Loading...
PC 05-09-06 (2) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. MAY 9, 2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL Following the Study Session, the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 9,2006 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chair Miller Vice Chair Giefer Cary Chien Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner Assistant Planner Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Aki Honda Piu Ghosh Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: . Ms. Wordell noted receipt of a communication related to the public storage project. POSTPONEMENT from CALENDAR: 4. U-2006-04, TM-2006-05 Z-2006-03 (EA-2006-07) FranIde Law (Law and Chow Residence) 20055 & 20065 De Palma Lane Use Permit for four new two-story single- family residences ranging from 2,290 square feet to 2,650 square feet. Tentative Map to subdivide a .65-acre parcel into four parcels ranging from approximately 6,260 to 6,810 square feet. Rezoning of an existing .65-acre parcel from R2-4.5 (Residential Duplex 4,500 square feet minimum parcel size) to P(Res) (Planned Residential Development) Request Postponement to June 13, 2006 meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Wong, to postpone Item No.4 to the June 13,2006 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2 May 9, 2006 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. TM-2006-04 James Chen (Tsang residence) 10067 Bianchi Way Tentative Map to subdivide a .24-acre parcel into two parcels of approximately . I-acre each and one common area lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Ms. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for tentative map to subdivide an approximately .24-acre site into two parcels and one common area in a Planned Development district. . The residences were constructed in 2000 as a planned development with two houses on the same property under single ownership; the owner now desires to subdivide the property. . The application will create a flag lot which is generally discouraged; however, the property presently functions like a flag lot and nothing will change significantly if one is created. . Staff recommends approval of the application. Ms. Ghosh answered Commissioners' questions: . Public Works requires a street light on the site. . Light placement is not fixed; it could possibly be placed elsewhere in the utility easement, which would save the tree. . Said it was not a Planned Development, hence there are no FAR requirements for that relative to the Rl. . The policy does not encourage flag lots, and is not part of the General Plan. Staff prefers to keep the parcel a common area as opposed to getting an ingress/egress easement and having problems later if the two parties had a disagreement on an issue. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt the placement of the street light was unusual and felt it may be perceived as a barrier. Ms. Ghosh: . In response to a question why additional parking space on the site is needed, when there are already two spaces per residence, she said that single family homes require four parking spaces per house. Since there was no driveway apron in this particular case to park in front of, staff was setting a goal for at least two additional parking spaces on site in order to mitigate that fact that there is no driveway apron. . Reiterated that the requirement for the street light was a Public Works Department requirement. She said it would possibly be added as a condition if the Planning Commission wanted to have the requirement waived in order to save the two trees. Com. Wong: . Commented that because of the small cul-de-sac and the insufficient space, if another parcel develops on the cul-de-sac, it may be more practical to have the street light placed more strategically, rather than at the corner. He suggested waiting until there was another parcel on Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3 May 9, 2006 the cul-de-sac to place the street light. . Recommended that Public Works make the final decision. Com. Saadati: . Said the street lights provide some safety. . The location for the street light may be flexible, and could be moved so that it does not impact the tree. Chairperson Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . She expressed concern about the lot splits, and the potential precedent of having substandard lots. She asked questions about the zoning and the reason for having two homes on one small lot, and said she was concerns creating such small lots in Cupertino. Chair Miller: . Noted that it was permitted and it was a PD zoning, not an Rl area. He asked staff to comment on why there are three lots instead of two lots with an easement. . He said there were flag lots in the city; however, in the other situations, it is not stated that the flag lot was being created as a third parcel; and they have to have a maintenance agreement to go along with it. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: . Reviewed the history of the property. . When the owners applied to develop, the city had an ad-hoc policy not to encourage flag lots. The policy still discourages flag lots. The policy still discourages flag lots. The subdivision does not change the state of the property; the property will function essentially the same as it did as one lot. In an attempt to minimize the flag lot aspect, the third lot will function as a large courtyard to avoid having a small narrow flag lot coming to the back of the lot. The density in that area is the Heart ofthe City and it does allow up to 35 units per acre. She said it is theoretically a higher density area. . She said it was fairly typical in some of the subdivisions processed lately that the access has been a common lot. Ms. Ghosh: . In order for the two houses to take care of the common area, they would have to do a CC&R which would prevent having a common area. The CC&R's specify that they cannot park in front of their garages and they would have to keep that unobstructed area. If it was a flag lot, they could technically park in that area and therefore be ingress/egress difficulties for that lot. I don't think that is in the resolution but that could be in the resolution that they would have to record CC&R's. Com. Wong: . Relative to developing a CC&R, he said it was a private agreement and up to the private owners to develop it. