in some key areas and provide more specific guidelines there.

662
00:55:43,770 --> 00:55:50,050
So, really quickly, how many questions are you looking to get commission input at this point on these questions?

663
00:55:50,510 --> 00:55:51,090
Or for you.

664
00:55:51,270 --> 00:55:51,430
Absolutely.

665
00:55:51,890 --> 00:55:52,730
I mean, this is it.

666
00:55:52,970 --> 00:55:54,430
How many of these do you have?

667
00:55:54,850 --> 00:55:55,770
This is it.

668
00:55:56,370 --> 00:55:57,970
I just, I just bought to have one slide.

669
00:55:58,290 --> 00:55:59,130
So, so we can talk about it.

670
00:55:59,130 --> 00:55:59,830
Yeah, six questions.

671
00:56:00,190 --> 00:56:02,150
So, we haven't taken public comment.

672
00:56:02,450 --> 00:56:04,930
And I want to maybe pause us for a second.

673
00:56:05,250 --> 00:56:07,410
So, we hear from the public before we go further.

674
00:56:07,830 --> 00:56:08,970
Is it okay if we pause?

675
00:56:09,710 --> 00:56:12,730
So, at this point, maybe we open it up for public comments.

676
00:56:12,730 --> 00:56:14,810
if you have any ready to take a look?

677
00:56:16,690 --> 00:56:20,130
We have one speaker card in person and no hands raised on Zoom.

678
00:56:20,450 --> 00:56:21,890
Our speaker is Jennifer Griffin.

679
00:56:22,270 --> 00:56:22,670
Welcome, Jennifer.

680
00:56:32,540 --> 00:56:34,120
Good evening, planning commission.

681
00:56:35,580 --> 00:56:36,880
And everyone else here.

682
00:56:37,840 --> 00:56:41,160
And my regards to the planning commission and place works.

683
00:56:41,520 --> 00:56:46,480
You always are presented with very, very interesting,

684
00:56:46,900 --> 00:56:49,660
different problems that you have to solve.

685
00:56:50,580 --> 00:56:59,700
20 years ago, we had a very, very heated discussion about Florida area ratio in these very chambers on a Tuesday.

686
00:57:00,180 --> 00:57:12,120
I went home that night and was carried. You talk about the sacrifice that the public puts into caring about what their communities look like.

687
00:57:13,800 --> 00:57:22,360
I think that everything that Cupertino has currently in their design is good.

688
00:57:22,960 --> 00:57:24,360
It's all the part of us.

689
00:57:24,900 --> 00:57:31,460
We spent hours, the previous planning stuff, planning stuff that's been here, City Council,

690
00:57:32,020 --> 00:57:34,600
they put their best and hard into it.

691
00:57:34,600 --> 00:57:40,840
everything that is currently the design standards in Cupertino is of the people.

692
00:57:42,020 --> 00:57:47,780
I did not fully understand the difference between subjective and objective

693
00:57:48,840 --> 00:57:57,940
and tell about two months ago a planner in San Jose was interviewed over San Jose to adopting

694
00:57:57,940 --> 00:58:06,100
objective, design standards, and he said, the public's input is too subjective. It's

695
00:58:06,100 --> 00:58:13,140
not objective enough. We need to limit it. Now, I'm sure that planner is a wonderful

696
00:58:13,140 --> 00:58:18,300
person. I have no problems with him, and they happen to have spoken to one of the papers.

697
00:58:18,300 --> 00:58:28,680
I got it. They don't want to hear from the public. We are, we are problems. The public

698
00:58:28,680 --> 00:58:36,000
local control is a problem. The powers that be that want us to go into objective design

699
00:58:36,000 --> 00:58:43,840
do not want to hear from us. This is all directed toward multi-family housing. Everything

700
00:58:43,840 --> 00:58:51,420
is. I hate to say that I have studied this problem way more. My brother in Portland Oregon

701
00:58:51,420 --> 00:58:59,580
successfully protected his neighborhood from having the historic homes torn down. They paid a price.

702
00:59:01,540 --> 00:59:09,300
This is, I'm upset because we're having to dump LOS because it's not objective enough.

703
00:59:09,300 --> 00:59:12,060
Why confuses everyone with VMT?

704
00:59:12,380 --> 00:59:13,340
It doesn't work.

705
00:59:14,240 --> 00:59:15,560
So the other thing is too,

706
00:59:15,660 --> 00:59:17,860
everything that has happened with these housing bills,

707
00:59:18,020 --> 00:59:20,480
being dumped on us, we don't get any input.

708
00:59:20,880 --> 00:59:24,440
Now we have objective designs, which nobody understands,

709
00:59:25,180 --> 00:59:26,220
and I am rebelling.

710
00:59:26,620 --> 00:59:29,980
I have taken a step back, I understand it,

711
00:59:30,000 --> 00:59:34,060
and I say, no, the line you do not cross it.

712
00:59:34,100 --> 00:59:34,860
Thank you, Jennifer.

713
00:59:35,100 --> 00:59:35,900
That is your time.

714
00:59:36,800 --> 00:59:39,080
We have no other speaker cards in person

715
00:59:39,080 --> 00:59:41,180
And we have no hands raised on Zoom.

716
00:59:41,820 --> 00:59:42,440
OK, very good.

717
00:59:42,440 --> 00:59:43,620
Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

718
00:59:43,940 --> 00:59:45,880
So maybe we can reconvene with place works

719
00:59:45,880 --> 00:59:47,640
and let you continue with your questions.

720
00:59:48,440 --> 00:59:53,280
Since you only have six questions, let's try and limit our time

721
00:59:53,280 --> 00:59:56,260
but to commission a feel like we need to vote on these things

722
00:59:56,260 --> 00:59:58,860
or any preferences and how we want to give input.

723
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:04,910
No interest in voting? No. Okay.

724
01:00:09,440 --> 01:00:28,560
Okay, very good. So let's continue on. Okay. So I advance forward to these two, because we got to this point of if we're going to create more of a broader ODS package, then let's make sure that we do hit on key priorities for different housing product types.

725
01:00:28,560 --> 01:00:36,740
So these two questions are, again, these are two shots of a duplex and a more traditional or contemporary mixed use.

726
01:00:36,940 --> 01:00:39,720
Excuse me, multi-family project right here within a mile radius.

727
01:00:41,200 --> 01:00:46,900
Are there design components in these larger projects that you'd really like to prioritize and create standards for?

728
01:00:48,930 --> 01:00:50,690
Are those two separate questions, sir?

729
01:00:50,970 --> 01:00:52,570
Well, that's the first one.

730
01:00:53,050 --> 01:00:56,910
Priorities for larger projects and priorities for smaller projects.

731
01:01:00,850 --> 01:01:03,590
I was going to actually ask a different sort of question.

732
01:01:03,890 --> 01:01:04,250
Go for it.

733
01:01:04,250 --> 01:01:04,710
I'm curious.

734
01:01:05,810 --> 01:01:07,530
In the current general plan,

735
01:01:10,290 --> 01:01:14,510
the city is divided into areas, you know, kind of geographic areas,

736
01:01:14,970 --> 01:01:16,030
which have different characteristics.

737
01:01:17,890 --> 01:01:20,670
In your professional opinion, is that a keeper?

738
01:01:21,530 --> 01:01:24,510
in the, in the, for the, or the subjective version of this.

739
01:01:24,510 --> 01:01:28,690
Now this might be a, a frustrating aspect also a Richard design

740
01:01:28,690 --> 01:01:32,170
standards, which is that they are based on product type entirely,

741
01:01:32,690 --> 01:01:36,130
not place. A lot of people get this confusion, very understandably that

742
01:01:36,130 --> 01:01:39,610
they apply to certain zoning districts, no, they apply to the project,

743
01:01:39,730 --> 01:01:42,830
and with so many variation, you know,

744
01:01:43,190 --> 01:01:46,450
variance is offered in land use and in districts,

745
01:01:46,450 --> 01:01:52,610
A multi-use product could be approved in a non-typical zoning district.

746
01:01:53,010 --> 01:02:00,970
The point is just that any project with more than 2,000 units cannot be disapproved or

747
01:02:00,970 --> 01:02:05,770
if density reduced based on a subjective standard.

748
01:02:06,690 --> 01:02:11,570
And therefore, I'll stress once again, no one, no law requires a local jurisdiction

749
01:02:11,570 --> 01:02:21,030
to adopt ODS. It just says, you can't use the opposite in your review. So, the hooves every city

750
01:02:21,030 --> 01:02:29,070
with multifamily development activity to adopt ODS. So, sir, Commissioner Fung's point and maybe

751
01:02:29,070 --> 01:02:35,190
playing off of some of the rest in Port earlier as well. Have he considered sort of looking at

752
01:02:35,190 --> 01:02:40,890
these specific plans that embed the many years of character that these neighborhoods have had

753
01:02:40,890 --> 01:02:46,910
looking at what it would make to convert those into being normative or prescriptive such that

754
01:02:46,910 --> 01:02:52,510
it would be qualifying as objective designs, at least to some extent.

755
01:02:53,090 --> 01:02:57,310
That is why I completed that study exercise that's in your staff report of looking at

756
01:02:57,310 --> 01:03:03,450
those themes from all of those existing design documents as a way of saying if these and

757
01:03:03,450 --> 01:03:07,050
they cliggly are through the adoption process, if these are priorities in the city of

758
01:03:07,050 --> 01:03:12,490
you know, let's do our best to consolidate them, and to transform those as best it can,

759
01:03:12,570 --> 01:03:17,790
it's not always easy into objective standards, and that's one reason again when I saw

760
01:03:17,790 --> 01:03:24,910
so many guidelines and statements about diversity and about, you know, avoiding

761
01:03:26,370 --> 01:03:30,370
difficult frontages where you're afraid to walk in front of, you know, those are two examples where

762
01:03:30,370 --> 01:03:34,030
I thought, all right, we need to make sure there's flexibility here, we need to make sure we're

763
01:03:34,030 --> 01:03:40,710
on ground floor design, let's make sure there are standards for friendly landscaping and

764
01:03:41,690 --> 01:03:47,450
widths of retail frontages and requirements for seating for pastors by things like that.

765
01:03:48,070 --> 01:03:53,410
So that's why that first task in place where contract was sick. Let's go through it all

766
01:03:53,410 --> 01:03:58,870
first from 1982 onward and you know things obviously need to be irrelevant. There are things

767
01:03:58,870 --> 01:04:04,890
in 1992 that simply, you know, we need to look over but any of these relevant standards that

768
01:04:04,890 --> 01:04:10,610
work based on existing community input at the time and are there for relevant to the community,

769
01:04:10,990 --> 01:04:14,630
let's highlight those and let's do our best to transform those.

770
01:04:18,410 --> 01:04:24,990
So that list looked good. I agreed with all of that list. I went through the questions you listed

771
01:04:24,990 --> 01:04:30,110
the report and I kind of wrote up my answers on that so they don't map exactly to the questions

772
01:04:30,110 --> 01:04:38,310
you have here but I did have quite a lot so how should I just go through it or should we

773
01:04:38,310 --> 01:04:41,910
make turns or how do you want it. From my perspective I'll remember I'll be going through this

774
01:04:41,910 --> 01:04:45,850
recording and creating a what's for myself. I know but I don't want to be the only one.

775
01:04:45,870 --> 01:04:49,930
Oh I think so. Yeah so do you want to. The wife should head a comment then maybe we can go back.

776
01:04:50,230 --> 01:04:53,370
I was actually going to answer the questions as well so why don't we just put down the line and

777
01:04:54,010 --> 01:05:13,550
Okay, so like I said, I didn't, I organized them based on the questions you've sent, so I have slightly different approach, but I think for the multi-family and mixed use projects on major corridors, one of the main things that concerns me is

778
01:05:13,550 --> 01:05:24,270
kind of our in adequate retail strategy, you know, so we we tried to require certain percentage

779
01:05:24,270 --> 01:05:31,850
of the of each development to be retail, but what that ends up doing is it creates small

780
01:05:31,850 --> 01:05:38,870
pockets of scattered retail that don't really create any synergy and we're honestly we're

781
01:05:38,870 --> 01:05:46,650
up those retail shops or what of they are retail commercial developments to fail because they're

782
01:05:46,650 --> 01:05:48,910
not plastered together. We're not creating destinations.

783
01:05:51,270 --> 01:05:53,810
So I feel like there needs to be

784
01:05:53,810 --> 01:06:02,830
a better retail strategy. So instead of saying, we should be looking more about how we encourage

785
01:06:02,830 --> 01:06:12,210
retail by doing other kinds of concessions, to make it financially viable for the developers.

786
01:06:13,050 --> 01:06:22,950
But beyond that, trying to think across how do we create clusters of retail so that we

787
01:06:22,950 --> 01:06:27,830
are creating destinations for neighbourhoods, almost like a 15-minute city, kind of thing,

788
01:06:27,830 --> 01:06:33,510
where you have the landscaping, but you create kind of like pocket neighborhoods, right?

789
01:06:33,650 --> 01:06:38,170
Where they have their local bodega neighborhood kind of thing, where they can go banking,

790
01:06:38,310 --> 01:06:44,130
they can go shopping, they can go, you know, to the cafe and to the restaurant or whatever.

791
01:06:45,110 --> 01:06:56,470
So really kind of rethink our retail strategy and create these clusters. I think would be a

792
01:06:58,520 --> 01:07:02,100
Okay, so I wanted to answer, I guess a few of your questions.

793
01:07:02,220 --> 01:07:07,000
I have gone through some neighboring cities objective design standards and had some thoughts

794
01:07:07,000 --> 01:07:07,580
on this.

795
01:07:07,880 --> 01:07:12,280
So I think there's a lot of things you could put in here, but I'll try to, I think, for the

796
01:07:12,280 --> 01:07:17,180
sake of the broad ODS, I'll keep my high level to the most important things.

797
01:07:17,880 --> 01:07:23,100
I think first of all, would it be possible to have different objective design standards

798
01:07:23,100 --> 01:07:30,160
for multi-family that is adjacent to R1 single-family neighborhoods because then you know

799
01:07:30,380 --> 01:07:32,140
then you have privacy concerns.

800
01:07:34,300 --> 01:07:38,760
Well you could have multi-family that is in an urban area

801
01:07:38,760 --> 01:07:42,220
which then you're not impeding on the privacy of a neighborhood.

802
01:07:42,660 --> 01:07:47,360
Yeah many objective design standards certainly ones we create have typically what are called

803
01:07:47,360 --> 01:07:52,740
context-sensitive standards where there's a daylight plane standard with my talks about shadow

804
01:07:52,740 --> 01:08:21,240
That's a boiler play one. We can be better than that. There are standards for window placement where, you know, you're window, if you're above an R1 district, your windows need to be offset by 20 feet from an existing windows. So any direct view is not into that neighboring building. There are a lot of ways to do this. There are, you know, landscape buffers of a certain height if you're near. So the answer yes, which is absolutely right. Yeah, I think that's something that I would want to be considered just from a privacy standpoint for the R1 neighborhoods that are neighboring.

805
01:08:21,240 --> 01:08:25,000
And the second is around landscaping in open space.

806
01:08:25,160 --> 01:08:32,180
I think to the extent that we don't create concrete jungles, and we do have some sort of

807
01:08:32,180 --> 01:08:32,420
regulation.

808
01:08:32,720 --> 01:08:36,460
I don't think this would be onerous from a cost standpoint, but it's really a matter of

809
01:08:36,460 --> 01:08:42,740
making sure that we have street trees, X number of feet, certain percent ratio of

810
01:08:42,740 --> 01:08:44,740
partscape to landscaping.

811
01:08:45,320 --> 01:08:48,060
So we want to include that, and I don't think it would be too costly.

812
01:08:48,060 --> 01:08:53,800
And then the third is, I've noticed a lot of objective design standards have a lot of focus on the facade

813
01:08:53,800 --> 01:08:59,420
and I feel like what that is leading to is actually a disjoint between the front of the building and the back

814
01:08:59,420 --> 01:09:04,280
because the developer is focusing all of their resources on building a really nice facade

815
01:09:04,280 --> 01:09:07,420
and then the back is like a blank building.

816
01:09:08,240 --> 01:09:13,060
And so I think to the extent that we can have something that encourages...

817
01:09:13,060 --> 01:09:20,360
around standard where you're encouraged to integrate that based middle top facade on all four

818
01:09:20,360 --> 01:09:25,000
side there's three probably. Right exactly because I think for multifamily once it goes above

819
01:09:25,000 --> 01:09:30,280
three fours or so you can see the backside no matter where you are so the facade doesn't matter

820
01:09:30,280 --> 01:09:36,740
as much so I think those are sort of my three larger ones that I would start with and with that

821
01:09:37,260 --> 01:09:40,740
Yeah, I'd be happy to go next. Did you want to add anything?

822
01:09:41,200 --> 01:09:46,440
I have no. Okay. Yeah, we'll try and keep our comments brief and try to get through this.

823
01:09:47,080 --> 01:09:53,880
But I think just staying on the broad theme, what I hear from residents is the top post

824
01:09:53,880 --> 01:09:59,520
concern for instance is privacy. How it affects the neighborhood around them as well as those living in

825
01:10:00,380 --> 01:10:05,960
these properties. How much of privacy they get. So I would definitely look at standards that govern

826
01:10:05,960 --> 01:10:11,740
privacy aspects. I think we are a city that differentiates ourselves from some of the other

827
01:10:12,480 --> 01:10:17,680
gentrified or high identity cities. So looking at aesthetics I think is is something that

828
01:10:17,680 --> 01:10:21,740
is an appeal to both the current restaurants and future restaurants and why they want to live in

829
01:10:21,740 --> 01:10:28,060
cup of tea now and so I'd say continuing to look at aesthetics that makes this destination that people want

830
01:10:28,060 --> 01:10:34,760
to be one of the end and feel like there's a character to a rather than just more units in place.

831
01:10:34,760 --> 01:10:40,100
So I would, I would prioritize, ace to take set, prioritize privacy and certainly the ground

832
01:10:40,100 --> 01:10:46,120
throw aspects because we are a city that values our ability to use multi-modal transport

833
01:10:46,120 --> 01:10:50,020
whether it be walking or biking or just enjoying our heart of the city.

834
01:10:50,400 --> 01:10:54,120
And so given we are talking about these larger projects that hopefully are more in the heart

835
01:10:54,120 --> 01:10:59,380
of the city, we'd like to see a focus on the ground floor design that makes it welcoming

836
01:10:59,380 --> 01:11:04,440
and livable, as well as enjoy both, so that we might think.

837
01:11:06,900 --> 01:11:11,380
Yeah, so I had a couple of comments, I think, then, again, kind of a more general basis.

838
01:11:12,980 --> 01:11:20,220
The particular set of information is provided to us, kind of reflects the fact that the people are building townhouses now.

839
01:11:22,500 --> 01:11:30,280
I hope that we can think maybe you think beyond that in terms of how we put together a set of objective design standards,

840
01:11:30,280 --> 01:11:36,100
because I don't think we need to achieve the housing numbers we want to have if everybody wants to

841
01:11:36,100 --> 01:11:36,720
build townhouses.

842
01:11:37,760 --> 01:11:42,200
So, one of the questions I kind of asked, you know, before about the city was divided into

843
01:11:42,200 --> 01:11:46,060
different areas, you know, I think that that's probably a good thing.

844
01:11:47,300 --> 01:11:50,960
The, you know, the core, the heart of the city areas, a long steepest creek, you know,

845
01:11:51,300 --> 01:11:54,360
did call in the past for more, for greater density.

846
01:11:54,600 --> 01:11:56,740
I hope that there are standards that reflect that.

847
01:11:56,740 --> 01:12:02,480
definitely would support having, you know, having standards that differentiate from large,

848
01:12:02,480 --> 01:12:08,500
large projects versus small. In particular, I don't know. I mean, this is beyond, maybe

849
01:12:08,500 --> 01:12:11,080
it will be on the scope of the objective design standards.

850
01:12:13,120 --> 01:12:14,540
But, you know, we have a couple of townhouse

851
01:12:14,540 --> 01:12:20,120
projects that are being proposed right now, you know, right in that, in that core area. And

852
01:12:20,120 --> 01:12:28,730
The interesting question is, you know, how do you financing makes that, it's what is pushing

853
01:12:28,730 --> 01:12:32,230
that today, and I hope there would be some way to undo that, even though, you know,

854
01:12:32,690 --> 01:12:36,570
I would welcome that, I would welcome how simply they would bring, but it's unfortunate

855
01:12:36,570 --> 01:12:41,330
you know, to be, you should not be having discussion about larger buildings in that area.

856
01:12:41,870 --> 01:12:46,690
And so I think the part of that is really, you know, the design standards, you know, hopefully

857
01:12:46,690 --> 01:12:51,870
those can reflect those things that we don't focus a lot on, you know, how do we build

858
01:12:51,870 --> 01:13:02,070
townhouses? You know, so I think that's an important thing. We didn't have a, we didn't

859
01:13:02,070 --> 01:13:07,990
have it. When the city was first built, you know, given the agricultural nature, there wasn't

860
01:13:07,990 --> 01:13:12,730
the normal kind of greedy that you would hope to see, that a planet would hope to see where it's,

861
01:13:12,730 --> 01:13:31,330
you know, dance along the arteries, and then there's, you know, perhaps a district which is more like apartments, primarily apartments, and then single family comes, so I hope again that those things would be reflected as something that we try to capture a way to save that in the objective design standards.

862
01:13:33,070 --> 01:13:39,610
So in that respect, as you said, and I think, so first of all, I thought that was a great answer to the question I'd asked you before.

863
01:13:40,410 --> 01:13:45,610
You know, you can apply these standards anywhere, right, and I think that's important part of that.

864
01:13:45,710 --> 01:13:52,850
But they think trying to have a clear path and having this process, you know, in another way to kind of get people to think about, you know,

865
01:13:52,870 --> 01:13:55,870
if you build big here, then that lets you build smaller elsewhere.

866
01:13:57,150 --> 01:14:03,890
And, you know, and I think that, you know, the objective design standards, you know, given a choice between, you know,

867
01:14:04,530 --> 01:14:08,870
if the city creates a bunch of standard which are restrictive and prevent people from building any community.

868
01:14:08,870 --> 01:14:13,150
of course, they will wave them all, and you'll kind of get what you get.

869
01:14:14,370 --> 01:14:19,190
I think if there's a statement where it really comes clearly, you know, that the people

870
01:14:19,190 --> 01:14:25,470
spoke about things that, you know, a larger structure, you know, a larger, multi-family housing,

871
01:14:25,890 --> 01:14:27,810
how that, the kinds of things we would hope to see there.

872
01:14:28,230 --> 01:14:31,830
I think that that really, you know, may encourage, you know, may encourage somebody to actually

873
01:14:31,830 --> 01:14:33,510
try to build more on this one.

874
01:14:33,510 --> 01:14:40,290
I mean you just made a great point as did the chair earlier talking about privacy, I see these

875
01:14:40,290 --> 01:14:44,370
and this was in my proposal, each section opens up with a guiding and tense statement.

876
01:14:44,730 --> 01:14:50,330
That's subjective and the chair worded it wonderfully and talking about privacy to me that

877
01:14:50,330 --> 01:14:52,950
polished statement would lead those privacy standards.

878
01:14:54,130 --> 01:14:57,170
So a reviewer or a reader thinks, all right, that's where these standards are going.

879
01:14:57,530 --> 01:14:59,570
Even though that's not something I have to follow exactly.

880
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:11,640
That's leading me into the standards. What you were saying could be a guiding statement for that whole section of a large project. This is the city's overall priorities here. These are why we create these standards. Now here they are.

881
01:15:12,900 --> 01:15:23,220
The other thing I just we have to note that I had was you mentioned any having a having an objective standard for offset windows. That's really great. I hope that that comes back.

882
01:15:23,220 --> 01:15:34,060
I don't think there's anything like that in our code today other than things like the certain Windows can only be can't be fully.

883
01:15:34,800 --> 01:15:37,520
So I think that's great, and I hope to see that one come back.

884
01:15:41,330 --> 01:15:48,370
So to this first question about the multi-term, the mixed use projects on major corridors,

885
01:15:48,370 --> 01:15:55,370
You know, when I look at some of the projects that had built in Cupertino with failed retail,

886
01:15:56,910 --> 01:15:59,370
it always seems to come down to parking.

887
01:16:00,690 --> 01:16:10,750
Trevigna, the one at City Center, partially at Metro, and owned especially at Monabella.

888
01:16:11,510 --> 01:16:13,550
You know, the retail is an afterthought.

889
01:16:13,550 --> 01:16:36,130
It's often sometimes there is parking but it's not, it's not obvious, and why I hate to have a parking lot be right in front of a building, if you want the retail to actually survive, it really does need some way to have parking for people that don't live there to patronize that retail.

890
01:16:36,130 --> 01:16:45,930
Now, of course, the developer could and we just saw this recently say, you know, I'm going to reduce the retail reduce reduce reduce and to zero because it's

891
01:16:46,550 --> 01:16:51,130
It's just not profitable. There's, you know, they'd rather put in somewhere housing units

892
01:16:52,230 --> 01:16:54,430
On that ground floor than to

893
01:16:55,950 --> 01:17:00,390
Put in the retail of course, I was just down a Los Angeles where they're building a

894
01:17:00,390 --> 01:17:04,410
Costco with apartments on top of it, which is very interesting

895
01:17:05,210 --> 01:17:10,170
I don't know. You don't even have to ever cook. You just go down to the free samples

896
01:17:10,170 --> 01:17:20,530
every day. So yeah, for the larger projects, I just hope we can do something that helps

897
01:17:20,530 --> 01:17:29,190
the retail survive. Now, the one example that has been successful is over by Panera,

898
01:17:29,190 --> 01:17:33,110
where the parking is in the back and they have some seating out in front.

899
01:17:33,790 --> 01:17:37,770
Although I've sat out there, it's not the most pleasant place to sit with the traffic

900
01:17:37,770 --> 01:17:40,450
roaring by on Steven's Creek Boulevard.

901
01:17:41,250 --> 01:17:47,650
So by that token, maybe the parking should be in the front and the outdoor seating on the

902
01:17:47,650 --> 01:17:48,210
back.

903
01:17:48,590 --> 01:17:54,470
And for small projects like duplexes, triplexes, town homes,

904
01:17:57,190 --> 01:17:58,310
the developers are going to

905
01:17:58,310 --> 01:18:04,790
with cells and they're going to have garages and drive ways because they can't sell it.

906
01:18:04,910 --> 01:18:09,430
Even if they could wave the parking requirements because of state law, they probably won't

907
01:18:09,430 --> 01:18:17,750
do that and then finally, we've got thousands of units approved in Cupertino that could break

908
01:18:17,750 --> 01:18:21,870
ground if they wanted to and they're not doing it. What they want to build this townhouses

909
01:18:21,870 --> 01:18:27,750
and I don't know when that's going to change or population has shrunk so they're maybe less

910
01:18:27,750 --> 01:18:31,770
And then now, but yeah, for the foreseeable future,

911
01:18:31,930 --> 01:18:36,050
I just see townhouses being, you know,

912
01:18:36,450 --> 01:18:39,270
what gets built, including on Steven's Creek Boulevard,

913
01:18:39,430 --> 01:18:42,730
you know, we approved one over by

914
01:18:42,730 --> 01:18:46,410
selling on Steven's Creek near Stelling,

915
01:18:46,750 --> 01:18:49,690
and it's just one townhouse project after another.

916
01:18:51,130 --> 01:18:55,110
Can you see, I'll throw this out, is this,

917
01:18:55,110 --> 01:19:01,230
pattern warrant, townhouses, as their own section in the document with its own guiding statement,

918
01:19:01,810 --> 01:19:08,450
pulled out of that larger section on, perhaps that seems to be what everyone's building,

919
01:19:08,610 --> 01:19:12,990
you know, maybe that would be a good idea. It doesn't necessarily mean so many new standards,

920
01:19:13,590 --> 01:19:21,990
it's a symbolism of that value and that local attempt or need to control this product and

921
01:19:24,090 --> 01:19:28,950
I mean, I would like to see some larger buildings as well, but it just seems we approve

922
01:19:28,950 --> 01:19:32,630
them and they get pushed out and pushed out and pushed out and now with the financing

923
01:19:33,410 --> 01:19:39,590
and with the, you know, the falling population, not just in group routine, but in other

924
01:19:39,590 --> 01:19:45,190
cities, you know, throughout the area, there's just going to be, you know, less demand.

925
01:19:45,930 --> 01:19:51,390
You know, when someone has their restricted stock units and a lot of money, they're not

926
01:19:51,390 --> 01:19:57,830
moving into high density rental apartment, they're going to buy a house or a townhouse somewhere

927
01:19:57,830 --> 01:20:02,670
whether it's in Cupertino or out in Mountain House or somewhere else.

928
01:20:03,470 --> 01:20:04,570
So, if I may.

929
01:20:04,570 --> 01:20:05,250
All right.

930
01:20:05,330 --> 01:20:05,710
Thank you.

931
01:20:05,850 --> 01:20:09,870
I may try to move us along here because I think we're going to take much longer than we have here.

932
01:20:10,430 --> 01:20:11,310
So, why don't we do this?

933
01:20:11,470 --> 01:20:15,410
If you can run through your questions, I think it's in the staff report and everybody hopefully

934
01:20:15,410 --> 01:20:16,410
has the staff report.

935
01:20:16,550 --> 01:20:20,150
So, we'll give commissioners five minutes to run through their feedback.

936
01:20:20,150 --> 01:20:22,510
but if you can hit your questions up first,

937
01:20:22,670 --> 01:20:23,430
so that I've got my time.

938
01:20:23,430 --> 01:20:26,710
I think there's been a lot of cross referencing the other questions.

939
01:20:26,910 --> 01:20:29,010
I'm fine, leaving as it is.

940
01:20:29,130 --> 01:20:30,050
And if you feel like you have input,

941
01:20:30,110 --> 01:20:31,490
do you have an added, please add that?

942
01:20:31,490 --> 01:20:33,230
But if you might just walk through the questions,

943
01:20:33,430 --> 01:20:34,550
just so we have your context

944
01:20:34,550 --> 01:20:36,470
and what you are really looking to get out of here.

945
01:20:36,690 --> 01:20:39,630
So you take a hopefully a brief amount of time

946
01:20:39,630 --> 01:20:41,410
to just take your questions up and then we'll go.

947
01:20:42,270 --> 01:20:44,730
These were my others, which I called resident

948
01:20:44,730 --> 01:20:46,370
up design on the ground, it's impacts.

949
01:20:47,150 --> 01:20:50,050
These are larger issues, how to support design

950
01:20:50,050 --> 01:20:52,910
impact residents, how can these impacts inform the ODS?

951
01:20:53,930 --> 01:20:57,150
What recent design trends concern you in which you support?

952
01:20:58,050 --> 01:21:03,350
This is my way of wondering if they're actual projects that you see where you, oh, this

953
01:21:03,350 --> 01:21:06,910
was an example of something I just, I want to move away from this, you know, or I'd like to

954
01:21:06,910 --> 01:21:11,290
really highlight this and make sure we keep doing this, whether it's a certain entry-way

955
01:21:11,290 --> 01:21:17,190
type, or, you know, I just heard from Chair Shard about, or excuse me, Commissioner Shard,

956
01:21:17,190 --> 01:21:24,450
about parking and focus on seeing it at the front, things like that.

957
01:21:30,180 --> 01:21:33,120
Again, these were just meant to guide if nothing comes up, that's fine also.

958
01:21:33,640 --> 01:21:35,200
Was this your last night with questions?

959
01:21:35,440 --> 01:21:36,620
Oh, it was. Okay, very good.

960
01:21:36,980 --> 01:21:37,800
So why don't you do this then?

961
01:21:38,040 --> 01:21:44,620
Just go around the table, take hopefully no more than three minutes or four minutes and hit it.

962
01:21:44,840 --> 01:21:45,600
I'll go fast.

963
01:21:46,540 --> 01:21:51,740
Okay, so here are kind of the big themes that I wanted to make sure we touch on that I felt

964
01:21:51,740 --> 01:21:55,560
like we're, some of it was maybe tangential,

965
01:21:55,880 --> 01:21:57,660
but some of it not at all.

966
01:21:58,180 --> 01:22:01,420
So walkability wasn't touched that much at all.

967
01:22:01,480 --> 01:22:03,080
I mean, I know you mentioned the word pedestrian

968
01:22:03,080 --> 01:22:06,900
and a couple of times, but the idea of a walkable city

969
01:22:07,620 --> 01:22:11,200
and wider sidewalks, more greenery, more mature trees

970
01:22:11,200 --> 01:22:16,600
for more benches, just creating more welcoming environment,

971
01:22:16,740 --> 01:22:19,380
for walkability, connectivity between neighborhoods,

972
01:22:20,040 --> 01:22:20,820
with major developments,

973
01:22:20,820 --> 01:22:27,020
make sure they're well connected to the neighborhoods surrounding them. That's a big one, I think,

974
01:22:27,360 --> 01:22:34,520
access to nature. So making sure that every resident is, you know, no more than a five-minute walk

975
01:22:34,520 --> 01:22:44,140
from some nature creating pocket parks, parklets. You know, there's a lot of creative ways that we

976
01:22:44,140 --> 01:22:49,900
can create nature and more opportunity for nature for residents, no matter where they are. So we're

977
01:22:49,900 --> 01:22:53,600
not, you know, they're not surrounded with a concrete jungle and heat islands.

978
01:22:54,180 --> 01:23:00,120
Place making, I think is really important and creating that sense of community, fostering

979
01:23:00,120 --> 01:23:01,480
kind of social interactions.

980
01:23:02,740 --> 01:23:09,140
There's great examples of cities doing place making, you know, in a lot of really creative

981
01:23:09,140 --> 01:23:09,480
ways.

982
01:23:09,600 --> 01:23:12,560
And I would like to see us encourage that.

983
01:23:13,240 --> 01:23:17,780
And I think parklets and mini parks go along with that really well.

984
01:23:18,640 --> 01:23:27,340
Make sure trees and landscaping, not just for the privacy, which I think is very important but also to increase the attractiveness of the neighborhoods.

985
01:23:28,700 --> 01:23:41,790
Outdoor seating for restaurants and cafes, really encouraging that in all of the retail development that we do to, you know, and yeah, I think that would mean putting the parking to the back of the side or something like that.

986
01:23:41,790 --> 01:23:45,450
to, again, make it more walkable and make it more welcoming.

987
01:23:46,490 --> 01:23:49,090
So I think those are kind of the guiding spirits,

988
01:23:49,430 --> 01:23:52,410
and then more options for aging in place.

989
01:23:53,970 --> 01:23:57,770
So encouraging the developers to be more creative

990
01:23:57,770 --> 01:24:03,990
in terms of helping residents find ways to stay in their neighborhoods,

991
01:24:05,530 --> 01:24:10,450
and create this architecturally integrated middle density housing

992
01:24:10,450 --> 01:24:16,150
that's mixed in to single family homes to allow our seniors to sell their homes which are

993
01:24:16,150 --> 01:24:20,810
often their retirement savings and move into a smaller home but to maintain their neighbors,

994
01:24:21,050 --> 01:24:27,790
their friends, their shops. And I think those are kind of the big ones, yep.

995
01:24:29,890 --> 01:24:31,610
Thank you, Michelle. Nice to meet you.

996
01:24:35,940 --> 01:24:38,930
So I'll take your questions real quick. The ones that we haven't

997
01:24:38,930 --> 01:24:46,990
over here, the, I guess the concerning trends, just adding on what Commissioner Linscox said,

998
01:24:46,990 --> 01:24:54,170
I think, greenery and urban forest is something that could be important for the city.

999
01:24:54,310 --> 01:24:58,990
It is in keeping with our character where we are adjacent to the hills and kind of blend into

1000
01:24:58,990 --> 01:25:02,530
the rest of the countryside as you have had south, west, south.

1001
01:25:03,450 --> 01:25:09,190
So, certainly avoiding concrete jungles in prioritizing our landscaping, I think, or specific

1002
01:25:09,190 --> 01:25:13,250
plans also kind of try to maintain the character of each neighborhood as you progress through

1003
01:25:13,250 --> 01:25:14,010
the city.

1004
01:25:14,430 --> 01:25:20,450
So, focusing on avoiding the ability to just kind of pack these things into concrete jungles

1005
01:25:20,450 --> 01:25:23,630
that may not suit the nature of Cooperty.

1006
01:25:23,810 --> 01:25:25,370
No, I think that is an area of concern.

1007
01:25:27,210 --> 01:25:34,370
The other one that I'll add there is just continuing to look at how do you optimize the space that you have.

1008
01:25:34,650 --> 01:25:41,830
We have certain regulations that are on max height and so on that are trying to limit how high these constructions go.

1009
01:25:42,090 --> 01:25:52,450
So if there's ways that we might within those objective design standards still try and enforce those limits so that we can still enjoy the skyline that we have on our west and on our south side.

1010
01:25:52,450 --> 01:26:01,050
I think trying to avoid situations where we continue to scale and height, I think that be of importance to the city and the residents.

1011
01:26:01,670 --> 01:26:07,610
I talked about privacy earlier, making sure that we don't lose privacy, I think that's an area of concern.

1012
01:26:08,330 --> 01:26:17,330
In terms of design trends that contribute positively, I think the design trends that we've seen around the constructions,

1013
01:26:17,330 --> 01:26:22,450
where the pay attention to the ace the takes to the facade, I think it is an important part of the city.

1014
01:26:23,170 --> 01:26:29,850
It does, it does add the character to the city, so I think it's important to balance it, of course, with all sides of the development,

1015
01:26:30,090 --> 01:26:36,030
but the facade is an important part of the city and the walkability, the livability is an important part of it.

1016
01:26:36,110 --> 01:26:39,350
So looking at facade design, I think is, is important.

1017
01:26:40,950 --> 01:26:43,330
And then I think we covered pretty much everything else here.

1018
01:26:44,530 --> 01:26:47,410
You asked for examples, which were positive and negative.

1019
01:26:47,930 --> 01:26:53,870
I'll throw out one, we had the Oaks, which was a beautiful, nice green foliage of Oaks,

1020
01:26:53,890 --> 01:26:59,710
as we had, and that's been replaced with a tree scape that is very sparse, and is even

1021
01:26:59,710 --> 01:27:04,110
in its mature state, unlikely to be anything that's a shadow of its former self.

1022
01:27:04,110 --> 01:27:10,370
So I really encourage us to think about how do we bring a green canopy to Cupertino, because

1023
01:27:10,370 --> 01:27:22,910
It's a green canopy benefits, the developer, the properties are probably more valued, they attract an audience to the city, so definitely prioritize a green canopy that is in keeping with our neighboring cities as well, and with that.

1024
01:27:25,580 --> 01:27:29,360
I just have a couple of things I guess I want to say.

1025
01:27:30,100 --> 01:27:38,180
I hope that in the future recommendations that there is a good delineation of kind of small medium large,

1026
01:27:38,180 --> 01:27:43,060
where, you know, a small is the kind of, as you put that pointed at here, you know,

1027
01:27:43,280 --> 01:27:48,120
where we do play extra-like things, medium, I guess, I don't know if medium is down,

1028
01:27:48,200 --> 01:27:55,160
is the townhouse world, and then to actually have a, you know, express a clear vision

1029
01:27:55,780 --> 01:27:57,560
on buildings of the larger in scale.

1030
01:27:59,060 --> 01:28:04,960
You know, I think that, again, I think that's probably heated to success, in terms of

1031
01:28:04,960 --> 01:28:11,860
trying to be housing objectives and to try to, you know, and for the help of the city as well in the longer term.

1032
01:28:13,040 --> 01:28:19,740
I also wanted to speak in support, Commission on Scott, but actually a lot of people here have spoken about place-making.

1033
01:28:20,740 --> 01:28:27,040
One of the things that's difficult is if you take a building that has, you know, 40 units in it and you say,

1034
01:28:27,240 --> 01:28:31,420
okay, I want you to put a commercial space in it. When it has to do that and stand alone,

1035
01:28:31,420 --> 01:28:33,540
and it's generally not going to be as successful.

1036
01:28:34,740 --> 01:28:36,220
And so there's a lot, I think, this actually

1037
01:28:36,220 --> 01:28:38,760
could go up in our last meeting.

1038
01:28:39,780 --> 01:28:41,960
Commissioner Lynn Scott had suggested,

1039
01:28:42,940 --> 01:28:45,780
at the Oaks development, if there were an opportunity

1040
01:28:45,780 --> 01:28:48,720
to kind of concentrate, commercial areas together.

1041
01:28:49,480 --> 01:28:51,020
If there was a way to express that,

1042
01:28:51,140 --> 01:28:53,000
if something is there as a preference for this,

1043
01:28:53,220 --> 01:28:55,000
that I think that that actually would be something

1044
01:28:55,000 --> 01:28:57,060
that's a strong statement to make.

1045
01:28:57,500 --> 01:28:59,540
So I hope that that's something that you consider

1046
01:28:59,540 --> 01:29:07,620
find great examples and sell people on that, individually on a single project, it may not

1047
01:29:07,620 --> 01:29:16,020
make sense. If we're lucky and have a district kind of appear, where buildings are a little

1048
01:29:16,020 --> 01:29:20,840
bit larger than the ones that are there today, then I think there's really a good opportunity

1049
01:29:20,840 --> 01:29:26,200
to be successful. I definitely think that economic considerations drive a lot of this. That's

1050
01:29:26,200 --> 01:29:33,680
out of the scope for these standards so I wouldn't I wouldn't worry but you know you can't solve that

1051
01:29:33,680 --> 01:29:41,180
problem. You can't solve that problem but at the same time I hope you can pretend that those aren't the

1052
01:29:41,180 --> 01:29:45,360
only things are happening so that we don't end up with a bunch of you know here's here's here's

1053
01:29:45,360 --> 01:29:52,580
here's the city statement on how to build townhouses and and I think otherwise you know I mean I think

1054
01:29:53,000 --> 01:29:56,760
There's some good things here today, and hopefully you've got some good stuff around up here.

1055
01:29:56,940 --> 01:29:57,320
So, absolutely.

1056
01:29:57,780 --> 01:29:58,680
Thank you.

1057
01:30:00,020 --> 01:30:20,760
All right, so I'll go into the design trends that I supported, and one of them is what was going to happen at the Hamptons, where it's 342 units, and we approved another 600, they were going to do 942, and it was a well-designed project, a lot of open space.

1058
01:30:20,760 --> 01:30:28,120
And, unfortunately, that project has not moved forward, I think it's been eight years now

1059
01:30:28,120 --> 01:30:34,080
since the approval, and it's like a lot of other projects in the area, just the high

1060
01:30:34,080 --> 01:30:39,560
density housing does not make financial sense, and even though the entrance is right next

1061
01:30:39,560 --> 01:30:44,980
to the Apple spaceship, you would think that the rents would be high enough to make it

1062
01:30:44,980 --> 01:30:50,000
financially viable, but, you know, I've talked to the people from Irvine multiple times,

1063
01:30:50,000 --> 01:30:56,420
And it's like the economics just don't work out and it's a great location right next to the

1064
01:30:56,420 --> 01:31:02,540
Cooperating of the Lachamping Center. So I would love that kind of a trend where you can go

1065
01:31:02,540 --> 01:31:09,400
higher density, but keep the green space and have it adjacent to viable retail. And yeah, I'm not sure

1066
01:31:09,400 --> 01:31:16,580
Know how you do that in Main Street Main Street is retail, but they have housing instead of housing with token retail

1067
01:31:16,580 --> 01:31:34,180
And I think that's a key thing, when you have retail and then add housing that can work, when you have housing and just add a tiny amount of retail, it's just not going to have the amount of retail for it to be a destination.

1068
01:31:35,060 --> 01:31:41,060
And I'm not sure what the solution is there, you know, with the state of retail these days.

1069
01:31:42,200 --> 01:31:49,220
Just a word of caution to everybody here is that these design guidelines can't change where things go.