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com Chien, to approve Application TM-2006-04 (Vote: 5-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 May 9, 2006 Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said that generally with a shared driveway, there is a maintenance agreement with conditions for the common area. . CC&R's would not be needed; the two parties could agree with the approval of the city once the maintenance agreement is developed. They could include whatever is necessary to keep it clear, such as no parking, etc. (Staff said that something could be added.) Vice Chair Giefer: . Said it appeared the commissioners wanted to guarantee that the street light would be removed saving the one tree closest to the street which is the one without the X. She suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to stipulate on Condition 3 that the tree be saved and that the street light be moved to the north side of the driveway within the easement area. Staff provided some new language for tree removal that is not part of this. . She asked if it needed to stipulated that for tree protection they want to accept staffs revised tree protection language that was a desk item. Com. Wong: . Said he accepted both amendments regarding saving the tree, and it would be left to Public Works whether or not it is feasible to have that street light to make that flexibility that Ms. Wordell suggested, as well as what was presented to her on her desk to include that language. . Said also to include the city attorney's language regarding the maintenance agreement versus doing a CC&R's which does not make sense. . He said he felt they should have considered a flag lot, but the maintenance agreement would suffice his concerns on that. Vice Chair Giefer: . Relative to additional parking space, she said that she would prefer to forego the additional parking space for parcel one rather than cut the tree down to accommodate the parking space. Com. Wong: . Said he supported saving trees. It is a very limited access cul-de-sac and parking has always been a strong concern of the city. . He said it was a very nice home, with limited guest parking and one space in front of the property that is shared. Pavers are being used for the extra parking. . He said although he did not like the location of the extra parking, it was important to provide parking for guests. Vice Chair Giefer: . Commented that they are already living under those conditions and were dealing with the lack of parking in that area. Com. Wong: . Said he understood that, but that it was staffs recommendation. Chair Miller: . Said that Com. Wong amended the motion, in terms of the maintenance agreement and recommending no street light and saving one tree. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5 May 9,2006 Vice Chair Giefer: . Said the new language for the tree covenant was also part of it. Com. Chien: . Accepted amendment to his second. Com. Saadati: . Clarified that it should be stated "consider removing" rather than "specifically removing' because it will be evaluated. He clarified that the reference was to the light; instead of removing it, they would evaluate where to locate it without impacting the trees. Com. Wong: . He explained that what Miss Wordell said is that if Public Works considered that there was no safe place to put the street light then it was not needed. If there was a feasible place to put it, it will be put in. Com. Chien: . Said that from the staff report, it appears there is a place to put the street light and that is the reason for Condition No.7. He clarified that they would consider other locations that might be more feasible (Vote: 5-0-0) 3. U-2006-03, ASA-2006-05 (EA-2006-06) Timothy Reeves (public Storage) 20565 Valley Green Drive Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to demolish an existing 53,890 square foot single-story storage building and construct a 155,253 square foot three- story storage building. Tentative City Council date: May 16, 2006 Ms. Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to demolish an existing 53,890 square foot, single story storage facility and construct a 155,252 square foot three story storage facility, as outlined in the staff report. . She reviewed the background, site layout, architectural and building materials, landscaping, parking, North DeAnza Special Center, maintaining cohesive commercial centers and office parks, and environmental review as outlined in the staff report. . Staff does not support the proposed project because it conflicts with the cohesive commercial office park policies. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the negative declaration but deny the use permit and the architectural and site approval based on the module resolutions for denial. Timothy Reeves, Development Manager for Public Storage: . Provided a history of the storage facility which was built in 1974. . Currently the company is going through a redevelopment process, looking at existing sites to determine if they are viable sites for reinvestment through upgrading. The current site meets the criteria for redevelopment and if approved, will constitute the largest capital investment within the continental United States public storage. The older product currently on site has the garage door entry which customers drive up to. . Said in his opinion that site was not conducive to development as a commercial site or office building site. The site is located at the end of the Valley Green Drive making the necessary Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 May 9, 2006 visibility for a commercial project not viable. . The storage facility is needed in the community and would complement the overall business park and surrounding businesses. . He noted that the facility uses low municipal services and would have no impact on the school services. . Explained that the storage facility would be fully self-contained, climate controlled between 68-82 degrees, excellent lighting, excellent security system. A key pad and code system are used to ensure safety and security throughout the facility. There are also cameras on site. . The design of the building matches the architecture of the condos in the area.. . Current occupancy rate is between 92-96 percent. . Said they were amenable to planting more trees along the freeway frontage, and were willing to consider a pervious paving system rather than an impervious blacktop system around the site. . Said he was willing to consider reducing the height at both ends to mix more with the housing projects on either ends of the buildings. . Relative to considering three or four buildings, he said they originally considered one building and staff indicated they would like some upgrades to the single story they were going to retain. However, because they were build in 1974, there