1070
01:31:49,480 --> 01:31:52,900
That is part of the general plan and I really want everyone here to understand.

1071
01:31:53,420 --> 01:31:59,280
These are all great points but this is not going to change where retail can be in the city.

1072
01:31:59,460 --> 01:32:03,960
It is only going to regulate the design of that retail.

1073
01:32:04,640 --> 01:32:06,740
So I want to make sure everybody understands that.

1074
01:32:06,740 --> 01:32:11,760
you know, it's really outside of the scope of this, the general land, the general plan land you

1075
01:32:11,760 --> 01:32:17,180
snap is the guiding regulation for other things go, and we are not going to change the general

1076
01:32:17,180 --> 01:32:23,100
plan land you snap. If I can just clarify what I mean by when I meant by the retail. I understand

1077
01:32:23,100 --> 01:32:29,140
we can't. Oh, I think I understand what you were saying about creating connections and. Right,

1078
01:32:29,340 --> 01:32:32,720
but let's say you have, you know, two buildings next to each other. It's like encourage them to put

1079
01:32:32,720 --> 01:32:36,680
retails close to each other, right? Or if you have one building that has like pocket

1080
01:32:36,680 --> 01:32:40,860
retail, no, put it all together. You know, so those kinds of things I think we

1081
01:32:40,860 --> 01:32:46,840
can influence within these guidelines, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah,

1082
01:32:46,840 --> 01:32:52,620
we can't force anything, but we couldn't adopt things that would maybe

1083
01:32:53,660 --> 01:33:00,720
encourage a good developer to consider those instead of, you know, not doing it.

1084
01:33:00,720 --> 01:33:07,800
And, yeah, I mean, some mixed use retail has been successful and I'm hoping that if anything

1085
01:33:07,800 --> 01:33:13,640
ever gets built at Marina that they have successful retail as well, I mean, that's another

1086
01:33:14,660 --> 01:33:20,220
project that was approved, you know, many, many years ago and still has not moved forward

1087
01:33:20,720 --> 01:33:22,680
because the economic issues.

1088
01:33:23,960 --> 01:33:24,320
Okay, thanks.

1089
01:33:24,960 --> 01:33:25,360
Thank you.

1090
01:33:26,440 --> 01:33:33,240
Just one quick comment. I did mean to highlight. I noticed on the following takeaways from this process that was listed in the staff report.

1091
01:33:34,020 --> 01:33:41,680
It said one takeaway was minimal parking presence. The visual impact of parking lots and structures is considered a design liability in Cupertino.

1092
01:33:42,640 --> 01:33:53,980
I don't know that I would agree with that and I think that we need parking. So I don't know if there's, you know, where that conclusion came from if there's a way to maybe like reshape that because we do need parking and I don't think it's a liability.

1093
01:33:54,900 --> 01:33:59,980
that's just the location of parking out of front is what's there. There are many policy

1094
01:33:59,980 --> 01:34:04,900
statements and guidelines in past documents that say keep parking behind, not on the street

1095
01:34:04,900 --> 01:34:09,000
because it's not a good pedestrian environment, so I didn't mean to, I'm sorry if the wording

1096
01:34:09,000 --> 01:34:15,280
was framed. But yeah, it wasn't as a statement of reducing parking or saying it's not necessary.

1097
01:34:15,700 --> 01:34:17,360
It was just parking in front.

1098
01:34:17,560 --> 01:34:21,540
Okay, very good. Thank you to all the commissioners. I want to keep us moving here. I know we have

1099
01:34:21,540 --> 01:34:26,900
another genitum, but in just looking through my notes as the commissioner spoke I think there was

1100
01:34:26,900 --> 01:34:33,160
the common theme of making this destination that is livable, that is enjoyable, that is a place

1101
01:34:33,160 --> 01:34:40,480
to go to where people have things to do, retail, urban forest, connectivity to, you know,

1102
01:34:40,580 --> 01:34:49,600
walkable networks and privacy came up, I think parks came up, avoiding heat islands and

1103
01:34:49,600 --> 01:34:59,240
So, in general, I think you get the sense that we want to keep cooperating with the character and continue to enhance and make it a livable enjoyable place that people want to come to.

1104
01:34:59,820 --> 01:35:03,440
And with that, if you have any closing thoughts before we wrap this up.

1105
01:35:04,040 --> 01:35:09,900
No, I just would encourage you in my staff report to council for that study session. I'll be summarizing your comments there.

1106
01:35:10,040 --> 01:35:13,240
You know, to make sure that you feel like everything has been recorded.

1107
01:35:13,240 --> 01:35:19,040
Okay, wonderful. And then, in closing, I want to encourage us to try and innovate on how we do stakeholder outreach.

1108
01:35:19,220 --> 01:35:21,280
I think the community outreach process doesn't work.

1109
01:35:22,340 --> 01:35:27,140
And so, anything that we can think of in innovations and reaching out to a diverse section of stakeholders,

1110
01:35:27,940 --> 01:35:33,120
whether it be town home developers that have a sense of what appeal actually sells,

1111
01:35:33,360 --> 01:35:37,360
so that we get people that actually want to move in and these units actually get constructed.

1112
01:35:37,960 --> 01:35:40,620
There's a profitable developer is one that's going to add units to the city.

1113
01:35:40,620 --> 01:35:46,600
So, wonderful. Thank you for your effort and hope to see you sooner rather than later.

1114
01:35:46,600 --> 01:35:47,660
Thank you so much.

1115
01:35:47,940 --> 01:35:50,740
And thanks to staff for keeping this item progressing.

1116
01:35:52,100 --> 01:35:57,800
With that, we will take a quick break while our transportation friends get to set up out here.

1117
01:35:57,880 --> 01:36:00,780
Welcome, Chair. Welcome David Matt.

1118
01:36:01,760 --> 01:36:06,720
We will take maybe a 9 minute break and resume at the bottom of the hour.

1119
01:36:06,760 --> 01:36:07,460
Thank you.

1120
01:43:53,870 --> 01:43:54,510
We are back.

1121
01:43:54,510 --> 01:44:01,450
very good. So thank you for your patience to staff. I think the next item on the agenda

1122
01:44:02,510 --> 01:44:07,870
we have no old business on new business is agenda item three, which is the Steven

1123
01:44:07,870 --> 01:44:15,110
Street Boulevard corridor vision study and is there a staff report? Yes, thank you. Good evening,

1124
01:44:15,430 --> 01:44:21,310
Chair again. We actually have here, we're a grace by the presence of three public works department staff

1125
01:44:21,310 --> 01:44:31,590
And they will be making the presentation related to the Steven's Creek corridor vision study and with that I will hand it off to I think Matthew Matt is doing the presentation tonight

1126
01:44:31,590 --> 01:44:36,470
I want to welcome Matt and David and Chad. Thank you for for joining us here today

1127
01:44:36,470 --> 01:44:40,550
And hopefully this is a better hour than last time chair will see her so thank you for that

1128
01:44:44,960 --> 01:44:46,720
Good evening planning commissioners

1129
01:44:47,480 --> 01:44:50,660
My name is Matthew Strader senior transportation planner for the city

1130
01:44:50,660 --> 01:44:59,580
I'm going to be presenting on the Steven's Creek Boulevard Court or Vision Study, which is a multi-agency, long-range transportation planning study.

1131
01:45:01,300 --> 01:45:09,280
So before we really get into it, just some brief background. Sorry if I can pause you again. I don't believe the remote participants are seeing this screen.

1132
01:45:14,080 --> 01:45:16,960
It's visible on the monitors inside here.

1133
01:45:17,140 --> 01:45:17,520
Not in this,

1134
01:45:19,700 --> 01:45:22,060
not for remote participants if you can ask the video team.

1135
01:45:22,080 --> 01:45:23,000
I think it is.

1136
01:45:23,000 --> 01:45:23,240
I think it is.

1137
01:45:24,280 --> 01:45:25,060
It's a good idea.

1138
01:45:25,500 --> 01:45:25,600
Okay.

1139
01:45:27,080 --> 01:45:30,020
So brief background on how we got to where we're at today.

1140
01:45:30,020 --> 01:45:55,840
Really started in 2017 when staff from corridor agencies began to meet semi-regularity just to discuss regional issues and how they could partner to enhance the corridor that working group was then formalized in 2019 when Council adopted a resolution supporting Cupertino's participation in this project to study the corridor and that project started in 2022.

1141
01:45:55,840 --> 01:45:56,100
So,

1142
01:45:58,140 --> 01:46:02,780
Cupertino's participation in the study was explicitly directed by the Council adopted

1143
01:46:02,780 --> 01:46:08,900
Resolution, which stated that Cupertino would support a complete street study and continue

1144
01:46:08,900 --> 01:46:14,540
the conversation about potential high capacity transit, so long as it followed these requirements,

1145
01:46:15,500 --> 01:46:21,240
not use general purpose lens and negatively impact traffic, be grade separated and time

1146
01:46:21,240 --> 01:46:26,780
competitive with the automobile and consider an alternate alignment along I280.

1147
01:46:29,420 --> 01:46:34,060
A little bit about the project area, it spans nine miles across as Cupertino, Santa Clara,

1148
01:46:34,300 --> 01:46:38,940
San Jose, and County right away, and the center line for the boulevard designates the right

1149
01:46:38,940 --> 01:46:44,400
away in many areas, most notably between Lawrence Expressway and Winchester boulevard.

1150
01:46:47,140 --> 01:46:51,280
Adding to the complexity of the project area, the roadways with and lane configuration

1151
01:46:51,280 --> 01:46:56,660
very in different sections. As you can see from this graphic, some areas of bike lanes, some

1152
01:46:56,660 --> 01:47:00,820
have on-street parking, and other portions have no bike lanes at all.

1153
01:47:03,010 --> 01:47:03,750
And then lastly, I think

1154
01:47:03,750 --> 01:47:08,390
it's helpful just to note the importance of the corridor as it includes key destinations like

1155
01:47:08,390 --> 01:47:11,970
Dan's a college, deer and on-station, and valley fair.

1156
01:47:16,960 --> 01:47:19,060
So the project was driven at a high level

1157
01:47:19,060 --> 01:47:24,880
by steering committee comprised of elected officials from each of the project agencies. The steering

1158
01:47:24,880 --> 01:47:31,160
committee then decided to establish a community advisory group, which was made up of neighborhood

1159
01:47:32,180 --> 01:47:34,460
representatives from various parts of the corridor.

1160
01:47:37,310 --> 01:47:39,810
The project consisted of three primary phases,

1161
01:47:39,930 --> 01:47:44,930
which were based heavily on community outreach, and included identifying community needs,

1162
01:47:45,250 --> 01:47:49,430
developing a vision for the corridor, and then coming up with project recommendations for

1163
01:47:49,430 --> 01:47:51,250
helping to achieve that vision.

1164
01:47:54,480 --> 01:47:57,880
Each jurisdiction was provided with an equivalent amount of outreach

1165
01:47:57,880 --> 01:48:04,160
that included sit downs with specific groups and steering committee meetings that were held in each

1166
01:48:04,160 --> 01:48:04,820
jurisdiction.

1167
01:48:08,120 --> 01:48:10,860
In addition to online webinars and open public meetings,

1168
01:48:11,300 --> 01:48:16,700
Cupertino residents were directly engaged in the following ways with the D&s of farmers market

1169
01:48:16,700 --> 01:48:20,400
and flea market being key touch points for the outreach team.

1170
01:48:24,420 --> 01:48:26,220
During the first phase of the project,

1171
01:48:26,600 --> 01:48:32,760
various outreach methods were used to identify community needs along the corridor and this graphic

1172
01:48:32,760 --> 01:48:38,280
was developed after summarizing those different community input methods just to visualize the level

1173
01:48:38,280 --> 01:48:42,580
of comfort and convenience for different transportation modes across the corridor.

1174
01:48:43,640 --> 01:48:48,560
And the image in the lower right is from the Deans of Farmers Market and some of the outreach

1175
01:48:48,560 --> 01:48:49,520
that happened there.

1176
01:48:52,930 --> 01:48:58,030
The outcomes from each phase inform the subsequent phase and phase one, the community identified

1177
01:48:58,690 --> 01:49:00,550
key issues in the corridor.

1178
01:49:00,550 --> 01:49:06,150
this led to the development of general concepts for a vision that were formed by the

1179
01:49:06,150 --> 01:49:11,470
Cag and the public. And then from their individual project recommendations were developed.

1180
01:49:12,030 --> 01:49:17,210
And these project recommendations are projects that came from existing agency plan documents.

1181
01:49:21,080 --> 01:49:24,420
The vision was an iterative process that took a couple months to develop,

1182
01:49:24,880 --> 01:49:29,420
and it's comprised of two parts, the first of which is here, and it's a general statement

1183
01:49:29,420 --> 01:49:37,160
that the corridor agency should really strive to create a corridor that is safe and enjoyable for all ages and abilities,

1184
01:49:37,860 --> 01:49:39,860
as well as all transportation modes.

1185
01:49:42,860 --> 01:49:49,620
And then the second part of the vision goes in a detail about the elements that can be implemented to achieve that broader vision.

1186
01:49:49,960 --> 01:49:54,540
This includes an emphasis on transit, the need to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly,

1187
01:49:55,000 --> 01:49:58,060
and consider the need for efficient automobile travel.

1188
01:50:01,070 --> 01:50:06,570
So to realize this vision, the community looked at existing agency plan projects like I mentioned,

1189
01:50:07,090 --> 01:50:11,810
those projects which could be advanced to help create the corridor that was described in the vision,

1190
01:50:12,390 --> 01:50:18,230
and during this phase various projects were evaluated by the community to see which they felt should be prioritized,

1191
01:50:18,690 --> 01:50:25,630
and then those community selected projects were then categorized into three timeframes, the near, mid, and long-term projects.

1192
01:50:25,630 --> 01:50:39,950
This was originally called the implementation plan, but really should be thought of as the recommendation plan, which is why at the final steering committee meeting in December, the steering committee renamed that chapter of the report, the recommendation plan.

1193
01:50:44,140 --> 01:50:49,140
So, the first of the near-term projects are the corridor identity maintenance projects,

1194
01:50:49,380 --> 01:50:54,280
and this is really a package of programs that are place-making oriented,

1195
01:50:54,600 --> 01:50:59,580
just to make the corridor a more enjoyable experience, which is one of the primary goals

1196
01:50:59,580 --> 01:51:00,540
of the vision statement.

1197
01:51:03,340 --> 01:51:06,080
The second group of the near-term projects

1198
01:51:07,100 --> 01:51:10,220
relate to the transit first vision for the corridor,

1199
01:51:10,760 --> 01:51:15,440
and these are projects that would be led by VTA with ongoing coordination

1200
01:51:15,440 --> 01:51:33,760
and approval from each agency, and the recommended projects included in this bucket are all policy oriented and just emphasize the need for corridor wide coordination, just to optimize existing transit service along Steven's Creek.

1201
01:51:36,770 --> 01:51:41,930
Then, again, consistent with this community vision of a safer, more enjoyable corridor, various

1202
01:51:41,930 --> 01:51:48,070
bike and ped projects were also identified, additionally the need to add street trees was

1203
01:51:48,070 --> 01:51:51,550
identified just to, again, improve the overall field of the space.

1204
01:51:52,050 --> 01:51:56,210
As I'm sure all of you know, from your own experiences, Cooper Tino has great street trees

1205
01:51:56,210 --> 01:52:00,150
that prominently align the corridor, as you can see here in the image.

1206
01:52:03,030 --> 01:52:09,830
So, the next category is the midterm, or the 10-year projects, and these consist of intersection

1207
01:52:09,830 --> 01:52:16,290
and crossing projects that enhance safety at key locations, and during the biking tour that

1208
01:52:16,290 --> 01:52:21,450
happened during the outreach participants went down and visited the McClellan and Danza intersection

1209
01:52:21,450 --> 01:52:26,810
and remarked that this is exactly a type of protection that they would like to see the implemented

1210
01:52:26,810 --> 01:52:27,830
along Stephen's Creek.

1211
01:52:32,040 --> 01:52:36,340
And then lastly, we have the long-term project, which is to further study

1212
01:52:36,340 --> 01:52:41,920
potential for grade separated high capacity transit while also adhering to

1213
01:52:41,920 --> 01:52:46,980
Cupertino's stated resolution that we consider an alternate alignment along

1214
01:52:46,980 --> 01:52:53,740
I280. An example project timeline you see here is an estimate provided by VTA

1215
01:52:53,740 --> 01:52:57,420
that's based off of the East Ridge light rail extension project.

1216
01:53:00,910 --> 01:53:01,510
So at the final

1217
01:53:01,510 --> 01:53:05,710
steering committee in December the steering committee amended and then approved

1218
01:53:05,710 --> 01:53:11,650
the plan changing it from implementation to recommendation, and it also kicked it back

1219
01:53:11,650 --> 01:53:14,790
to each jurisdiction to review within a local context.

1220
01:53:18,020 --> 01:53:23,020
The plan then went to the BPC in April, and the BPC recommended that the city council

1221
01:53:23,020 --> 01:53:29,520
except the plan with the qualifications that it has made clear that the city maintains final

1222
01:53:29,520 --> 01:53:35,240
decision making authority over the projects that are in the city, and it also reaffirm

1223
01:53:35,240 --> 01:53:39,340
the city's commitment to the project under the 2019 Resolution.

1224
01:53:43,310 --> 01:53:49,550
The study is currently making its way through each jurisdictions approval process, and the steering committee is

1225
01:53:49,550 --> 01:53:58,770
ing a meeting date sometime in the summer to discuss progress on each jurisdiction, accepting the plan,

1226
01:53:59,170 --> 01:54:03,790
as well as to give staff direction on how to proceed. And then at this time,

1227
01:54:07,430 --> 01:54:12,950
It's also really important to note that if the city does decide to accept the plan that

1228
01:54:12,950 --> 01:54:17,890
in no way constitutes the approval of all the projects within the plan and each and

1229
01:54:17,890 --> 01:54:22,630
every one of those projects is still at the discretion of the city with respect to whether

1230
01:54:22,630 --> 01:54:24,510
or not it wants to implement those.

1231
01:54:29,300 --> 01:54:35,180
So the recommended action for this item is for the planning commission to recommend that the city council

1232
01:54:35,180 --> 01:54:40,080
except the Steven's Creek Boulevard corridor vision study as it is.

1233
01:54:44,260 --> 01:54:45,840
Can you go back to the last slide?

1234
01:54:48,670 --> 01:54:53,090
Where does this say as it is here? It doesn't say. Sorry. You just put that in.

1235
01:54:57,210 --> 01:54:57,210
Okay.

1236
01:54:57,230 --> 01:55:01,430
Do you have more slides? Was that the last slide? No, that was the last slide. Okay, great.

1237
01:55:01,790 --> 01:55:07,870
Thank you, Matt, to appreciate your pleasing through this. It's still keeping us informed. I appreciate the

1238
01:55:08,830 --> 01:55:14,330
presentation as always and appreciate a full house from staff so before we open it up for

1239
01:55:14,330 --> 01:55:21,450
questions just a couple of clarifying things I just want to get the recommendation if you

1240
01:55:21,450 --> 01:55:23,310
might put up the recommendation again

1241
01:55:34,380 --> 01:55:36,740
and maybe if you might keep the presentation in case

1242
01:55:36,740 --> 01:55:42,980
we need to flash back to any slides yes yes so the recommendation does that factor in the input

1243
01:55:42,980 --> 01:55:44,380
from the bytepad commission.

1244
01:55:45,240 --> 01:55:46,700
It will, yes.

1245
01:55:47,940 --> 01:55:52,980
So I just want to make sure that what we are reviewing here is

1246
01:55:53,820 --> 01:55:58,220
the staff presentation that went into the bytepad commission and then your recommendation

1247
01:55:59,420 --> 01:56:03,160
is to accept the recommendations from the bytepad commission, is that right?

1248
01:56:03,720 --> 01:56:03,900
Yes.

1249
01:56:05,960 --> 01:56:09,400
And if you might comment on the

1250
01:56:09,400 --> 01:56:15,560
the process through which you got stakeholder and word that any businesses that had a chance

1251
01:56:15,560 --> 01:56:16,440
to give input.

1252
01:56:16,920 --> 01:56:22,920
So the consultant team contacted many businesses along the corridor most notably the

1253
01:56:22,920 --> 01:56:24,400
automotive deal of dealerships.

1254
01:56:24,480 --> 01:56:27,280
I know we received public comment that those folks weren't notified.

1255
01:56:27,780 --> 01:56:29,200
Those folks were notified.

1256
01:56:30,520 --> 01:56:32,640
The consultant reached out to

1257
01:56:34,850 --> 01:56:36,470
about 10 dealerships.

1258
01:56:36,470 --> 01:56:38,850
They worked with the

1259
01:56:42,210 --> 01:56:44,510
Silicon Valley

1260
01:56:48,600 --> 01:56:56,660
Auto dealership association, where they were able to get in touch with Penske Auto who oversees Audi and Porsche.

1261
01:56:57,080 --> 01:57:07,700
And they were also able to talk to Subaru and Infinity and they contacted a list of 10 dealerships along the way and didn't hear responses from those.

1262
01:57:07,700 --> 01:57:14,040
Okay. Sounds good. I think the general question that seems to come up is not enough community

1263
01:57:14,040 --> 01:57:18,260
outreach, but I think we'll just throw in diversity of stakeholder outreach as well,

1264
01:57:18,320 --> 01:57:23,300
just making sure we get all parties at the table that need to have it in put on the boulevard's.

1265
01:57:25,260 --> 01:57:28,300
I will open it up to the commissioner so there are any questions at this time.

1266
01:57:30,580 --> 01:57:35,320
Yeah, I had a quick question. I wanted to clarify around, sorry about that. The transit signal

1267
01:57:35,320 --> 01:57:42,100
priority we have had some concern from residents and I wanted to understand how does it actually work

1268
01:57:42,100 --> 01:57:48,560
would technically be the amount of green light time on Steven's Creek increase basically

1269
01:57:48,560 --> 01:57:55,640
to make way for each bus you know would it actually lead to a faster Steven's Creek but then

1270
01:57:55,640 --> 01:58:00,580
maybe slower intersections that come up to Steven's Creek if you could just clarify that that would

1271
01:58:00,580 --> 01:58:05,340
Thank you. I'll be happy to answer that question. Good evening. Commissioner's on David still

1272
01:58:05,340 --> 01:58:10,800
in the transportation manager for the city. Happy to be here tonight to discuss this

1273
01:58:10,800 --> 01:58:18,320
important project with you all. Transit signal priority is a feature that is locally implemented

1274
01:58:18,320 --> 01:58:26,500
at each traffic signal that you define certain parameters that allow buses that may be behind

1275
01:58:26,500 --> 01:58:34,940
schedule to get an advanced green generally to allow them to catch up to the schedule that

1276
01:58:34,940 --> 01:58:36,180
they are supposed to be on.

1277
01:58:37,260 --> 01:58:41,200
And the way it works is generally either a green light for Steven Street Boulevard, for

1278
01:58:41,200 --> 01:58:47,280
example, will come on a few seconds early or at May the red light for that particular movement

1279
01:58:47,280 --> 01:58:51,300
might be delayed by a few seconds to allow a bus to proceed.

1280
01:58:51,300 --> 01:58:56,860
And those are parameters that are completely under the city's control.

1281
01:58:57,640 --> 01:59:03,380
That's not something that, so even the VTA, for example, would coordinate this effort among all of the jurisdictions.

1282
01:59:04,980 --> 01:59:14,040
Every city maintains control of its intersections and can determine what those parameters are in terms of additional green time or moving it up.

1283
01:59:14,040 --> 01:59:19,220
generally results in little to no additional delays for vehicles because we're only talking

1284
01:59:19,220 --> 01:59:24,320
about a few seconds of advance or retarding of green times to allow the buses to stay on

1285
01:59:24,320 --> 01:59:31,220
schedule. So does if there's a green time extended for a bus does it later on get detracted

1286
01:59:31,220 --> 01:59:36,080
or is there a later on subsequent longer red time that makes up for that or is that up to the city

1287
01:59:36,080 --> 01:59:41,400
to decide? It's up to the city to decide that signals generally are responsive to the traffic

1288
01:59:41,400 --> 01:59:47,080
out at the time. So if the intersection determines that, there's a need to hold the green a little

1289
01:59:47,080 --> 01:59:51,460
longer on the next cycle to allow cars to. It can do that. Thank you.

1290
01:59:53,980 --> 01:59:55,560
So I wonder what the width of

1291
01:59:55,560 --> 01:59:59,980
the corridor is. Is it just Steven's Creek Boulevard? And the reason I'm asking a-

1292
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:06,440
I look, I bicycle a lot and I look at other cities like Palo Alto and Mountain View and they specifically

1293
02:00:07,040 --> 02:00:15,940
are trying to get the bicycles onto bike boulevard's which are not on El Camino or Alma or Central

1294
02:00:15,940 --> 02:00:23,020
Expressway. And this seems to try and when I ride my bike to San Jose, I'm either using prune ridge,

1295
02:00:23,020 --> 02:00:33,560
a park or I'm on the south side of 280 and using crossing at midi and using Williams and

1296
02:00:33,560 --> 02:00:42,580
it's a much more pleasant ride because you're not on the street with cars, you know, zooming

1297
02:00:43,260 --> 02:00:45,720
past you really close and you have less intersections.

1298
02:00:46,600 --> 02:00:52,180
So I'm just wondering when you say corridor is it just Steven's Creek Boulevard or

1299
02:00:52,180 --> 02:00:58,060
is it extend a half mile or a kilometer to either side or what?

1300
02:00:58,500 --> 02:01:08,240
Yeah, so the corridor is a half mile north and a half mile south, so all the analysis that went into this project was considering that as well as key connections to the corridor.

1301
02:01:08,780 --> 02:01:14,700
So those parallel routes are things that were considered and are included in terms of the bike treatments.

1302
02:01:14,700 --> 02:01:20,620
the plan isn't saying we need to install bike lands on Steven's Creek.

1303
02:01:21,240 --> 02:01:26,820
It's saying we need to look at the corridor as a whole and understand how we can enhance it.

1304
02:01:27,060 --> 02:01:28,540
So that's more pedestrian and bike friendly.

1305
02:01:29,760 --> 02:01:33,200
Okay, so it's really emphasizing Steven's Creek.

1306
02:01:33,560 --> 02:01:39,600
Like, prune ridges more than prune ridges 0.6 miles from Steven's Creek.

1307
02:01:39,600 --> 02:01:43,880
So that would not be considered part of the corridor, is that correct?

1308
02:01:45,320 --> 02:01:50,540
One of the recommendations in the study is for cities to implement their relevant plans,

1309
02:01:50,940 --> 02:01:56,460
and the prune ridge complete streets plan, or blanking on the exact name for it, was one

1310
02:01:56,460 --> 02:01:57,880
of the plans that was identified.

1311
02:01:59,000 --> 02:02:03,440
So when thinking about the corridor, it shouldn't be thought of just as Stephen's Greek alone,

1312
02:02:03,440 --> 02:02:08,380
But how do we move people used west on all the roads that are available to us?

1313
02:02:10,220 --> 02:02:11,420
Okay, thank you.

1314
02:02:15,580 --> 02:02:22,980
Oh, sorry. So yeah, so I'm looking at bottom of page 50. I think figure 14 and 15 and that's what you're referring to, right?

1315
02:02:23,740 --> 02:02:25,880
The the kind of a complete network

1316
02:02:26,740 --> 02:02:36,500
Not just protected by claims on on Steven Street Boulevard, but the surrounding streets as well. Correct. If you're referring to the the map of the bike network in the plan

1317
02:02:36,500 --> 02:02:43,220
Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So I just want to clarify the reason people bike on Steven Street Boulevard is

1318
02:02:43,220 --> 02:02:47,480
because it's often the most direct and fastest way to get there versus, you know, me

1319
02:02:47,480 --> 02:02:53,860
entering 40 minutes for a 10 minute, otherwise, you know, 10 minute destination distance. And also a

1320
02:02:53,860 --> 02:02:58,760
lot of the destinations are on Steven Street Boulevard. So if you want to go to a restaurant or

1321
02:02:58,760 --> 02:03:03,660
you want to go to a Main Street or you want to go to a cafe or the bank, you don't have a choice

1322
02:03:03,660 --> 02:03:04,940
but to buy counts to even scrape.

1323
02:03:05,420 --> 02:03:08,480
So I do think it has to be part of the corridor.

1324
02:03:09,220 --> 02:03:12,420
And we can't just say, okay, just to remind

1325
02:03:12,420 --> 02:03:14,460
commissioners for doing questions right now,

1326
02:03:14,580 --> 02:03:15,420
we will go to discussion.

1327
02:03:15,760 --> 02:03:17,280
Does that make sense to you?

1328
02:03:17,460 --> 02:03:18,720
That's the question.

1329
02:03:19,980 --> 02:03:20,980
That does make sense, yeah.

1330
02:03:21,000 --> 02:03:22,460
All right, thank you.

1331
02:03:22,600 --> 02:03:24,700
Wonderful, appreciate the creativity there.

1332
02:03:25,440 --> 02:03:26,040
Other questions?

1333
02:03:27,660 --> 02:03:28,740
I do have a question.

1334
02:03:28,860 --> 02:03:31,880
Can you comment on the funding that the city put into this

1335
02:03:31,880 --> 02:03:37,680
during the period looking backward and then what is sort of the funding expectation looking

1336
02:03:37,680 --> 02:03:45,900
forward because the report just talked about ongoing into perpetuity coordination across the

1337
02:03:45,900 --> 02:03:49,620
members of the corridor and what is the translate to in funding for the city.

1338
02:03:54,260 --> 02:04:02,660
So the city put in about $154,000, I believe, to cooperate in the vision study to get to the

1339
02:04:02,660 --> 02:04:10,700
point that we are at today, that is the end of the city's current financial obligation to

1340
02:04:10,700 --> 02:04:11,660
the project.

1341
02:04:12,820 --> 02:04:14,760
With regard to the future,

1342
02:04:16,940 --> 02:04:20,440
how the study or the process proceeds from this point on hasn't

1343
02:04:20,440 --> 02:04:24,700
been exactly determined, there will be some form of steering committee which will most likely

1344
02:04:24,700 --> 02:04:30,280
continue into the future to discuss how to move forward with some of these recommendations

1345
02:04:30,280 --> 02:04:38,040
in the various jurisdictions, the any projects there would need to be most likely outside

1346
02:04:38,040 --> 02:04:44,820
sources of funding identified in order to move on most of the projects, at least the medium

1347
02:04:44,820 --> 02:04:51,180
and the long-term projects in the project list. So the cities would to extent that they remain

1348
02:04:51,180 --> 02:04:57,460
to be involved would cooperate to determine outside funding sources for those projects. And that's

1349
02:04:57,460 --> 02:05:06,360
reason for the partnership is that makes the likelihood of being selected for a grant a lot

1350
02:05:06,360 --> 02:05:12,660
more likely if the agencies that provide the funding see that it's multi-jurist, multi-jurist

1351
02:05:12,660 --> 02:05:20,340
fictional partnership project moving forward. And so to follow up on that then the 154,000 was

1352
02:05:20,340 --> 02:05:28,260
offset by grants? I believe that was general fun money. I was okay and then if we were to

1353
02:05:28,260 --> 02:05:34,180
recommend adopting this is the thought process then that we were to apply for grants that would

1354
02:05:34,180 --> 02:05:41,400
offset the cost of that is that how we should think of this or is this an ongoing added cost burden

1355
02:05:41,400 --> 02:05:47,940
that the city would be taking on if it chose to pursue this. There's no there's no finding obligation

1356
02:05:47,940 --> 02:05:51,560
and to the city by accepting the plan this evening.

1357
02:05:52,300 --> 02:05:58,260
The $154,000 has been spent and will not be reimbursed through grants.

1358
02:05:58,560 --> 02:06:01,440
You can't apply for reimbursement for many that's already been spent.

1359
02:06:02,440 --> 02:06:09,480
But the city can participate to the extent that it desires or not moving forward with respect

1360
02:06:09,480 --> 02:06:12,400
to any of the recommendations in the project.

1361
02:06:12,420 --> 02:06:15,640
There's no obligation by accepting the plan this evening or at the city council.

1362
02:06:16,260 --> 02:06:19,200
And then, sorry, go ahead, Ted, what did you want to add?

1363
02:06:19,240 --> 02:06:23,380
And I'm just going to say any further spending for this project would have to be approved by City Council.

1364
02:06:25,320 --> 02:06:40,140
And then the commentary, I think, towards the wrap of the corridor study was that the recommendations went from an implementation plan to set of recommendations.

1365
02:06:40,140 --> 02:06:45,980
I believe was I think the term you used and then you said local guidelines would be

1366
02:06:46,900 --> 02:06:52,380
allowed to take effect and they were recommending relevant local plans is that how I

1367
02:06:52,380 --> 02:06:58,060
interpreted it I get that right was that you're closing yeah so it was always

1368
02:06:58,880 --> 02:07:03,980
it's always thought of as a recommendation plan the term implementation was probably used

1369
02:07:03,980 --> 02:07:08,940
just, you know, appropriately and scared some folks, and then one of, to your second part,

1370
02:07:09,100 --> 02:07:15,520
one of the recommendations that's included in this plan is for cities to, just do what

1371
02:07:15,520 --> 02:07:20,880
they say they're going to be doing anyway with respect to their multimodal plans or the

1372
02:07:20,880 --> 02:07:21,740
primary plan.

1373
02:07:23,240 --> 02:07:33,960
And so on that note, you know, we have a number of local plans, we have the ADP, we have the

1374
02:07:33,960 --> 02:07:38,800
of these that are in progress right now. So would you say this plan is a super set of those

1375
02:07:38,800 --> 02:07:44,440
or is the ATP a super set of this does one subsume the other? How should we review these various

1376
02:07:44,440 --> 02:07:53,200
plans? I wouldn't say there's necessarily a hierarchy. I would say this plan is useful in that

1377
02:07:53,780 --> 02:08:00,140
when if the city does decide to pursue grant funding for those other projects we have this document

1378
02:08:00,140 --> 02:08:05,060
that we can point to to say that this project is within the Stevens Creek corridor vision study

1379
02:08:05,060 --> 02:08:11,120
and is critically important not only to Cupertino but also to San Jose Santa Clara and the county.

1380
02:08:11,920 --> 02:08:17,580
So you're able to demonstrate a larger impact. So if the city wants to pursue those projects,

1381
02:08:18,220 --> 02:08:23,960
there's a better chance that those projects would be looked at more favorably by those granting agencies.

1382
02:08:25,400 --> 02:08:31,280
And given the other projects sort of covered the whole scope of the city, this one is sort of

1383
02:08:31,280 --> 02:08:36,040
corridor focused, would you say maybe the ATP was a superset of this and the ATP could

1384
02:08:36,040 --> 02:08:41,440
subsume this is there. Is there a reason to pursue both projects or to be say that our local

1385
02:08:41,440 --> 02:08:48,720
implementation of this shall be through the ATP for example. The ATP is entirely different

1386
02:08:48,720 --> 02:08:56,320
document and it's scope completely differently. This is looking at, again, those policy recommendations

1387
02:08:56,320 --> 02:09:04,520
related to transit, those pedestrian enhancements, like street trees and intersection improvements.

1388
02:09:04,760 --> 02:09:10,520
The ATP is much more comprehensive and focused on how do we build out the city's active

1389
02:09:10,520 --> 02:09:15,960
transportation network. So again, there's no hierarchy here.

1390
02:09:15,960 --> 02:09:17,440
Okay, very good.

1391
02:09:17,780 --> 02:09:18,280
Other questions?

1392
02:09:18,500 --> 02:09:19,220
I want to pause here.

1393
02:09:19,520 --> 02:09:20,760
I have panelists to do a bit.

1394
02:09:21,100 --> 02:09:23,980
Actually, since we talked a little about finance of Curious,

1395
02:09:25,600 --> 02:09:29,100
the advisory committee, was there a mechanism through which there's

1396
02:09:29,100 --> 02:09:38,180
some recommendations or estimates of the implementation cost for this plan at the end of the plan?

1397
02:09:38,700 --> 02:09:41,500
Now, Curious, was there something,

1398
02:09:44,090 --> 02:09:44,810
it seems like

1399
02:09:47,450 --> 02:10:01,330
And I'm just curious whether there's a grading factor that was applied or as it's just, you know, at the end of the day, you know, you provided, here's a group of Tinos of total,

1400
02:10:03,340 --> 02:10:04,560
or I'm just reading it.

1401
02:10:06,740 --> 02:10:17,700
I saw some gigantic projects like Senos, they had some, you know, 10 million dollar projects to there, but somehow the capital project component came in for them at the high side of 9.4 million.

1402
02:10:18,440 --> 02:10:23,080
You're referring to the cost estimates in the tables in the back of the plan.

1403
02:10:23,280 --> 02:10:29,340
Yeah, those are very, very high-level cost estimates that were developed by the consultants as part of the process there.

1404
02:10:30,380 --> 02:10:39,380
Those would probably change considerably in the future as the project development proceeds on the scopes of the individual projects get better defined.

1405
02:10:39,380 --> 02:10:47,260
Yeah. It was interesting to me in reading this because the, you know, the four communities

1406
02:10:47,260 --> 02:10:53,860
mentioned there are kind of in the same ballpark. I mean, you know, and yet there are things

1407
02:10:53,860 --> 02:10:58,880
like, for instance, the cost of having street trees. In Cuba, Tina would be much lower than

1408
02:10:58,880 --> 02:11:05,160
it would be in San Jose just because we have trees right now and they don't, that kind of thing.

1409
02:11:05,800 --> 02:11:11,120
Yeah, so I, part of that is just to understand, you know, to make this, to turn this in the

1410
02:11:11,120 --> 02:11:17,400
implementation, to turn this into a, excuse me, a plan. It seems like that area probably,

1411
02:11:18,340 --> 02:11:23,140
probably could use some additional refinement, but I understood that it's, it's, you know,

1412
02:11:23,220 --> 02:11:26,820
this is just kind of a very high-level planning exercise.

1413
02:11:30,560 --> 02:11:32,000
Maybe a follow-on question.

1414
02:11:32,000 --> 02:11:43,020
Thank you for including the 2019 Resolution which I believe our current commissioner was probably part of that so he may have some history and context on that as well.

1415
02:11:43,240 --> 02:11:48,340
I sign if I may if I may just make that plug there.

1416
02:11:49,260 --> 02:11:59,320
But can you comment on whether the other cities in the corridor had a resolution to similar effect or what was the nature of the resolution if there was one from the other cities.

1417
02:11:59,320 --> 02:12:07,600
For example, agree on the concept of a great separated high capacity transit, you know, I'll just pick on that one for example.

1418
02:12:08,380 --> 02:12:10,580
The other cities did have resolutions.

1419
02:12:11,460 --> 02:12:14,400
I don't recall the details of their resolutions.

1420
02:12:15,780 --> 02:12:17,780
They're listed on the project website.

1421
02:12:18,880 --> 02:12:20,320
Maybe we can pull those up.

1422
02:12:21,540 --> 02:12:26,100
But would you recall if the great separated high capacity transit figure in their resolutions?

1423
02:12:27,300 --> 02:12:28,180
I'm not sure.

1424
02:12:28,180 --> 02:12:34,160
Okay, because it would be kind of org for Cooper Diner to have a great separated high capacity

1425
02:12:34,160 --> 02:12:38,240
faster than the rent of the Cooper Diner corridor but not the rest of it, so I'm curious

1426
02:12:38,240 --> 02:12:43,180
how and maybe our commissioner's sure might have some history there.

1427
02:12:44,560 --> 02:12:48,120
I don't recall other cities signing on.

1428
02:12:48,120 --> 02:12:58,080
I do recall that the emphasis has always been on Stephen's Creek Boulevard and at the time

1429
02:12:59,180 --> 02:13:04,680
unanimous unanimously we decided hey that's great except that doesn't serve either

1430
02:13:04,680 --> 02:13:11,360
apple campus and that's why you know we had mentioned that we would prefer it in the

1431
02:13:11,360 --> 02:13:16,560
median of 280 at least in Cupertino the other reason is it would be a lot less

1432
02:13:16,560 --> 02:13:22,300
expensive to put it in the existing median than to do it any other way I think at

1433
02:13:22,300 --> 02:13:31,840
time, it was estimated at like $50 million a mile in the median of $280, and it was under

1434
02:13:31,840 --> 02:13:36,200
ground, it would be like a billion dollars a mile, but obviously that can happen.

1435
02:13:36,980 --> 02:13:42,800
And I think that was one of the reasons we had preferred the 280 alignment.

1436
02:13:43,240 --> 02:13:49,780
I think mainly because it, you know, Stevens Creek Boulevard doesn't really go between

1437
02:13:49,780 --> 02:13:55,360
jobs rich areas and housing rich areas. Those are the more the north south

1438
02:13:55,360 --> 02:14:02,200
routes like Lawrence and Santa Moss. Steven's Creek will serve several shopping

1439
02:14:02,200 --> 02:14:07,360
centers but it's really not around the people commute on and we were more

1440
02:14:07,360 --> 02:14:13,080
interested in daily, you know, how can we serve commuters, you know, maybe the ones

1441
02:14:13,080 --> 02:14:17,560
that aren't taking the Apple corporate bus. And I think that was the main reason

1442
02:14:17,560 --> 02:14:19,480
and that we are preferred to 80.

1443
02:14:19,960 --> 02:14:21,020
Thank you.

1444
02:14:21,260 --> 02:14:22,500
Chair, I can answer that question.

1445
02:14:22,580 --> 02:14:23,160
Sure, please.

1446
02:14:24,360 --> 02:14:26,860
So reading from the City of Santa Clara's resolution,

1447
02:14:27,240 --> 02:14:30,280
I'll quote, that the study considers potential options

1448
02:14:30,280 --> 02:14:33,540
for a great, separated, high capacity transit system

1449
02:14:33,540 --> 02:14:35,420
for the Steven Street Boulevard corridor

1450
02:14:35,420 --> 02:14:38,040
that connects the cities of Santa Rosa, Santa Clara,

1451
02:14:38,400 --> 02:14:45,540
and Cupertino, and from the city of San Jose's resolution,

1452
02:14:45,540 --> 02:14:59,020
The City of San Jose supports a complete streets and near-term transit implementation plan that considers new modes of transportation and a great separated high capacity transit system for the Stephen squeak corridor that connects the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertina.

1453
02:15:00,000 --> 02:15:29,000
Thank you for that clarification. And so it sounds like across the corridor there was broad alignment around the concept of a great separated high capacity transit that would be the focus of this of this study going forward. And so I'm curious when I look at the study report though the word grade separated seems to have sort of lost focus. And I see separated but not great separated. Can you comment on how the report lost its focus on the great separated part of it?

1454
02:15:30,000 --> 02:15:33,520
Or is that something staff is able to comment on?

1455
02:15:33,900 --> 02:15:36,200
I don't believe there is an intention that the report

1456
02:15:36,200 --> 02:15:39,060
was focused on the great-separated aspect.

1457
02:15:39,860 --> 02:15:46,520
The report contains a list of eight or so options for accommodating

1458
02:15:46,520 --> 02:15:51,980
transit down Steven Street Boulevard, including a great-separated

1459
02:15:51,980 --> 02:15:57,380
including at-grade with a specific note that an at-grade option,

1460
02:15:57,380 --> 02:16:04,620
There's a cost estimate for one that excludes the Cupertino section so that we don't violate the conditions in the

1461
02:16:04,620 --> 02:16:06,780
Resolution that Cupertino City Council

1462
02:16:07,560 --> 02:16:16,420
Adopted back in 2019 so the study does not recommend a specific option it looks it provides information and

1463
02:16:17,160 --> 02:16:21,540
Does a very high level study of many options for transit along the corridor?

1464
02:16:21,700 --> 02:16:24,320
There wasn't an intention to necessarily

1465
02:16:25,300 --> 02:16:27,820
reduce the focus from grade separation.

1466
02:16:29,180 --> 02:16:31,840
Okay, but if I look at the report,

1467
02:16:32,580 --> 02:16:37,460
prominently I find separated as opposed to grade separated and some places that is

1468
02:16:37,460 --> 02:16:42,020
at grade, which I don't think the resolutions that were made refer to,

1469
02:16:42,160 --> 02:16:47,060
was there any discussion through the course of that steering committee meeting to

1470
02:16:47,060 --> 02:16:51,320
maintain fidelity to the resolutions and focus on the grade separated part of

1471
02:16:51,320 --> 02:16:55,000
supposed to add grade or omitting the grade separation?

1472
02:16:56,940 --> 02:17:02,360
Yes, there was, but we did hear from many members of the community that wanted to consider

1473
02:17:02,360 --> 02:17:10,380
at grade transit and so to responsive to community input, it needed to be acknowledged and placed in the study.

1474
02:17:11,980 --> 02:17:15,720
And was there any characterization of what the nature of that changed in port was?

1475
02:17:15,760 --> 02:17:17,300
I assume going into that resolution.

1476
02:17:17,300 --> 02:17:21,080
and there was input from the same set of stakeholders,

1477
02:17:21,560 --> 02:17:25,380
the conditions change between 2019 to 2025,

1478
02:17:25,600 --> 02:17:27,240
because if anything, I would assume COVID

1479
02:17:27,240 --> 02:17:29,960
and everything else has changed our way of working,

1480
02:17:30,180 --> 02:17:32,820
and our way of commuting, there's a lot more online classes

1481
02:17:32,820 --> 02:17:34,320
for the as a college, for example,

1482
02:17:34,480 --> 02:17:37,540
it's somewhere that 56% of the as a students

1483
02:17:37,540 --> 02:17:38,940
are actually online students.

1484
02:17:39,280 --> 02:17:42,780
And so I have to imagine 2019 that may or may not have been

1485
02:17:42,780 --> 02:17:46,600
the case, can you comment on what changed

1486
02:17:46,600 --> 02:17:47,260
in the import?

1487
02:17:48,520 --> 02:17:53,480
I cannot, no, I can just speak to the input that we received from the public as a part of

1488
02:17:53,480 --> 02:17:54,300
this process.

1489
02:17:54,680 --> 02:18:01,180
And so we wanted to honor that and make sure that it was reflected in the document.

1490
02:18:01,400 --> 02:18:05,640
But again, this isn't a prescriptive requirement that Cupertino had adopted any kind of an

1491
02:18:05,640 --> 02:18:11,580
at grade, you know, transit, and there are alternatives listed for an elevated grade

1492
02:18:11,580 --> 02:18:15,640
separated transit in conformance with the resolution that our city council passed.

1493
02:18:16,600 --> 02:18:24,080
Wonderful. Yeah, I mean, I think the concern here is we want high speed, high capacity.

1494
02:18:26,140 --> 02:18:33,260
BRT, as opposed to the current 523, is not really going to solve any issue that we see on

1495
02:18:33,260 --> 02:18:41,640
Steven's Creek. And, you know, if we accept the study, you know, I would want to put something

1496
02:18:41,640 --> 02:18:46,560
and there that, you know, we make it clear that we're talking great separate.

1497
02:18:47,000 --> 02:18:48,360
Just doing questions, commissioner.

1498
02:18:48,500 --> 02:18:49,160
Oh, I'm sorry.

1499
02:18:49,500 --> 02:18:52,580
But thank you for the reminder that it may be time to progress towards discussion.

1500
02:18:52,860 --> 02:18:55,440
So on that note, if you want to.

1501
02:18:55,560 --> 02:18:59,880
Just one quick item, Commissioner Fong, you had talked about why Cupertino's

1502
02:18:59,880 --> 02:19:01,420
section was was high.

1503
02:19:01,960 --> 02:19:06,960
They are looking at the entire section of Cupertino from Tantau to basically Lehigh.

1504
02:19:06,960 --> 02:19:13,500
So we've got a very long section and we have the second largest number of intersections and so some of those

1505
02:19:14,200 --> 02:19:19,960
Cossers, so see with intersections and both so it's just because we have a large section and that they're looking at

1506
02:19:20,620 --> 02:19:25,420
Okay, so we'll have more opportunity for questions, but I want to open it up for public comment if you have

1507
02:19:26,040 --> 02:19:30,020
Madam city clerk if you might share how many speakers we have

1508
02:19:31,060 --> 02:19:35,140
We have two speaker cards in person and then we have two

1509
02:19:35,140 --> 02:19:40,900
three hands raised on Zoom. They're all under the same name, same name, so I want to verify that

1510
02:19:40,900 --> 02:19:46,060
they are different people. So Zoom participants, if you don't mind, when I am mute, you please

1511
02:19:46,060 --> 02:19:46,980
state your name.

1512
02:19:53,820 --> 02:19:57,810
Betsy, you make us. Can you repeat that?

1513
02:20:00,200 --> 02:20:02,880
Betsy, you make us. Thank you.

1514
02:20:08,270 --> 02:20:15,050
I guess we're seeing more common cards coming in. Hi, this is Sundana Siva. Thank you.

1515
02:20:19,980 --> 02:20:27,580
Okay, so Madam City Clerk, if you may call on the public comments starting with folks in the room.

1516
02:20:27,960 --> 02:20:34,440
Sure, so our first speaker is Jennifer Griffin, followed by Harry Neo, followed by Emily. Welcome, Jennifer.

1517
02:20:41,990 --> 02:20:45,050
Good evening, planning commission again. Hi, Jennifer Griffin.

1518
02:20:46,010 --> 02:20:53,750
I attended all these meetings. It was two and a half years. Lots of meetings. The consultant did a great job.

1519
02:20:53,750 --> 02:20:58,270
I went on a bus ride from Dira Dawn up and down the corridor.

1520
02:20:59,150 --> 02:21:02,690
I can't walk well, so I was kind of representing a lot

1521
02:21:02,690 --> 02:21:05,910
of the people that have mobility issues.

1522
02:21:08,250 --> 02:21:12,350
I will say that I, one of the questions I had initially,

1523
02:21:13,330 --> 02:21:17,130
was why was this study going from Dira Dawn

1524
02:21:17,130 --> 02:21:21,990
in San Jose south down to Stephen's Creek Boulevard

1525
02:21:21,990 --> 02:21:23,810
and then going up to Diane's a college.

1526
02:21:24,130 --> 02:21:26,790
I didn't really get it because to me,

1527
02:21:27,030 --> 02:21:31,210
the court or has always been from downtown San Jose,

1528
02:21:31,390 --> 02:21:36,150
San Jose, state, et cetera, downtown to maybe Cooper Chino.

1529
02:21:37,250 --> 02:21:39,390
But why Derodon was involved,

1530
02:21:39,850 --> 02:21:41,170
I still don't have any idea.

1531
02:21:41,410 --> 02:21:43,450
My nephew actually lived at Derodon

1532
02:21:43,450 --> 02:21:45,050
before he moved to Seattle,

1533
02:21:45,910 --> 02:21:49,610
and I'm very familiar with K-Hill station there,

1534
02:21:49,610 --> 02:21:55,370
And I still don't understand why they even wanted to have a study there.

1535
02:21:55,590 --> 02:21:59,210
I maybe I missed the boat there, but I missed the transit.

1536
02:22:00,930 --> 02:22:09,770
One of my questions is that I wanted to make sure that people understood why Cupertino,

1537
02:22:09,970 --> 02:22:16,670
why a lot of people in Cupertino did not want to have a lane loss on Stevens Creek Boulevard

1538
02:22:16,670 --> 02:22:18,450
to BRT.

1539
02:22:19,270 --> 02:22:24,610
If they say, now I know what BRT is, I can use to call it fixed best rapid transit, but I understand

1540
02:22:24,610 --> 02:22:25,610
what BRT is now.

1541
02:22:25,990 --> 02:22:32,970
We don't want to do that, because Steven's Creek Boulevard would be completely immovable.

1542
02:22:33,410 --> 02:22:40,950
If you take a lane off in our area, you're going to slow down school traffic, apple traffic,

1543
02:22:41,070 --> 02:22:44,630
emergency vehicles, et cetera, et cetera, no, no, no, no.

1544
02:22:44,630 --> 02:22:51,170
Now, the consultants never really discussed taking a lane off.

1545
02:22:51,510 --> 02:22:53,490
They may have had it talked about it briefly.

1546
02:22:53,950 --> 02:22:58,230
But in August of last year, there was a meeting in Cupertino

1547
02:22:58,230 --> 02:23:03,610
that was bombarded by 50 people who demanded that the city

1548
02:23:03,610 --> 02:23:08,790
or the committee take one lane off of Stephen's Creek Boulevard

1549
02:23:08,790 --> 02:23:10,010
to put in BRT.

1550
02:23:10,150 --> 02:23:11,110
I didn't get it.

1551
02:23:11,110 --> 02:23:21,010
Well now I understand about SB-79 and I think this was a setup to implement SB-79 prematurely.

1552
02:23:21,390 --> 02:23:26,270
SB-79 is weiner bill and it's going through the houses now.

1553
02:23:27,670 --> 02:23:32,130
I'm really, really concerned about this. No, no, no, no, no. We don't want to do that.

1554
02:23:33,510 --> 02:23:40,150
We have a lot of issues with Stephen's Creek Boulevard but remember a lot of people drive on it.

1555
02:23:40,150 --> 02:23:43,290
I can't walk and I can't ride a bike. Thank you.

1556
02:23:43,290 --> 02:23:43,870
Thank you Jennifer.

1557
02:23:44,150 --> 02:23:44,910
Thank you Jennifer.

1558
02:23:45,110 --> 02:23:47,770
Our next speaker is Harry Newell, followed by Emily.

1559
02:23:47,930 --> 02:23:48,630
Welcome, Harry.

1560
02:24:01,880 --> 02:24:04,040
Good evening, Plana Commission. My name is Harry Newell.

1561
02:24:04,360 --> 02:24:07,180
I am a member of VTA Citizens Advisory Committee

1562
02:24:07,940 --> 02:24:12,120
and a former member of the Steven's Creek Court

1563
02:24:12,120 --> 02:24:15,940
or Vision Study Community Advisory Group.

1564
02:24:15,940 --> 02:24:17,260
Very long-winded name.

1565
02:24:17,560 --> 02:24:19,100
But I'm here today in my personal capacity.

1566
02:24:20,160 --> 02:24:23,960
Here you will see a coalition letter that I have.

1567
02:24:24,760 --> 02:24:28,400
The text in bold is the stuff that you really need to pay attention to.

1568
02:24:28,460 --> 02:24:32,020
It says the committee unanimously approved a recommended plan that would transform

1569
02:24:32,020 --> 02:24:36,000
Steven's Creek to support the safe, efficient, sustainable mobility that all users

1570
02:24:36,000 --> 02:24:36,460
deserve.

1571
02:24:37,000 --> 02:24:40,920
We, the undersigned, urge the county of Santa Clara VTA, the cities of Cupertino, Santa

1572
02:24:40,920 --> 02:24:44,500
Clara, and Sathosa to approve and implement the Steven's Creek corridor during committees

1573
02:24:44,500 --> 02:24:45,380
recommended plan.

1574
02:24:45,380 --> 02:24:53,660
And you will find, at the end of it, a very, very long list of organizations and individuals

1575
02:24:54,100 --> 02:25:00,980
who have signed on, including the California State Assembly members of Mark Berman, Patrick

1576
02:25:00,980 --> 02:25:08,400
Erin's and Ash Calra, Andrew Seagler, representing Surge Santa Clara County, Cassandra

1577
02:25:08,400 --> 02:25:13,180
Magana from West Valley Community Services and Dr. Omar Torres President of Deans of College,

1578
02:25:13,180 --> 02:25:15,180
among many more.

1579
02:25:16,800 --> 02:25:21,140
Beyond that, one of the things Commissioner Sharf that you mentioned was BRT.

1580
02:25:21,520 --> 02:25:23,580
And the previous public commenter also mentioned BRT.

1581
02:25:24,640 --> 02:25:26,560
That is a very, very specific thing.

1582
02:25:27,220 --> 02:25:29,780
A dedicated bustling is not the same as BRT.

1583
02:25:30,340 --> 02:25:33,120
And this study does not propose BRT,

1584
02:25:33,700 --> 02:25:39,060
and BRT as a specific mode is not on the table for this.

1585
02:25:40,560 --> 02:25:48,360
BRT is center running almost exclusively and requires a significant infrastructure investment that

1586
02:25:48,360 --> 02:25:49,620
side running bus lanes do not.

1587
02:25:50,300 --> 02:25:55,960
It is also worth noting a study out of Minnesota Transportation Institute at San Jose State

1588
02:25:55,960 --> 02:26:01,040
University, one of the best transportation institutes in the country, noted that bus lanes

1589
02:26:01,040 --> 02:26:07,680
when converted from a general traffic lane to a bus lane do not increase general traffic.

1590
02:26:07,680 --> 02:26:14,300
they actually keep it almost exactly the same, but they make buses faster, more reliable, cheaper to operate,

1591
02:26:15,440 --> 02:26:17,340
everything that we want out of our transit agencies.

1592
02:26:20,100 --> 02:26:31,900
But even with that, it is again worth noting that the caveats that Cupertino signed onto this product with, when Commissioner Sharf is mayor,

1593
02:26:31,900 --> 02:26:35,860
included not converting a lane in the city of Cupertino.

1594
02:26:37,080 --> 02:26:40,360
So for those who are not in favor of it,

1595
02:26:41,440 --> 02:26:43,220
you already have what you want in the city.

1596
02:26:44,740 --> 02:26:51,460
I would also note that the recommendation

1597
02:26:51,460 --> 02:26:53,600
of high capacity grade separated transit

1598
02:26:54,180 --> 02:26:57,020
should it be elevated like rail, which I think

1599
02:26:57,020 --> 02:27:00,420
would be ideal, it is very, very worth noting,

1600
02:27:00,420 --> 02:27:21,160
At a time when many projects in the United States are some of the highest costs in the world, including here locally, with Bart, VTA's elevated light rail at Eastridge, that project is actually on par with or lower than the construction costs in some low-cost countries like Thailand and India.

1601
02:27:21,160 --> 02:27:26,200
So, that is a very, very affordable way of building rapid transit.

1602
02:27:26,660 --> 02:27:34,140
It seems like a big number, but internationally, it's a very impressive cost in terms

1603
02:27:34,140 --> 02:27:36,740
of what VTA is doing on the east side.

1604
02:27:39,410 --> 02:27:45,490
Should there be any changes to this plan recommended by the Plan Commission, this will

1605
02:27:46,150 --> 02:27:49,390
due to the nature of the project have to go back to the steering committee to redevelop

1606
02:27:49,390 --> 02:27:49,870
consensus.

1607
02:27:49,870 --> 02:27:53,090
That would mean a minimum six month delay, realistically.

1608
02:27:54,510 --> 02:27:59,970
On a product that is focused so heavily on safety, that means that we will be putting

1609
02:27:59,970 --> 02:28:00,970
people at risk.

1610
02:28:01,390 --> 02:28:02,050
That's not acceptable.

1611
02:28:02,990 --> 02:28:04,410
Please adopt this unchanged.

1612
02:28:04,650 --> 02:28:04,970
Thank you.

1613
02:28:05,230 --> 02:28:05,970
Thank you, Harry.

1614
02:28:06,130 --> 02:28:11,050
Our next speaker is Emily followed by our three Zoom speakers, welcome Emily.

1615
02:28:13,180 --> 02:28:13,600
Hello.

1616
02:28:14,160 --> 02:28:15,420
My name is Emily Poon.

1617
02:28:15,600 --> 02:28:19,180
I'm an ordinary citizen, not related to any group.

1618
02:28:19,180 --> 02:28:31,720
My interest is to have everything understood by ordinary people and be really transparent in a way that is rather difficult to achieve when people are busy with their everyday lives

1619
02:28:31,720 --> 02:28:43,280
and all this talk, it has a lot of terminology that ordinary folk don't understand, like VTR and us only laying

1620
02:28:43,280 --> 02:28:54,640
But what experience I have in talking to people along the corridor, which included a lot of car dealerships and also people who work in the main street restaurants is

1621
02:28:54,640 --> 02:29:09,340
Whenever they heard about us only lane, they are in great shock, they say, what buses, the buses always run empty when they're in the part of the cupatino part of Stephen's Creek.

1622
02:29:09,340 --> 02:29:21,440
So that is to tell you I want to reflect the ignorance of the people of what is going on and what these meetings are all about.

1623
02:29:22,220 --> 02:29:36,120
Then I came in late today and I did hear the traffic engineer say that 10 dealerships were contacted by the consultants after the meeting I would like to get a hold of this list.

1624
02:29:36,120 --> 02:29:38,860
And I heard the name Subaru and Audi.

1625
02:29:39,480 --> 02:29:40,940
Why do I want these details?

1626
02:29:41,080 --> 02:29:49,620
Because I did spend two days with another volunteer who lived in Santa Clara to go to the dealerships.

1627
02:29:49,840 --> 02:29:52,720
And they are ignorant of all these goings on.

1628
02:29:53,080 --> 02:29:55,100
I want to finish my job properly.

1629
02:29:55,560 --> 02:29:59,520
Match up what I have contacted with what the engineer cited.

1630
02:30:00,340 --> 02:30:08,200
The consultants have contacted and see who got the news and who did not. Thank you.

1631
02:30:08,200 --> 02:30:12,420
Thank you, Emily. Up next, we have our first Zoom speaker.

1632
02:30:20,500 --> 02:30:20,500
Welcome.

1633
02:30:22,040 --> 02:30:28,840
Good evening. This is Betsy Megus. I'm a resident of the city of Santa Clara. I'm a member of the city of Santa Clara.

1634
02:30:28,840 --> 02:30:36,100
bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, and also a member of the VTA, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee,

1635
02:30:36,540 --> 02:30:38,260
speaking tonight for myself.

1636
02:30:40,280 --> 02:30:46,120
I'll do the bottom line first. Please recommend the city adopt the plan unchanged.

1637
02:30:46,120 --> 02:30:54,940
I attended a good many of the workshops and I have also

1638
02:30:54,940 --> 02:30:59,440
bike the entire length of this corridor and I would like to

1639
02:30:59,440 --> 02:31:01,560
thank David Stillman for coming on the

1640
02:31:01,560 --> 02:31:05,660
Cupertino end of the of the Survey Rides with us on a

1641
02:31:05,660 --> 02:31:10,920
bicycle. Some of Cupertino's bicycle facilities today are

1642
02:31:10,920 --> 02:31:14,320
what the rest of the cities along the corridor need to

1643
02:31:14,320 --> 02:31:15,900
by or two.

1644
02:31:16,420 --> 02:31:22,400
Seema said what I was going to say already, side streets are not as good, they are not

1645
02:31:22,400 --> 02:31:28,960
as direct, and the destinations are if the destination is on Steven's Creek, it doesn't

1646
02:31:28,960 --> 02:31:30,700
do any good to be on a side street.

1647
02:31:36,540 --> 02:31:43,380
I hope that the plan, I think that the plan says something already about the bicycle and pedestrian

1648
02:31:43,380 --> 02:31:44,760
collision history.

1649
02:31:45,820 --> 02:31:54,460
We need this plan for safety, not just, you know, it's not just a nice to have, but the

1650
02:31:54,460 --> 02:32:00,420
history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions on a corridor like this also speaks to the demand.

1651
02:32:00,860 --> 02:32:10,700
If people are writing a bike or walking, where it is this dangerous, we need to recognize that people want to

1652
02:32:10,700 --> 02:32:12,720
can walk there and make it less dangerous.

1653
02:32:15,340 --> 02:32:21,900
There is a lot we can do without waiting for the

1654
02:32:21,900 --> 02:32:31,460
eventual elevated grade separated transit to improve the transit that we have today. That is

1655
02:32:31,460 --> 02:32:43,560
things like the signal priority and also giving the buses and dedicated space, it would

1656
02:32:43,560 --> 02:32:50,280
not be as harmful as everybody makes it out to be as far as traffic, and it might actually

1657
02:32:50,280 --> 02:32:54,180
help people get around, including people who can't drive.

1658
02:32:56,620 --> 02:33:03,560
The potential separated transit is something like 20 to 30 years in the future.

1659
02:33:05,080 --> 02:33:12,040
This is the kind of plan that only works if all of the cities work together and sign on to it

1660
02:33:12,040 --> 02:33:15,020
and proceed to implement it.

1661
02:33:15,040 --> 02:33:18,620
Please recommend that the city of Caputino adopted the plan.

1662
02:33:19,100 --> 02:33:19,440
Thank you.

1663
02:33:21,770 --> 02:33:22,430
Thank you, Betsy.

1664
02:33:22,690 --> 02:33:25,170
We have two more hands raised on Zoom.

1665
02:33:31,040 --> 02:33:31,300
Welcome.

1666
02:33:31,300 --> 02:33:32,160
this

1667
02:33:44,200 --> 02:33:47,500
is Danny Haptum, not Henry.

1668
02:33:51,150 --> 02:34:02,370
Use these. I use Steven's big boulevard on a regular basis and I'm pretty sure a lot of you do too.

1669
02:34:02,370 --> 02:34:03,110
Um,

1670
02:34:05,330 --> 02:34:07,190
as a, uh,

1671
02:34:09,530 --> 02:34:21,390
A122, I believe that we should implement this plan because it will both make it easier for me and others to,

1672
02:34:23,620 --> 02:34:23,620
uh,

1673
02:34:23,820 --> 02:34:25,220
along Stephen's Creek.

1674
02:34:33,970 --> 02:34:35,410
Yes, I do use it a lot.

1675
02:34:38,240 --> 02:34:41,120
I have used the buses on Stephen's Creek and

1676
02:34:47,160 --> 02:34:50,500
they are crowded during certain peak periods.

1677
02:34:52,650 --> 02:34:55,850
In this night on bike, but I know a lot of people would do,

1678
02:34:59,740 --> 02:35:00,720
I'm sorry, I'm a bit nervous.

1679
02:35:04,780 --> 02:35:05,320
Thank you, Danny.

1680
02:35:08,380 --> 02:35:09,100
We have

1681
02:35:11,980 --> 02:35:16,560
one more hand raised on Zoom. Welcome.

1682
02:35:20,070 --> 02:35:26,130
Hi, my name is Kelly Wang. I am a, I am born and raised in Capricre, you know, if you

1683
02:35:26,130 --> 02:35:32,250
had just the alum, and we could travel or visit her on the Stevens Creek corridor by foot by car and by bike.

1684
02:35:32,250 --> 02:35:40,490
So, I've been following the process about reach for the Vision Plan and I support it as it's written.

1685
02:35:40,910 --> 02:35:49,250
I think it gives us a bold vision for Steven's Creek that makes it safe and attractive for businesses, visitors, residents of all ages and abilities.

1686
02:35:51,530 --> 02:35:57,770
And I know there's been a lot of concern and confusion about specific parts of the plan.

1687
02:35:57,770 --> 02:36:01,450
I view it as a pull box of ways to improve

1688
02:36:01,450 --> 02:36:04,710
livability and traffic safety on that improvement

1689
02:36:04,710 --> 02:36:06,470
on server from corridors.

1690
02:36:07,450 --> 02:36:08,770
It is...

1691
02:36:10,050 --> 02:36:13,430
Steve's Creek is a lot of things to a lot of different people.

1692
02:36:13,670 --> 02:36:17,210
And I think having this vision plan is a good way for us

1693
02:36:17,210 --> 02:36:19,870
to think about how to put you know it can

1694
02:36:20,410 --> 02:36:23,130
get way one out of the corridor and to improve

1695
02:36:23,130 --> 02:36:26,430
coordination with our neighbors in San Jose and Santa Clara.

1696
02:36:26,930 --> 02:36:31,750
While preserving a local control, this again, no specific projects are mandated by this.

1697
02:36:34,210 --> 02:36:38,770
So, as long-term as an, I think Stephen's Creek has a unique role for cryptocurrency note.

1698
02:36:39,190 --> 02:36:41,970
Unlike Santa Clara Santa Jose, it's not a border area.

1699
02:36:42,110 --> 02:36:44,490
But for cryptocurrency note, this is the heart of the city.

1700
02:36:45,010 --> 02:36:49,010
You know, and it should be an attractive, inviting and walk-able destination.

1701
02:36:49,790 --> 02:36:55,350
Or all of the cryptocurrency note, no matter if you get around by car, by foot, by bike or by transit.

1702
02:36:55,350 --> 02:37:15,870
I think the vision plan aligns with the general plan that we have, or the heart of the city, to make it that kind of thriving attractive place, or all modes of transportation, and ties into the years of planning work that can recognize them to make Stephen's streak of a very inviting kind of corridor.

1703
02:37:15,870 --> 02:37:22,070
For example, I walk around, let's say I walk to Phil's coffee, like there's so many people

1704
02:37:22,070 --> 02:37:29,130
and give my piece of advice, who are walking or crossing back and forth, I see families with

1705
02:37:29,130 --> 02:37:36,190
kids, I see seniors, I see Apple employees in their lunch break, it's surprisingly active

1706
02:37:37,290 --> 02:37:42,390
or a major six-lane road. And I think that speaks to the potential that there is here,

1707
02:37:43,030 --> 02:37:49,950
or making it even better for all ages and abilities or walking for biking for transit.

1708
02:37:50,590 --> 02:37:55,870
On the topic of bike lanes, I don't think it's side streets or protective bike lanes.

1709
02:37:56,410 --> 02:38:01,930
This vision plan examines the network as a whole, you know, looking to that half mouth buffer for

1710
02:38:01,930 --> 02:38:02,510
on each side.

1711
02:38:02,970 --> 02:38:06,910
So I think this aligns with what I want to see in the group, you know, I think aligns with

1712
02:38:06,910 --> 02:38:12,090
a lot of books in the city, you want to see as well and it really helps us to get clear

1713
02:38:12,090 --> 02:38:16,890
and get attracted part of the city that we've long lacked and we really deserve.

1714
02:38:17,590 --> 02:38:20,710
So thanks, thank you for consideration, I support the vision plan.

1715
02:38:22,960 --> 02:38:26,220
Thank you, and we have one more hand raised on Zoom.

1716
02:38:27,740 --> 02:38:27,940
Welcome.

1717
02:38:34,020 --> 02:38:34,760
Hi, City Council.

1718
02:38:34,920 --> 02:38:37,040
I mean, high planning commissions, I'm sorry about that.

1719
02:38:37,040 --> 02:38:38,300
I'm Sandana Silva.

1720
02:38:38,600 --> 02:38:43,720
I'm a student at San Jose State, and I'm from Cupertino myself,

1721
02:38:44,360 --> 02:38:46,980
and I live on the Rancher Rinkanada side of Cupertino.

1722
02:38:46,980 --> 02:38:52,980
And I do take bus 523 or 23 to get from

1723
02:38:54,300 --> 02:38:56,800
Puportino to San Jose State University.

1724
02:38:57,780 --> 02:38:59,940
And the Stephen's Creek Boulevard itself

1725
02:38:59,940 --> 02:39:03,520
is like a very heavily used corridor,

1726
02:39:03,640 --> 02:39:07,200
especially for educational and commercial institutions,

1727
02:39:08,280 --> 02:39:10,620
especially like educational institutions like Dianza College

1728
02:39:10,620 --> 02:39:13,020
and San Jose State University.

1729
02:39:13,020 --> 02:39:23,760
And it has like heavily used, like bus, bus for house on BTA itself, like a bus for

1730
02:39:23,760 --> 02:39:30,880
house 23 and 523. And 523 is like probably more widely used because of the wider

1731
02:39:30,880 --> 02:39:40,020
spacing in between the bus stops. And there are just like at least like a 10,000 people on

1732
02:39:40,020 --> 02:39:46,000
bus like per day and this would be really useful because having like a

1733
02:39:46,000 --> 02:39:51,700
bus lane on this like a boulevard would increase like the ridership or VTA even

1734
02:39:51,700 --> 02:39:56,860
more and per buses in general and buses and public transportation is a more

1735
02:39:56,860 --> 02:40:01,900
energy efficient mode of transportation itself and would help with climate

1736
02:40:01,900 --> 02:40:12,500
mitigation goals in contrast to cars which are seen as less energy efficient and releases

1737
02:40:12,500 --> 02:40:21,330
much more greenhouse gases. Thank you. Thank you. We have no hands raised on zoom and no

1738
02:40:21,330 --> 02:40:26,510
speaker cards. Thank you madam City Clerk at this time. I will close public comments. I think

1739
02:40:26,510 --> 02:40:34,590
the public members of the public that offered their invaluable input. I've also sort of channeled

1740
02:40:34,590 --> 02:40:38,590
the many written comments that we got. I believe we had several restaurants that chose to write in

1741
02:40:39,330 --> 02:40:46,230
and I think some common themes there were they value their lanes. A lot of input there are not taking

1742
02:40:46,230 --> 02:40:56,490
lanes away. A lot of input are making sure the driving is not made more troublesome and they want to be

1743
02:40:56,490 --> 02:41:01,610
without creating challenges for people that use it to commute. So just wanted to channel the written

1744
02:41:01,610 --> 02:41:05,870
comments. And at this time we will open it up for discussion and members of the commission

1745
02:41:05,870 --> 02:41:11,250
can feel free to ask questions as well. And before we do that I just want to ask a couple of

1746
02:41:11,250 --> 02:41:18,590
questions real quick. So for the projects that were identified here, obviously Cupertino has already

1747
02:41:18,590 --> 02:41:25,930
made a lot of investments in its bike infrastructure and its its corridor investments in general

1748
02:41:26,550 --> 02:41:31,170
Would you say that there are places in this in this in this report that you thought we were

1749
02:41:32,130 --> 02:41:39,170
Fairly well invested and already for example when I look at the table. We are already funded for the Steve's Creek Boulevard bike buffered bike lanes

1750
02:41:39,170 --> 02:41:45,490
I believe that project has already been prioritized and is in implementation right now for phase 2A and 2B

1751
02:41:45,490 --> 02:41:46,650
I believe or

1752
02:41:46,650 --> 02:41:51,190
Diffing phases of 2A and 2B so can you talk a little bit about what parts of this report you might

1753
02:41:52,070 --> 02:41:56,110
Consider as new work ahead of us was this work that we have invested in

1754
02:42:00,940 --> 02:42:08,440
Like you mentioned, the Stevens Creek Bikeways are a huge success for the city as shown

1755
02:42:08,440 --> 02:42:13,060
with the survey responses, and the people that participated in this project from Mark

1756
02:42:13,060 --> 02:42:19,000
that Cupertino's infrastructure made them feel more comfortable than at other places along

1757
02:42:19,000 --> 02:42:19,560
the corridor.

1758
02:42:20,060 --> 02:42:27,900
I think where this study has its most value is when thinking about the connections and the recommendations

1759
02:42:27,900 --> 02:42:33,920
that we figure out how to improve connections to Steven's Creek. Most notably the Lawrence

1760
02:42:33,920 --> 02:42:42,940
MIDI Trail is something that I think could help be advanced through this project and the treatments

1761
02:42:42,940 --> 02:42:50,360
related to placemaking and just making the corridor a more pleasant place to hang out,

1762
02:42:52,060 --> 02:42:58,560
So, I think those are the areas that the city is, you know, going to benefit the most from.

1763
02:42:58,760 --> 02:42:59,200
Thank you.

1764
02:42:59,300 --> 02:43:01,560
And then we got a number of comments on the transit part.

1765
02:43:01,700 --> 02:43:08,520
Does transportation have any metrics around utilization of our VTA transit in

1766
02:43:08,520 --> 02:43:12,620
Cupertino specifically, if you might have any metrics that you care to share?

1767
02:43:12,920 --> 02:43:14,820
I don't have those numbers off to top my head.

1768
02:43:14,900 --> 02:43:18,160
VTA publishes their boardings and a lightings online.

1769
02:43:18,160 --> 02:43:26,580
So you can go and see what ridership looks like at the city stops, but I don't know what those figures are off hand.

1770
02:43:26,900 --> 02:43:30,540
Okay, would have been good to see some metrics in the staff report as well.

1771
02:43:30,720 --> 02:43:33,160
At this time public comments are close. Thank you very much.

1772
02:43:34,380 --> 02:43:41,100
I would also like to know if there's any data we have on how many restaurants use our VTA transfer lines versus

1773
02:43:41,640 --> 02:43:47,400
Is there any characterization of the traffic that we get into the city or out of the city on these VTA lines in terms of

1774
02:43:47,400 --> 02:43:50,220
who's using our lines coming in, are going out?

1775
02:43:51,520 --> 02:43:55,960
No, I know VTA occasionally will do onboard surveys,

1776
02:43:56,320 --> 02:43:59,460
and that would be the only way for them to determine whether or not

1777
02:43:59,460 --> 02:44:01,860
those writers are actual, kupertino residents,

1778
02:44:02,280 --> 02:44:05,920
but that's a very difficult thing to determine.

1779
02:44:06,840 --> 02:44:07,440
Direct mostly.

1780
02:44:12,040 --> 02:44:15,980
I think I said would like to say as we proceed down further studies

1781
02:44:15,980 --> 02:44:20,460
of transit, that level of information would probably need to be pulled

1782
02:44:20,460 --> 02:44:27,020
at that point in time. Again, keep in mind, this is a very high level conceptual study, when

1783
02:44:27,020 --> 02:44:33,220
we were, you know, the original resolution from the City Council was to work with VTA San Jose

1784
02:44:33,220 --> 02:44:39,080
and Santa Clara to look at high capacity transit options within Cupertino, and that's kind

1785
02:44:39,080 --> 02:44:40,540
of what this report does here.

1786
02:44:41,760 --> 02:44:45,900
Yeah, I'm looking at the resolution. Thank you, Dr. Moslim, looking at the resolution.

1787
02:44:49,920 --> 02:44:50,440
And

1788
02:44:50,440 --> 02:44:59,720
look at the i280 corridor alignment and look at high capacity transit that is great separated. I believe that's the

1789
02:45:00,050 --> 02:45:10,650
That's the operational phrasing here. Is there any other questions before you go into discussion? Anyone else? Okay. Sorry.

1790
02:45:11,650 --> 02:45:23,990
So I was looking at the VTA data set and I was, was I correct that one of the speakers said that the 523 had 10,000 riders a day?

1791
02:45:23,990 --> 02:45:27,930
I can answer this question. I've looked into the numbers. I was actually going to talk about it during

1792
02:45:27,930 --> 02:45:35,170
comment, but since we're asking, so the 23 and 523 bus get about 9,000 riders per weekday

1793
02:45:35,170 --> 02:45:41,950
if you average out across weekdays and weekends at averages to about 7,800. If you look at the 23

1794
02:45:42,650 --> 02:45:49,250
the cluporotino portion of the 23,523 because the VTA does give visualizations that let you filter by

1795
02:45:49,250 --> 02:45:59,810
The number goes to about 1,690 residents or not 1,690 writers per weekday that are going

1796
02:45:59,810 --> 02:46:01,350
to stop in Cupertino.

1797
02:46:01,650 --> 02:46:02,490
We don't know where they come from.

1798
02:46:02,510 --> 02:46:04,730
That's the combination 23 and 520.

1799
02:46:05,410 --> 02:46:05,570
Okay.

1800
02:46:05,910 --> 02:46:11,230
I thought the speaker said 523 only, but maybe I've misheard.

1801
02:46:11,670 --> 02:46:13,490
I've combined 23 and 520.

1802
02:46:14,030 --> 02:46:17,650
I'm not sure about the, the speaker is probably referring to both combined.

1803
02:46:17,650 --> 02:46:20,050
because there's no way both each one and isolation.

1804
02:46:20,130 --> 02:46:21,470
Right, right, of course.

1805
02:46:22,630 --> 02:46:23,350
Thank you, Vice Chair.

1806
02:46:23,390 --> 02:46:26,290
That's helpful and appreciate the data point.

1807
02:46:27,790 --> 02:46:29,830
Anyone else have questions or we're not

1808
02:46:29,830 --> 02:46:30,630
going to kick off discussions?

1809
02:46:34,160 --> 02:46:36,000
I'm happy to kick it off since we are talking

1810
02:46:36,000 --> 02:46:37,740
about a topic that I wanted to discuss.

1811
02:46:38,220 --> 02:46:42,280
So I think that there are some great near and midterm elements

1812
02:46:42,280 --> 02:46:44,520
to the Steven's Creek Quarter Vision study

1813
02:46:44,520 --> 02:46:46,280
that I'm happy to support.

1814
02:46:46,760 --> 02:46:49,720
I do have significant concerns over the long-term component

1815
02:46:49,720 --> 02:46:56,020
of this plan which is mass transit. This originally came in 2017 that was pre-pandemic and I think a

1816
02:46:56,020 --> 02:47:01,260
lot has changed since then. My biggest concern is really around cost. We're proposing another

1817
02:47:01,800 --> 02:47:07,780
1.8 to $2.8 billion project at a time when all of our local transit agencies are encountering

1818
02:47:07,780 --> 02:47:13,580
long-term structural deficits and they have no way to fix it so far. As a few examples, you have

1819
02:47:13,580 --> 02:47:18,900
which has a projected operating deficit of $1.8 billion from 2027 to 2030.

1820
02:47:19,520 --> 02:47:25,480
CalTrain is at a $65 million 10-year operating deficit VTA just shared that they have

1821
02:47:25,480 --> 02:47:30,380
about a $780 million 10-year structural deficit starting this year as well as a hiring freeze.

1822
02:47:31,700 --> 02:47:34,740
So, you know, personally, I would think that we need to focus our resources at this moment

1823
02:47:34,740 --> 02:47:39,280
on protecting our existing transit systems that people rely very heavily on.

1824
02:47:40,280 --> 02:47:42,900
So now is not the time to be spreading our resources more thinly.

1825
02:47:43,620 --> 02:47:50,620
You know, at the end of the day, we are going to pay for this as taxpayers, the VTA is 86% funded by sales tax revenues.

1826
02:47:51,520 --> 02:47:55,600
They already have three sales tax measures. They're contemplating another sales tax measure.

1827
02:47:56,360 --> 02:47:59,040
And, you know, who knows what other taxes it'll take to get this funded?

1828
02:48:00,400 --> 02:48:07,680
And so I also do question the forecast around 20,000 riders per day on a separated transit line.

1829
02:48:07,680 --> 02:48:17,100
This is a somewhat unrealistic number that we have not attained anywhere in this nearby area even including San Jose, which is much more densely populated.

1830
02:48:17,400 --> 02:48:31,760
If you look at currently VTA has three light rail lines, and they each average about 5,000 riders per weekday, the newest part extension to Mopetus, which cost billions of dollars, gets about 1,000 riders per weekday.

1831
02:48:31,760 --> 02:48:38,580
So for whatever reason it is we've made these investments available, but people are not choosing the rail option.

1832
02:48:39,760 --> 02:48:43,620
And you know, I just talked about the 23 and 523 bus line.

1833
02:48:44,300 --> 02:48:52,400
Those are getting about in the Cupertino section of the bus line is getting about 1,690 weekday riders.

1834
02:48:52,400 --> 02:48:58,640
So this is not light rail level demand within, at least to go in and out of Cupertino.

1835
02:48:58,640 --> 02:49:01,360
and other parts perhaps, but not in the Cupertino section.

1836
02:49:02,340 --> 02:49:04,760
So what we wouldn't want to see is a massive investment

1837
02:49:04,760 --> 02:49:06,940
into a line that doesn't reach its full capacity.

1838
02:49:08,780 --> 02:49:13,620
So I do support many of the elements in the near and midterm

1839
02:49:13,620 --> 02:49:16,920
portions of this plan, but personally I think

1840
02:49:17,420 --> 02:49:21,200
now is not really the time to be participating in mass transit.

1841
02:49:22,740 --> 02:49:24,880
And I'd be curious to hear what the rest of the commission thinks.

1842
02:49:24,880 --> 02:49:32,040
So I just you're correct about the three sales tax is there's also a fourth tax which is not a sales tax

1843
02:49:32,040 --> 02:49:39,220
It's added on as a vehicle license fee add on and that's in perpetuity

1844
02:49:39,220 --> 02:49:44,140
The first sales tax half-cent is in perpetuity. The other two do have

1845
02:49:44,140 --> 02:49:49,640
Explorations. I believe one in 2036 and one in 2047

1846
02:49:49,640 --> 02:49:56,460
And so ironically, VTA, because they get so little of their revenue from fairs, they kind

1847
02:49:56,460 --> 02:50:06,140
of weathered the pandemic a lot better than Bart or Caltrain, plus they ridership was

1848
02:50:06,140 --> 02:50:09,460
so low that recovery was a lot easier as well.

1849
02:50:10,040 --> 02:50:15,540
And during the recent strike, you know, it was, hey, wait a second, they're not paying all

1850
02:50:15,540 --> 02:50:21,680
employees and yet the sales tax revenue continues to roll in, you know, they probably did pretty

1851
02:50:21,680 --> 02:50:28,120
well financially on that, which is, you know, not what we want to see. We want to have transit

1852
02:50:28,120 --> 02:50:35,240
not beyond strike, but it was a good point about the finances. I don't think they could count on

1853
02:50:35,240 --> 02:50:44,920
another sales tax passing to finance transit along separated grade. And I would remind people that

1854
02:50:44,920 --> 02:50:50,020
we were supposed to get light rail up the median of 85. That was the plan the median was

1855
02:50:50,020 --> 02:50:55,980
reserved for it and it never happened and that was relatively cheap at the time it was

1856
02:50:55,980 --> 02:51:04,180
$37 million a mile and that rail, that line would have actually gone from housing rich to

1857
02:51:04,180 --> 02:51:09,120
jobs rich areas, something that the Stevens Creek corridor does not.

1858
02:51:11,740 --> 02:51:13,320
Okay, many good. Go ahead.

1859
02:51:14,040 --> 02:51:23,900
So I'd like to share, can I get on Zoom, can I be made a participant so I can share my screen?

1860
02:51:25,380 --> 02:51:27,860
And while I'm waiting for that, I just want to make a comment.

1861
02:51:29,180 --> 02:51:30,340
I understand right now,

1862
02:51:32,660 --> 02:51:38,520
there may not necessarily be enough ridership in some of these things,

1863
02:51:38,520 --> 02:51:42,060
But we're not building for the past, we're building for the future.

1864
02:51:42,860 --> 02:51:46,520
And we know that all of the cities around us, including us,

1865
02:51:46,600 --> 02:51:51,980
have pretty aggressive housing goals that's going to add.

1866
02:51:52,440 --> 02:51:57,460
I think it's like 130,000 new homes just in Santa Clara County alone.

1867
02:51:59,140 --> 02:52:02,220
So I think we need to be looking at projections

1868
02:52:03,240 --> 02:52:04,740
before we make these decisions.

1869
02:52:04,740 --> 02:52:14,940
And the other thing that I would mention is, we're not committing to building great separated transit or any kind of transit right now, right?

1870
02:52:15,140 --> 02:52:20,580
All we're saying is that we're interested in exploring it in the future if it makes sense.

1871
02:52:21,440 --> 02:52:30,000
So, I mean, that sounds reasonable to me because if we get to a point ten years from now that, you know,

1872
02:52:30,000 --> 02:52:36,800
everybody has built the housing that they're required to build and our streets are completely

1873
02:52:36,800 --> 02:52:42,840
gridlocked because we've just added 260,000 more cars to Steven Street Boulevard and

1874
02:52:42,840 --> 02:52:48,140
Dienza. Transit might start to look pretty attractive to us and at that point it might make

1875
02:52:48,140 --> 02:52:53,260
sense to build it but again that is not something we're committing to today. The vision statement

1876
02:52:53,260 --> 02:52:59,500
they're we're committing to today is that we think it might be something we would be willing

1877
02:52:59,500 --> 02:53:09,220
to consider in the future, so let me just share my screen so I can couldn't everybody

1878
02:53:09,220 --> 02:53:10,280
see that.

1879
02:53:18,550 --> 02:53:25,330
Okay, great. So it was, well, I'll start here. So I

1880
02:53:28,340 --> 02:53:29,400
just want to remind everybody

1881
02:53:29,400 --> 02:53:36,460
of part of what's important here, and that's the fatalities and serious injuries. Steven

1882
02:53:36,460 --> 02:53:43,100
Street Boulevard was ranked number one in the Vision Zero Plan for the highest number

1883
02:53:43,100 --> 02:53:45,660
of fatalities and serious injuries.

1884
02:53:46,340 --> 02:53:56,220
And if you look at that, the Vision Zero Plan, it says the total of 260 injury collisions

1885
02:53:56,220 --> 02:53:59,020
in a nine year or no, what is that?

1886
02:53:59,020 --> 02:54:02,720
Yeah, I think it's about nine years, including 16 severe injuries.

1887
02:54:02,720 --> 02:54:10,540
an unsafe speeding was a common factor. This is a pretty dangerous stretch. And a lot of these

1888
02:54:10,540 --> 02:54:14,520
if you look at where the dots are, a lot of these serious injuries and fatalities happened

1889
02:54:14,520 --> 02:54:20,240
at intersections. Actually most of them happened at intersections. And a lot of those were due

1890
02:54:20,240 --> 02:54:28,600
to unsafe right turns. So this is a huge part of why we need to make this street safer because

1891
02:54:28,600 --> 02:54:34,580
it is a real problem. This is the other issue I want to talk about. I'm looking at all the

1892
02:54:34,580 --> 02:54:41,980
housing that is currently approved and planned in our city along this corridor and I marked them all

1893
02:54:41,980 --> 02:54:51,340
and it adds up to about 3279 new homes that are already approved right now and we're just starting on

1894
02:54:51,340 --> 02:54:58,380
now, which will add approximately, you know, most homes in Gubertino have two cars, so that's a

1895
02:54:58,380 --> 02:55:05,580
little over 6,500 homes. If we look at all the Santa Clara County cities, that's 260,000 more cars.

1896
02:55:06,440 --> 02:55:13,260
So yes, traffic and mitigating traffic and reducing the number of cars by encouraging multi-modal

1897
02:55:13,260 --> 02:55:18,700
transportation is a key priority for us, unless we want to be like a plan out where, you know,

1898
02:55:18,700 --> 02:55:21,680
running rush hours, starts at 6am and ends at noon.

1899
02:55:21,920 --> 02:55:23,900
I don't think we want that in our city.

1900
02:55:25,120 --> 02:55:28,680
OK, so then I looked at all of the letters that we got.

1901
02:55:29,360 --> 02:55:30,900
And it was actually kind of interesting,

1902
02:55:31,180 --> 02:55:32,880
because clearly there's been some coordination,

1903
02:55:33,280 --> 02:55:35,440
because they all said the exact same 10 points

1904
02:55:35,440 --> 02:55:38,220
in the exact same order in different wording.

1905
02:55:38,640 --> 02:55:40,880
So it made it easy for me because then I could

1906
02:55:40,880 --> 02:55:42,840
respond to them more easily.

1907
02:55:43,360 --> 02:55:44,800
So I went point by point.

1908
02:55:46,160 --> 02:55:48,040
So the first one is, don't reduce the car lanes.

1909
02:55:49,000 --> 02:55:55,500
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, because there's no proposal to reduce car lanes along this corridor at all.

1910
02:55:55,660 --> 02:55:59,440
I mean, I read the report and there's no proposal to reduce car lanes.

1911
02:56:00,200 --> 02:56:01,860
So, I don't think that's an issue.

1912
02:56:02,480 --> 02:56:03,880
Don't redesign the intersections.

1913
02:56:04,480 --> 02:56:06,960
The Wolf Students Reak Intersection is already confusing.

1914
02:56:07,940 --> 02:56:12,260
Go back, going back to the chart I just showed with all the fatalities and serious injuries.

1915
02:56:12,260 --> 02:56:20,020
We do need to make our intersections safer because we value the people in our community and we want to keep people safe

1916
02:56:20,020 --> 02:56:27,400
And it is a huge problem. So yes, we have to look out for the entire community. It's worth spending a couple more seconds

1917
02:56:27,400 --> 02:56:32,340
Taking a right turn or going through an intersection to save somebody's life

1918
02:56:32,340 --> 02:56:38,200
Don't prioritize VTA buses with special lanes of signal priority. Oh, I forgot

1919
02:56:38,200 --> 02:56:49,440
I need to do a, I spoke to the project manager for this project, so I have to disclose that, and his name was,

1920
02:56:51,590 --> 02:56:52,990
sorry, if you might keep it brief.

1921
02:56:53,370 --> 02:56:53,590
Yes.

1922
02:56:54,130 --> 02:57:00,030
Sean Daley, assistant vice president of ITERIS who is the consulting project manager.

1923
02:57:00,690 --> 02:57:07,530
And so, signal priority is we increase the light in extra 10 seconds, or change the signal 10 seconds earlier or later.

1924
02:57:07,530 --> 02:57:13,250
it actually makes a chance that go 20% faster and can make cars go faster.

1925
02:57:14,050 --> 02:57:18,350
Don't reduce street parking, there is no street parking on Steven Street Boulevard in

1926
02:57:18,350 --> 02:57:18,750
Gupertino.

1927
02:57:18,990 --> 02:57:20,830
So that doesn't affect us at all.

1928
02:57:22,750 --> 02:57:23,210
Let's see.

1929
02:57:23,730 --> 02:57:28,830
There's actually, and I checked this with the guy that I spoke to, but he actually said,

1930
02:57:28,990 --> 02:57:34,430
and I quote, that there is enough width available throughout the entire length of Steven

1931
02:57:34,430 --> 02:57:39,910
we Boulevard all the way to dirt on station to implement a complete street along the whole length

1932
02:57:39,910 --> 02:57:44,370
of the corridor, the same number of car lanes, the same number of parking spaces, and protected

1933
02:57:44,370 --> 02:57:49,590
bike lanes. We might have to narrow the lanes in a couple of places, but most of the way you could

1934
02:57:49,590 --> 02:57:55,990
keep everything exactly the same. The allowing red turns, yeah, again, we have to look out for the

1935
02:57:55,990 --> 02:58:01,150
the entire community. Next slide, and I'll be done.

1936
02:58:02,710 --> 02:58:10,290
Folks on optimizing traffic lights, that's actually in the proposed study, so that should make everybody happy.

1937
02:58:10,750 --> 02:58:14,990
Plant shape trees, that's already in the vision statement, ad benches, that's in the vision statement,

1938
02:58:15,190 --> 02:58:21,230
enhanced crosswalk safety, that's also in the vision statement, install blinking lights at all crosswalks that improve pedestrian visibility.

1939
02:58:21,230 --> 02:58:29,590
So there's actually only two non-signalized crossings along this whole corridor and they're both in Western Carlos and they already have flashing lights

1940
02:58:29,590 --> 02:58:39,690
In Cupertino, there are no crosswalks that are not signalized. They're all at signalized intersections, which are by the way far safer for spades streams and cyclists and drivers

1941
02:58:39,690 --> 02:58:47,970
So we're good on that as well. So I hope that addresses all of the concerns that were raised in the multiple letters that we received. Thank you

1942
02:58:47,970 --> 02:58:49,610
Thank you, Commissioner Lynn's call,

1943
02:58:49,650 --> 02:58:51,470
I appreciate the data that it's presentation.

1944
02:58:51,470 --> 02:58:54,970
I will remind you that on the website we do have one crossing

1945
02:58:54,970 --> 02:58:57,730
that is not signalized by the Blackberry Farm Golf Course,

1946
02:58:58,190 --> 02:59:03,170
but yes, overall I agree that most of our crossings are signalized.

1947
02:59:04,350 --> 02:59:05,550
So, anyone else want to go next?

1948
02:59:07,130 --> 02:59:07,310
Sure.

1949
02:59:10,890 --> 02:59:16,190
So, I support the vision proposal.

1950
02:59:17,170 --> 02:59:24,490
In the form that it's in, I did want to attach them notes to it as considerations if they were going to be adjustments.

1951
02:59:25,410 --> 02:59:28,750
But these would not be, these are not deal breakers for me.

1952
02:59:29,530 --> 02:59:35,150
One of them was Chad, thanks very much for the information about why the costs were high.

1953
02:59:35,150 --> 02:59:42,430
I actually would recommend that the scope of Stephen's Creek that's being studied, you know,

1954
02:59:42,670 --> 02:59:45,670
end at the anthropology and the Westport.

1955
02:59:47,870 --> 02:59:52,070
It's not to say that it wouldn't be worthy to have improvements farther, but that's probably

1956
02:59:52,070 --> 02:59:59,530
it's a different qualitatively different than the more central part.

1957
03:00:06,130 --> 03:00:36,110
I think that, you know, I raised an issue about some of the estimates, the cost estimates. I think it is, this was, it's very clear that this was intended to be high level, not to be a careful accounting. So, you know, I think that that would just be something, again, I would say, if we were to make a modification, I would say, you know, perhaps, perhaps we would ask for further study on those on the calculation.

1958
03:00:36,130 --> 03:00:42,710
And so, at least for the coupon portion, to understand what we think is, but not a sure stopper for me.

1959
03:00:43,610 --> 03:00:47,930
I don't have an issue with a study cost that we're sunken to this that those are quite

1960
03:00:47,930 --> 03:00:51,830
nominal concerning the value of what's happening there.

1961
03:00:52,510 --> 03:00:55,390
Not opposed at all to continuing the relationship, I think that's a good thing.

1962
03:00:55,510 --> 03:00:57,510
I think there are a lot of positives here.

1963
03:00:59,290 --> 03:01:04,990
I think that there were, I didn't see any conflicts with the things that we were trying to

1964
03:01:04,990 --> 03:01:11,590
I think that's really important because I think, particularly, you know, some of the things about

1965
03:01:11,590 --> 03:01:14,750
the usage of Santa Clara and things, they're probably our conflicts there.

1966
03:01:15,370 --> 03:01:19,430
But I didn't see any conflicts with the kinds of objectives that we've been trying to put

1967
03:01:19,430 --> 03:01:20,270
forth in Coopartino.

1968
03:01:20,450 --> 03:01:26,790
So I think that that's positive and the additional things that we're being added were going

1969
03:01:26,790 --> 03:01:29,210
to be a plus for this is the end of the long term.

1970
03:01:31,270 --> 03:01:36,070
The final one for me, I think, you know, it's difficult.

1971
03:01:37,810 --> 03:01:42,470
Commissioner Lynn Scott had mentioned this, it's very difficult for bikes to pick an alternate

1972
03:01:42,470 --> 03:01:42,850
path.

1973
03:01:42,930 --> 03:01:48,630
Unfortunately, this is, again, it's just kind of an unfortunate design element of not only

1974
03:01:48,630 --> 03:01:53,310
Cooperty, you know, of our neighbors and these as well, that there's not a better grid,

1975
03:01:53,310 --> 03:01:55,850
which created an alternative, where you can make a choice,

1976
03:01:56,010 --> 03:01:57,670
where you can intelligent and kind of go in and say,

1977
03:01:57,890 --> 03:02:01,230
okay, this will be the bike, the bike friendly road,

1978
03:02:01,290 --> 03:02:02,750
and this will be the car friendly road.

1979
03:02:04,170 --> 03:02:06,330
But one of the things that I think that,

1980
03:02:06,330 --> 03:02:09,150
so it is difficult, it is difficult in your bike

1981
03:02:09,150 --> 03:02:10,490
to not get an answer to your screen.

1982
03:02:11,030 --> 03:02:14,070
It is difficult, I think that if there's concern

1983
03:02:14,070 --> 03:02:16,570
about losing the ability to write turn on red,

1984
03:02:16,990 --> 03:02:19,990
I think that, I mean, there's actual real concern there.

1985
03:02:19,990 --> 03:02:32,410
But people are pretty smart and Google is pretty smart, and it may be difficult for bikes to go on the other paths on those other parallel paths that are not that close, but it's not that hard for cars to do that.

1986
03:02:32,930 --> 03:02:41,490
That doesn't mean that doesn't mean advocating that the car load should get pushed up to the other roads.

1987
03:02:42,150 --> 03:02:56,530
I don't want to make it, you know, I don't want to make premarige impossible for you, right, but I do think that, but I do think that there is, there is great value.

1988
03:02:56,970 --> 03:03:00,270
You know, the cars, cars will make the, we'll make the change if they need to.

1989
03:03:00,850 --> 03:03:09,670
And you know, I really hope that that, that people might consider that as something that would mitigate some of the impacts.

1990
03:03:09,670 --> 03:03:19,710
Some of the real impacts that I think that they may see, again, the benefits and, again,

1991
03:03:19,850 --> 03:03:26,550
you know, looking at the number of cars that they come, the future traffic projections,

1992
03:03:26,870 --> 03:03:31,230
it really does say, you know, if there's a mechanism through which we can better utilize, better

1993
03:03:31,230 --> 03:03:36,670
utilize the roads that we have, you know, that does mean, you know, better bus transit if we

1994
03:03:36,670 --> 03:03:46,230
can do it, just to increase the usage, even if it's moderate, it's meaningful and to make

1995
03:03:46,230 --> 03:03:52,530
it safe for people in town to get around town. There are really not a lot of alternatives.

1996
03:03:53,810 --> 03:03:58,890
So I think that those things are all together, those are in plus. So the end result for me

1997
03:03:58,890 --> 03:04:04,870
is that I will vote to support this. If I think there are a few places who are identified

1998
03:04:04,870 --> 03:04:09,310
where I think it could be better. And if there's a mechanism through which, you know, we can make that

1999
03:04:09,310 --> 03:04:15,710
recommendation, and I'm happy to include that. But it's not a show stopper. So thank you very much,

2000
03:04:16,250 --> 03:04:22,110
you know, I appreciate the work that's gone into this work and thinking. Wonderful. Thank you,

2001
03:04:22,310 --> 03:04:26,890
Commissioner Fung. I think Commissioner Sharfe, if you want to go next.

2002
03:04:31,330 --> 03:04:32,430
Yeah, I think the studies

2003
03:04:32,430 --> 03:04:38,170
a good start and I think with a few modifications, you know, I could support it, I would

2004
03:04:38,170 --> 03:04:47,390
not support it as is, as requested by one speaker. And I would point out that we're not

2005
03:04:47,390 --> 03:04:52,570
just looking at Cooper Tino in acceptance. We're looking at the big picture, the whole plan

2006
03:04:52,570 --> 03:05:00,870
for all three cities. So let's not just be Cooper Tino centric because we want people to be

2007
03:05:00,870 --> 03:05:05,710
able to go the whole length of the cord or not and not just look at Cooper Tino.

2008
03:05:06,590 --> 03:05:14,190
So some of the changes I would make the support and I would restore the word grade separated.

2009
03:05:14,630 --> 03:05:19,390
Restore the word grade instead of just separated into the recommendation.

2010
03:05:21,150 --> 03:05:29,350
And there's a reason if you put in non-grade separated transit it would greatly reduce the

2011
03:05:29,350 --> 03:05:35,110
likelihood in the future of ever moving to a great separated system, which, you know, I think

2012
03:05:35,110 --> 03:05:40,610
we all agree would be better because it would be faster and less disruptive.

2013
03:05:41,610 --> 03:05:47,670
I think we should encourage that the bicycle routes be on the adjacent, parallel, lower

2014
03:05:47,670 --> 03:05:54,850
traffic routes that are already being used by cyclists, and I would point out to contradict

2015
03:05:54,850 --> 03:05:57,590
Commissioner Lynn's calling and Commissioner Fong.

2016
03:05:58,610 --> 03:06:02,870
It's exactly what other cities are doing and neighboring cities have done.

2017
03:06:04,010 --> 03:06:07,890
Commissioner Lynn's card mentioned, oh, you must use Stevens Creek to get to Main Street,

2018
03:06:08,190 --> 03:06:10,950
which of course, that's not quite accurate.

2019
03:06:11,230 --> 03:06:17,270
I ride to Main Street all the time, I use Regnar Creek Trail, then through Creek Side Park

2020
03:06:17,270 --> 03:06:22,170
and Calada Barcelona, and then I enter on Finch, I intentionally avoid Stevens Creek

2021
03:06:22,170 --> 03:06:28,430
of art because it's so unpleasant to ride on, also to get to the Mary Avenue bike bridge,

2022
03:06:28,610 --> 03:06:33,990
which I go too pretty often. I don't have to go on Steven's Creek. I even found a way to

2023
03:06:33,990 --> 03:06:37,010
get the Voyager coffee without riding on Steven's Creek.

2024
03:06:39,110 --> 03:06:41,490
And we often go to Palo Alto, my wife,

2025
03:06:41,510 --> 03:06:46,910
and I'm in Mountain View. And of course we don't ride on El Camino, or Central Expressway,

2026
03:06:46,910 --> 03:06:52,090
we use the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard and the Mountain View Bike Boulevard.

2027
03:06:54,070 --> 03:06:56,670
So, you know, cyclists know that they know these routes.

2028
03:06:57,210 --> 03:07:02,850
They're not secret passageways, you know, they use them because they're safer and more pleasant.

2029
03:07:03,810 --> 03:07:08,830
And I would also say some of the items in the recommended plan will actually increase traffic congestion

2030
03:07:08,830 --> 03:07:15,990
are environmentally, unfriendly, but reduce sustainability, increase air pollution, increase

2031
03:07:15,990 --> 03:07:20,230
accidents and injuries and fatalities, and we'll have a long-term negative effects.

2032
03:07:20,390 --> 03:07:25,770
And those need to be fixed in the recommendation, even if it delays something six months,

2033
03:07:26,330 --> 03:07:26,850
it's worth it.

2034
03:07:26,930 --> 03:07:32,950
We've been working on this since we passed the resolution in 2019, it's now six years

2035
03:07:32,950 --> 03:07:39,690
later, if it takes six months to get a better plan, I think it's well worth it.

2036
03:07:40,710 --> 03:07:49,350
I think we also, as Tracy pointed out about transit and the financial issues that we need

2037
03:07:49,350 --> 03:07:55,150
to really be promoting some kind of expansion of the on-demand service and autonomous services

2038
03:07:55,150 --> 03:08:00,770
when they become available on Steven's Creek Boulevard, which could actually reduce costs if

2039
03:08:00,770 --> 03:08:08,610
We could reduce the frequency of the 523 and 23 during non-commute hours.

2040
03:08:10,130 --> 03:08:15,350
And then finally, we keep hearing, oh, look at these rena's, all this new housing is

2041
03:08:15,350 --> 03:08:15,830
coming.

2042
03:08:17,710 --> 03:08:25,130
But we can't even get the housing built in our previous rena, and our population is decreased,

2043
03:08:25,130 --> 03:08:30,690
Cupertino, more than most cities, and the whole county has decreased, including San Jose.

2044
03:08:32,010 --> 03:08:37,410
And the housing that has the large housing that has been approved recently is not on the

2045
03:08:37,410 --> 03:08:38,350
Stevens Creek corridor.

2046
03:08:38,410 --> 03:08:45,970
It's more on the north side in Santa Clara and San Jose, where there is already more transit

2047
03:08:45,970 --> 03:08:47,110
including light rail.

2048
03:08:48,870 --> 03:08:56,350
So I support this with some modifications. I cannot support it as it as is. Thank you.

2049
03:08:56,550 --> 03:08:59,930
Thank you, Commissioner Sharf. I think we've been going for a while.

2050
03:09:00,350 --> 03:09:05,790
So I'll begin my discussion by just saying I think there are some areas of broad agreement.

2051
03:09:06,570 --> 03:09:14,810
And before I even go there, I think what I heard from staff at the building was you'd like to see some room for how you approach the study.

2052
03:09:14,810 --> 03:09:19,410
and there will be checkpoints in the future where we can iterate and look at, you know, what our

2053
03:09:19,410 --> 03:09:24,010
learnings are, what data we found, and then make certain decisions along the way, but you know,

2054
03:09:24,050 --> 03:09:29,530
you'd like to look at this starting out somewhat broadly and then work your way through the process.

2055
03:09:29,890 --> 03:09:34,750
I also heard that grants may be a way to offset some of the costs that may come with it.

2056
03:09:34,870 --> 03:09:40,070
Now, having said that I want to acknowledge the areas of common interest that I heard,

2057
03:09:41,270 --> 03:09:46,790
which is corridor maintenance, corridor identity, I think everybody agrees that we want

2058
03:09:46,790 --> 03:09:51,750
to purify the corridor, we want to have signage, we want to have, I think I heard common

2059
03:09:51,750 --> 03:09:57,690
agreement around street trees and making more investments in street trees, medium plantings

2060
03:09:57,690 --> 03:10:04,470
and all of that. So, if I had to sort of look at where we all have some common agreement,

2061
03:10:04,470 --> 03:10:08,570
even across the restaurants and stakeholders, it is in making Stephen's Creek a more beautiful

2062
03:10:08,570 --> 03:10:13,470
place, a destination place. And so a corridor identity and maintenance was one. The other

2063
03:10:13,470 --> 03:10:19,030
one was around safety. There may be differences in how we view safety, but again we want to

2064
03:10:19,030 --> 03:10:24,510
give staff the latitude to view the approach safety broadly and then have the conversations

2065
03:10:24,510 --> 03:10:29,930
as we go along on safety. So I think safety was certainly an area. The other thing I want to point

2066
03:10:29,930 --> 03:10:38,550
out is we didn't spend as much time talking about the via hopper, but it is something unique that

2067
03:10:38,550 --> 03:10:43,630
of transport. I mean, sometimes we talk about multi-modal as walking, biking, transit, and driving,

2068
03:10:43,830 --> 03:10:49,810
and that is the via hopper, which is another twist to that makes as well. So, with all of that

2069
03:10:49,810 --> 03:10:53,950
said, I think there's also a recreational aspect to the corridor. It's not just about getting from

2070
03:10:53,950 --> 03:11:00,250
destination from source to destination, but it is for people that enjoy what they can do in the corridor,

2071
03:11:00,310 --> 03:11:05,290
and we do have a unique corridor because just south of us is the Stephen's Creek Trail. On the

2072
03:11:05,290 --> 03:11:10,430
side is the upcoming Lorentz MIDI Trail as Matt pointed out on the Northside. Hopefully there's

2073
03:11:10,430 --> 03:11:15,230
the team in Inutrails. So we want to have the latitude to operate a little more broadly in

2074
03:11:15,230 --> 03:11:20,650
sounds like you were talking about a half mile north and a half mile south. So to make this more

2075
03:11:20,650 --> 03:11:26,670
encompassing, we'd like to maybe think about this in the context of what can the corridor accommodate

2076
03:11:26,670 --> 03:11:34,890
for off corridor investments for the network for walking and bike use. So with all that said,

2077
03:11:34,890 --> 03:11:39,930
maybe I'd like to see if I can craft a motion here to get us moving towards a vote.

2078
03:11:40,670 --> 03:11:45,890
I'd like to propose a motion that we accept the report.

2079
03:11:48,210 --> 03:11:52,630
I'm sorry David, will you help us with taking notes as I try to craft this motion?

2080
03:11:53,090 --> 03:11:59,710
I'd like to propose that we accept this report and reaffirm the recommendations

2081
03:11:59,710 --> 03:12:05,850
from the Bike Pet Commission, including not eliminating lanes, which I believe is one other

2082
03:12:05,850 --> 03:12:08,530
recommendation of the Bike Pet to reinforce that again,

2083
03:12:10,670 --> 03:12:12,630
and prioritizing investments in

2084
03:12:12,630 --> 03:12:14,650
corridor identity and maintenance,

2085
03:12:17,990 --> 03:12:23,330
prioritizing investments in safety with a focus on innovations

2086
03:12:23,330 --> 03:12:30,050
around safety, I have mentioned about being able to look at what sensors we can use to improve

2087
03:12:30,050 --> 03:12:34,830
crossings and things like that. So I think prioritizing safety in general, looking forward

2088
03:12:36,410 --> 03:12:44,270
with a focus on innovations and then being able to prioritize cost by limiting the focus

2089
03:12:44,270 --> 03:12:49,050
still westport I believe, which is a reasonable ROI.

2090
03:12:53,050 --> 03:12:55,770
The motion was to focus on the corridor

2091
03:12:55,770 --> 03:13:01,590
until some point, such as Westport, or maybe Mary Avenue, we can

2092
03:13:01,590 --> 03:13:04,190
notice that as we go, let's forecast the motion first.

2093
03:13:06,730 --> 03:13:07,830
And to focus on

2094
03:13:07,830 --> 03:13:13,850
cost again to limit this to one area of investment and transit and based on

2095
03:13:13,850 --> 03:13:17,430
the resolution that was great separated transit.

2096
03:13:19,600 --> 03:13:24,580
Excuse me chair, would you be open to just slightly changing your motion to

2097
03:13:24,580 --> 03:13:32,460
not that you move to accept the report, but you would recommend the council accept to report with your additions.

2098
03:13:33,500 --> 03:13:46,600
Yes, thank you, Anthony Ru, the small quick there was the recommended council that they accept the report with the following areas to consider prioritizing.

2099
03:13:47,400 --> 03:13:52,200
So I'm good with all of that, except I wasn't quite sure where the Westport thinking from. Can you clarify that?

2100
03:13:52,620 --> 03:13:55,720
That was commissioner or fun with the focus on cost and character.

2101
03:13:56,320 --> 03:13:59,160
Yeah, I think when I asked the question about costs,

2102
03:13:59,660 --> 03:14:01,260
one of the things that happened was that

2103
03:14:01,260 --> 03:14:05,680
Cupertino had a long section because the analysis went all the way to Lehigh.

2104
03:14:06,580 --> 03:14:08,980
So the section from Lehigh to Westport

2105
03:14:09,500 --> 03:14:13,320
is a different character than the main quarter.

2106
03:14:14,160 --> 03:14:16,020
So, and I don't want to get into the discussion.

2107
03:14:16,220 --> 03:14:20,700
I want to make sure staff can try it up this motion and we can look at it and then I'd like to seek a second.

2108
03:14:20,700 --> 03:14:22,500
I'm trying to get broad areas of agreements

2109
03:14:22,500 --> 03:14:24,700
so let's get the easy parts in there.

2110
03:14:24,800 --> 03:14:27,060
Corder identity in maintenance, safety,

2111
03:14:28,420 --> 03:14:32,400
and a focus on cost to smart choices,

2112
03:14:33,120 --> 03:14:36,200
and a focus on off-corder investments

2113
03:14:36,200 --> 03:14:40,460
around trails that are to the north and south.

2114
03:14:41,600 --> 03:14:43,600
So if we may pass that and maybe I

2115
03:14:43,600 --> 03:14:49,220
project the motion or read it back IDL if you can project.

2116
03:14:51,290 --> 03:14:52,450
And if I can see the second.

2117
03:15:34,770 --> 03:15:37,630
Is it easy to send it to Matt? It looks like he could share

2118
03:15:43,100 --> 03:15:44,680
or maybe Matt can project.

2119
03:15:53,090 --> 03:15:54,590
It's on the screen.

2120
03:16:07,160 --> 03:16:08,200
Okay, very good.

2121
03:16:15,180 --> 03:16:15,720
Okay, perfect.

2122
03:16:18,420 --> 03:16:24,740
Okay, so we have a motion to recommend the council accept the corridor vision study.

2123
03:16:25,160 --> 03:16:32,380
Reaffirm the BPC qualifications with the following additional qualifications, which is prioritize investments in 19 maintenance.

2124
03:16:35,060 --> 03:16:43,020
I'd like to, for the caveat to safety with the focus on investments in technology innovation, if you can add that in place.

2125
03:16:43,780 --> 03:16:45,760
I think there were some things around pedestrian sensing.

2126
03:16:49,280 --> 03:16:52,620
Investments in safety with the focus on technology innovation.

2127
03:16:55,940 --> 03:16:59,820
And if you can throw in a few samples, pedestrian sensing may be adaptive signals.

2128
03:17:01,220 --> 03:17:05,900
If you can add a few examples, including but not limited, just to throw in a few examples.

2129
03:17:05,900 --> 03:17:08,220
And maybe at home the scar is supposed to.

2130
03:17:08,540 --> 03:17:10,160
So can I say one thing?

2131
03:17:11,100 --> 03:17:11,160
Sure.

2132
03:17:11,440 --> 03:17:12,760
You're trying to modify this thing.

2133
03:17:12,900 --> 03:17:14,380
Can you just.

2134
03:17:14,400 --> 03:17:15,900
Are you trying to clarify the motion?

2135
03:17:16,180 --> 03:17:16,780
Because I want to clarify.

2136
03:17:17,380 --> 03:17:17,940
Oh, okay.

2137
03:17:18,600 --> 03:17:18,840
Yeah.

2138
03:17:19,620 --> 03:17:20,940
I am trying to clarify it.

2139
03:17:22,220 --> 03:17:22,480
Okay.

2140
03:17:22,980 --> 03:17:23,140
So.

2141
03:17:23,840 --> 03:17:26,540
But yeah, I'm trying to change something.

2142
03:17:26,940 --> 03:17:27,560
So I will not.

2143
03:17:28,280 --> 03:17:28,360
Okay.

2144
03:17:29,000 --> 03:17:29,380
But yeah.

2145
03:17:29,800 --> 03:17:30,060
Let me.

2146
03:17:30,120 --> 03:17:30,760
Let me ask.

2147
03:17:31,860 --> 03:17:33,980
There's a section here where we were reaffirming

2148
03:17:33,980 --> 03:17:38,200
to be BPC qualifications, those were not in conflict with this.

2149
03:17:38,380 --> 03:17:39,880
We're just doing that.

2150
03:17:40,760 --> 03:17:42,580
If that's the case, in our second there, I

2151
03:17:42,580 --> 03:17:46,120
didn't actually say before that I'd be happy to accept this in a normal

2152
03:17:46,120 --> 03:17:47,860
phone, but I think this is close enough.

2153
03:17:48,440 --> 03:17:49,520
I have a second there.

2154
03:17:50,120 --> 03:17:54,420
And so if we may just make sure we've got a motion and a second

2155
03:17:54,420 --> 03:17:57,520
at the moment, if there's any comments on the motion, if we can open it up.

2156
03:17:57,520 --> 03:17:59,800
So I have a couple of, oh, sorry, go ahead.

2157
03:18:00,460 --> 03:18:03,520
The only common I have is that I

2158
03:18:03,520 --> 03:18:09,460
I think the scope should end at Bob not at Westport, because Bob is a major corridor.

2159
03:18:09,900 --> 03:18:16,760
We have a lot of Apple people riding their bikes over to all those buildings on Bob Road.

2160
03:18:17,240 --> 03:18:18,300
This is the best site.

2161
03:18:18,800 --> 03:18:19,820
So not the East side.

2162
03:18:20,180 --> 03:18:20,300
No.

2163
03:18:20,720 --> 03:18:22,920
The scope should end at the end or Westport.

2164
03:18:23,140 --> 03:18:25,040
I'm saying that you're saying that Bob not.

2165
03:18:25,760 --> 03:18:26,800
Yeah, I think that makes.

2166
03:18:27,160 --> 03:18:32,460
And also 85 is a particularly dangerous intersection for pedestrians and bikes.

2167
03:18:32,460 --> 03:18:36,800
you got the high speed entry on to 85 northbound.

2168
03:18:37,120 --> 03:18:38,780
So that's the only thing I would change there.

2169
03:18:38,880 --> 03:18:40,400
Yeah, I would accept the change to,

2170
03:18:40,520 --> 03:18:43,100
I think that's a minor change to exchange from Esport to Bubb.

2171
03:18:43,280 --> 03:18:46,400
I also didn't see the inclusion of the off-corder

2172
03:18:46,400 --> 03:18:48,480
investments in the bike and bed network.

2173
03:18:50,000 --> 03:18:51,400
Could be add that, please.

2174
03:18:54,410 --> 03:18:56,010
There was another bullet I listed,

2175
03:18:56,310 --> 03:18:59,550
which is invest in the bike and bed network,

2176
03:19:00,170 --> 03:19:02,570
such as Stamian and Otray Lawrence Media Trail.

2177
03:19:04,190 --> 03:19:06,050
and the Bike Boulevard as well.

2178
03:19:06,270 --> 03:19:07,150
Let's throw that in.

2179
03:19:09,820 --> 03:19:18,640
So, after Bob Road, there are a lot of students that ride on that stretch of Stephen's Creek Boulevard.

2180
03:19:19,060 --> 03:19:23,260
So, I do think we should stay with looking at the report.

2181
03:19:24,200 --> 03:19:26,340
The scope goes all the way to Foothill.

2182
03:19:27,240 --> 03:19:31,220
And we know, I mean, a lot of students ride that stretch.

2183
03:19:31,220 --> 03:19:42,340
So I do think we should keep it to the corridor all the way to Foothail Boulevard that is very heavily used by students.

2184
03:19:42,960 --> 03:19:47,060
I think that would send a very bad message that we don't care about our students.

2185
03:19:49,220 --> 03:19:58,070
And the priorities investment in safety, I'm a little concerned about being exclusionary.

2186
03:19:58,070 --> 03:20:03,450
I think we should leave it up to the staff to come up with what they, I mean, we can say focus,

2187
03:20:03,690 --> 03:20:07,950
I mean, you know, be creative in terms of, you know, use of technology and innovation,

2188
03:20:08,330 --> 03:20:13,010
but I don't know that I would say with the focus on that because that seems exclusionary to

2189
03:20:13,010 --> 03:20:15,790
other potential solutions to increase safety.

2190
03:20:15,910 --> 03:20:18,690
Thank you, Commissioner Lynn's call and it was not meant to be.

2191
03:20:18,770 --> 03:20:20,630
It was intended to give them some broad latitude.

2192
03:20:20,850 --> 03:20:25,530
So maybe we can identify with the focus on, but not limited to can you add a phrase with the focus

2193
03:20:25,530 --> 03:20:26,690
on, but not limited to.

2194
03:20:28,070 --> 03:20:34,710
on the second bullet prioritizing investments in safety with the focus on but not limited to technology

2195
03:20:34,710 --> 03:20:40,790
innovation if that's sufficient to and I think the spirit of it was to give you room to innovate

2196
03:20:41,470 --> 03:20:46,370
and come back with suggestions on safety and then we can look at it. So I believe we have a motion

2197
03:20:46,370 --> 03:20:51,110
in the second is there any other comment otherwise you can. Well would you consider a mending from

2198
03:20:51,110 --> 03:20:53,270
unbubroad to foothill?

2199
03:20:54,530 --> 03:21:01,750
I actually think, if you think about the whole of the things that the vision includes,

2200
03:21:02,610 --> 03:21:07,070
then you ask, you kind of ask the question, do you, so I completely understand what you're

2201
03:21:07,070 --> 03:21:14,010
talking about from a bike standpoint, but would you want to extend above grade rail, you

2202
03:21:14,010 --> 03:21:17,390
know, above grade mass transit to foothill?

2203
03:21:17,550 --> 03:21:18,210
Yeah, maybe.

2204
03:21:18,210 --> 03:21:20,510
But that's not what we're saying.

2205
03:21:20,670 --> 03:21:23,830
We're saying the corridor, we're not saying transit will go up to Foothail.

2206
03:21:23,910 --> 03:21:27,570
We're just saying we're going to look at the corridor as a whole.

2207
03:21:28,030 --> 03:21:30,710
Irrespective, the transit is a separate topic, right?

2208
03:21:31,110 --> 03:21:34,950
Where transit goes and where it starts and where it ends is a separate conversation.

2209
03:21:35,830 --> 03:21:41,770
But in terms of safety improvements, intersection improvements, crosswalk improvements,

2210
03:21:42,670 --> 03:21:44,510
we should be looking all the way to Foothail.

2211
03:21:48,270 --> 03:21:52,810
There's nothing that stops Kupertino from doing that independently of it being included

2212
03:21:52,810 --> 03:21:56,270
this part of the quarter study.

2213
03:21:57,330 --> 03:22:03,190
Yeah, I think the spirit of the comment is not to be exclusionary, but to also apply a

2214
03:22:03,190 --> 03:22:07,650
cost focus such that we have other projects that allow for that, for example, the Steven

2215
03:22:07,650 --> 03:22:12,310
Street Bullwerd, Buffard Bike Lane Phase 3, gets us the independent of this anyway.

2216
03:22:13,230 --> 03:22:14,170
So, I think there's a bit of that.

2217
03:22:14,170 --> 03:22:17,990
So I'm okay keeping the motion as is.

2218
03:22:18,270 --> 03:22:21,390
And I think we have the spirit of the comment

2219
03:22:21,890 --> 03:22:25,330
that is actually met through other projects as well.

2220
03:22:25,690 --> 03:22:27,090
I think the primary part of the comment

2221
03:22:27,090 --> 03:22:30,270
was not to spend time looking at taking a transit

2222
03:22:30,270 --> 03:22:32,930
out into the Leigh-Kawarir.

2223
03:22:33,610 --> 03:22:35,530
So is the main concern that we don't want transit

2224
03:22:35,530 --> 03:22:37,410
to go up to Leigh-Kawarir?

2225
03:22:37,730 --> 03:22:40,530
So can we just then mention that?

2226
03:22:40,530 --> 03:22:47,290
than just say, you know, we don't limit the consideration of transit to go no further than

2227
03:22:47,290 --> 03:22:50,910
Bob, but keep the corridor, the same length, all the way to Foothail?

2228
03:22:53,160 --> 03:22:56,980
I think the character of the character of Steven's Creek is a gocast, Bob.

2229
03:22:58,600 --> 03:23:03,820
Actually, I think even by the time you got to Bob, but very true about the 85 intersection,

2230
03:23:04,200 --> 03:23:08,700
although that one boy, you know, that's going to actually be something that's not here

2231
03:23:08,700 --> 03:23:15,300
which is the same as Lawrence and Steven's Creek, it's a terrible.

2232
03:23:16,060 --> 03:23:22,700
But I would also point out, I'm not sure what students are writing there, because if you're

2233
03:23:22,700 --> 03:23:28,780
writing a Monovista or to Kennedy, you would ride through the neighborhood near Blackberry

2234
03:23:28,780 --> 03:23:37,020
Farm, and we even put in that bike bridge, what is it called, scenic specifically for that.

2235
03:23:37,020 --> 03:23:40,460
And you don't ever have to go on onto Stephens Creek

2236
03:23:40,460 --> 03:23:42,680
to get to those schools.

2237
03:23:43,300 --> 03:23:45,280
But I guess if you're riding to Dianza,

2238
03:23:46,000 --> 03:23:48,800
that would be the case, but I would suspect

2239
03:23:48,800 --> 03:23:52,760
that most parents would prefer their kids ride

2240
03:23:52,760 --> 03:23:54,700
on the local streets.

2241
03:23:55,120 --> 03:23:58,740
So I do want to, before we go to for my motion

2242
03:23:58,740 --> 03:24:01,380
included, the examples for the off-corder networks

2243
03:24:01,380 --> 03:24:04,680
to be Lawrence Mitty, Trail, and Damian in Trail,

2244
03:24:04,780 --> 03:24:06,160
if you can please include that.

2245
03:24:06,160 --> 03:24:10,800
that was part of the such as, but not limited to, again, not trying to be.

2246
03:24:11,100 --> 03:24:15,880
Yeah, no, that's fine. If I can just go back for a second that map that I had shown

2247
03:24:15,880 --> 03:24:21,380
of the Steven Screeble Art Fitalities and Series injuries, a huge cluster of that is at Steven

2248
03:24:21,380 --> 03:24:27,820
Screeble and Foot Hill. So I feel like if we're worried about transit, let's call that out

2249
03:24:27,820 --> 03:24:34,960
as a separate bullet point and keep the corridor itself all the way to Foot Hill. If you guys

2250
03:24:34,960 --> 03:24:36,220
amenable to that.

2251
03:24:40,570 --> 03:24:44,910
It's a little way that we might phrase this. So I sense that it is a bit

2252
03:24:44,910 --> 03:24:50,270
of the character part of it as well and so I want to appreciate and respect that. So I think

2253
03:24:50,270 --> 03:24:57,210
I feel like we have a motion that's not necessarily perfect but I think we've got the spirit of

2254
03:24:57,210 --> 03:25:04,990
what we would like to accomplish in there. So with that I'd like to try and move for a vote.

2255
03:25:04,990 --> 03:25:13,390
I think we have a motion in a second, and it's not going to be perfect, but let's see if we can get this to a work.

2256
03:25:14,290 --> 03:25:21,070
So I think shared your current motion is that you accepted Commissioner Sharfs,

2257
03:25:21,170 --> 03:25:28,390
friendly amendment to extend the corridor to Bob Road, but I think the second year needs to agree to that as well.

2258
03:25:28,570 --> 03:25:34,310
The second year is, I don't think it was an amendment to the motion as much as I was still crafting my motion.

2259
03:25:34,310 --> 03:25:37,510
And so that was a suggestion to make a minor tweak to my motion.

2260
03:25:38,190 --> 03:25:40,670
So, but yes, I mean, if you want to.

2261
03:25:40,670 --> 03:25:43,410
Well, it's all a step is clear on the motion because the original motion

2262
03:25:43,410 --> 03:25:45,150
understood was up to Westport.

2263
03:25:45,770 --> 03:25:48,310
And then that was seconded by Commissioner Feng.

2264
03:25:48,730 --> 03:25:52,310
And then separately, I think Commissioner Sharf suggested this movie to

2265
03:25:52,310 --> 03:25:54,630
Bob and that the seconder has an opportunity.

2266
03:25:55,530 --> 03:25:58,630
If this is an issue of me seconded again, then I would accept that.

2267
03:25:58,910 --> 03:26:00,710
Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

2268
03:26:00,710 --> 03:26:05,090
So let us, what if we may, are we voting the lights or

2269
03:26:12,060 --> 03:26:13,680
the motion carries unanimously?

2270
03:26:14,780 --> 03:26:20,960
Okay, very good. I want to thank staff for their patience and promise not to keep it 11 and I think we

2271
03:26:21,520 --> 03:26:27,980
over achieved on that front. I know our planning staff would like to be wrapping this up as well. So with that,

2272
03:26:28,100 --> 03:26:36,640
I think we conclude agenda item 3. Thank you for our visiting planning staff. Don't be

2273
03:26:36,640 --> 03:26:40,400
transportation planning staff if I should call you that transportation planners

2274
03:26:41,020 --> 03:26:46,980
Don't be strangers. Hope to see you on our next set of meetings and with that we vote to staff and commission reports

2275
03:26:46,980 --> 03:26:51,300
Are there any staff reports? No, sir. There aren't any any commission reports?

2276
03:26:53,280 --> 03:27:01,740
Okay, if none we move to future agenda setting and future agenda items. Can we talk about when the

2277
03:27:03,720 --> 03:27:08,260
When when will we'll see the objective design standards again?

2278
03:27:09,760 --> 03:27:13,900
I believe there was some talk about fall, but again, this section is-

2279
03:27:13,900 --> 03:27:19,340
This section is for new items, it's not necessarily for what was on the agenda, you know,

2280
03:27:19,340 --> 03:27:23,900
as soon as we are able to have something ready, we will bring it back for the commissions.

2281
03:27:24,840 --> 03:27:29,360
And as Luke mentioned, we also need to look at our budget to see what we can and cannot do.

2282
03:27:29,480 --> 03:27:34,140
Got it. Okay, very good. So if no future agenda items, I believe we are done.

2283
03:27:34,140 --> 03:27:40,320
Okay, sorry. So, so you have it's possible to come back when it's at an early draft I think that would really be

2284
03:27:42,570 --> 03:27:51,610
If we can be accommodated with the budget that we have absolutely yes wonderful learned with that. I believe we are adjourn. Thank you