was not much they could do with them, and they suggested scrapping the entire site, and repackaging and building two buildings instead of one. Ms. Honda: . Relative to emergency vehicle access, the fire department has reviewed the plans and are proposing conditions of approval. It will provide the required driveway access into the site. There are specific conditions to the project once an application for a building permit is submitted. The Fire Department has reviewed the project and there will be conditions Public Storage must meet prior to development of the site. Chair Miller: . Asked staff to comment on the narrow site and limited opportunities for parking; and why it would be a possibility for a future office site given those restrictions to the physical dimensions of the property. Mr. PiasecId: . He said when they adopted the cohesive office parks policy in November, it was taken seriously. It makes no difference whether it is a mini storage, or any other non-office use. The best way to illustrate the answer is if this parcel was part of the Apple deal and it was sitting in the back, narrow as it is, it would have been likely excluded from that arrangement just because redevelopment of this type would make it an extremely valuable mini storage site for the very long term. . It has the potential to be consolidated with office some day in the future; and to contribute to an overall office park, thus staff extended that policy and it was clear to staff. The applicant has done a suitable job with the design. . He said however, that it does not meet the same criteria of the cohesive office park policy. It creates no revenue base to the city; it is a massive structure, on a very narrow lot; and would be visible across the freeway, where existing buildings are not visible today. It does not integrate real well; if it can be accepted that it is a stand alone, let it go and write it off, and then move ahead with it. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7 May 9, 2006 . Staff did not accept it that way; it is part of a bigger picture, and this type of use should not be permitted. . He said they have been up front with the applicant that they would not be supporting it so he was not surprised at any step in the process. Chair Miller: . It is consistent with the zoning and also consistent with the use which is true because they currently have a use permit to do what they are doing. Com. Wong: . Said he understood the concern about its visibility. It is architecturally compatible with the Pinn Bros. project as well as the Apple building across the street. He added that it was one of the most attractive storage buildings he had seen. Mr. PiasecId: . Said that the cohesive office park policy allows non-office parks but sets up timeline criteria. The other part of it was the fiscal impact issue; they want to have cohesive office parks in the event in the future there is a chance for some economic return to the city with sales. There is no sales tax and there is no proposal on the applicants part to say they will pay an equivalent amount of retail sales tax to what could have been developed should that have occurred on that property. Com. Wong: . Suggested submitting comments in a minute order to the City Council and have the finance department look into the TOT tax on hotels, and develop some type of user fee for people who rent the storage lockers. It is something to explore because community benefits are being considered. Chair Miller: . Pointed out that it is an existing use and they are not changing the use. They are intensifying an existing use they already have a permit for. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Commended Public Storage for being sensitive to the neighborhood and the city. . Expressed concern about the onsite security, and suggested that it not have 24 hour access. She said that she felt access should be limited to no later than 9 p.m., and that there be an onsite manager. . Said she agreed with Vice Chair Giefer comment about having the ends brought down, so that it does not go from one story to 45 feet. Chairperson Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: . Said the architect attempted to blend the building into the office complex as well as nearby homes and Apple Computer. . Cupertino residents and businesses will utilize the facilities for storage. . Noted it was a secure facility. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8 May 9,2006 . The community will benefit; it will generate tax for the community. . Supports the project Com. Saadati: . Said that the existing facility has been there since the 70s and it was appropriate to provide another one to serve the community. . He expressed concern about the visibility from the freeway, and agreed that the building across from the storage facility is not as attractive. He said the visibility could be improved by planting taller trees. . Said he preferred three buildings rather than two. . Suggested continuing the item to allow time to address the ends to see if the building could be broken up further. Com. Chien: . Said he thought it was a good plan, but disagreed with the rationale behind what can and cannot be done with the property as long as it met the zoning requirements. However, when residential applicants come before the DRC and Planning Commission, they are asked to conform to their neighbors, at times to the exact number offeet of what the neighbor's elevation is. He said they don't necessarily have to conform 100%, but they should be close. . He said although it may be the wish to be able to plan for a cohesive office park, the reality is that property owners are going to do what they want with their land as dictated by market conditions. . He said the project compared to it's neighbors in terms of office and commercial uses is not as close as he would like to see. He suggested that the heights be reduced and suggested that it be discussed further. Vice Chair Giefer: . Supports the application. . It is a well designed, attractive storage building, and the applicant has been part of the community and has provided a long term service. The location is appropriate next to the freeway. . Said she would be concerned if they did not act on it, and at some later point the office building Apple is currently leasing and will vacate at some point when their new campus is built, would be considered by another applicant for redeveloping the parcel. . She said she agreed that it should be continued and assessed for reducing the heights on both the east and west elevations. . She suggested the landscaping be improved near the Valley Green apartments and also that the applicant repave with pavers instead of blacktop to allow for seepage of water back into th,e soil. Chair Miller: . Agreed that the application should move forward. It is currently being used as a storage facility and expansion is proposed to meet the community demand for more storage facilities. . It is consistent with the zoning. . Said he was not concerned about matching the lights of the older buildings, since it matches the heights of the new building being built. . The older buildings will come in for redevelopment in the future. . Agrees with Vice Chair Giefer's comments about using pavers and adding more landscaping. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 9 May 9, 2006 . Said he had difficulty denying a use which would hold a company or property owner hostage to a nearby neighbor as to when that neighbor wanted to purchase or not purchase that property from them at a restricted price. . Does not think it is necessary to continue the application. . Supports the application. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked Chair Miller if he would support shortening the abutment or west end of building B to allow for a greater greenscape or greater space. Setback from the property line is currently at 25 feet, between the property line and the building; if they shortened that and allowed more open space between this building and the Green Valley Apartments; they could put more landscaping there and put a green screen in, potentially add more parking on the building on the west end. . Said she agreed with the comment about not designing for the past, but designing for the future; however, she said she is sensitive to the residents and even though it is primarily their parking at that end, at some point they may be residents. She suggested allowing more breathing room between the two properties if the applicant was agreeable to that. Mr. Reeves: . Said there was 50 feet between the property line and building B and that they were proposing to landscape the entire portion except for the turnaround portion. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Chair Miller, to approve Application EA-2006-06 (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application U-2006-03 with the following conditions: That the landscaping plan go back to the DRC and shall include mitigating trees to be planted along Hwy. 280; pavers to be used instead of impervious surfaces; with the condition that the fire department is in agreement. (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve Application ASA-2006-05. (Vote: 5-0-0) 5. TR-2006-07 - Anthony Christen (for Former Suburban House site) 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. Tree Removal permit to trim trees greater than 25% of the tree canopy and removal of a redwood tree at an existing commercial site. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the background application for tree removal for prior removal of a 36" diameter Coastal Redwood tree on the east side of the building and 7 Canary Island Pines that were trimmed and topped on the west side of the building; and request to trim and top the 5 remaining Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building at the site of the former Suburban House furniture store at 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. . He discussed the arborist's report as outlined in the staff report. . The arborist recommends the removal of the 7 topped Canary Island Pine trees. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10 May 9, 2006 . Staff has modified the arborist's recommendation to approve the previous tree removal and require the replacement trees for the ones that have been removed or damaged per the model resolution; and to deny the removal request of the 5 Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building that were not previously topped. Alan Firenzi, Applicant: . Reviewed the reasons the trees were cut down, which included his concern for safety of existing buildings. He also discussed concerns about damage caused by falling pine cones on autos and pine needles obstructing drainage in the storm drains and along the side of the building, and water coming into the building. . He said he was willing to work with the city, and questioned the arborist's liability if the trees caused damage. . He said he was concerned about leaving the remaining trees in their present location since they posed a danger if they fell over on a building or a car, or if a restaurant customer was hit by falling pine cones. He said the restaurant might be faced with a potential lawsuit. . He explained that the redwood tree was removed because its roots had lifted up the sidewalk. When they leased out the building, because of ADA requirements, they were instructed to cut the main root so that the sidewalk would be flattened. They opted to remove the tree because they felt cutting the main roots would pose the safety hazard ofthe tree falling over. Com. Chien: . Said that Code Enforcement went out and directed the tree pruners to stop pruning the trees. They said it was their understanding a permit was not required due to some miscommunication with staff. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: . Explained that there was a miscommunication, because the staff person contacted was someone who was not familiar with the fact that it was not only specimen trees such as Oaks that are protected, but also that the trees that are part of an approved plan are protected. The person who responded was not a member of the Planning Department, and thought that it was just a short list of trees. . It was not the applicant's fault as far as beginning to do the work. Com. Wong: . Asked staff to respond to the applicant's concerns regarding safety. Mr. Jung: . Arborist Barry Coates was asked to respond to the concern about limb breakage and he recommended in his report that if needed, the branches could be pruned; branches over 20 feet long could be cut back. He recommended that a certified arborist be retained to do the work. . Concerns about needle droppings and pine cone droppings has been expressed before. It is a maintenance issue and is part of being a property owner as maintaining one's landscaping Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked staff to explain why they recommended a 36 inch box tree when the arborist recommended a 72 inch box redwood as a replacement for the redwood that was removed. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11 May 9, 2006 Mr. Jung: . Said they were somewhat swayed by the miscommunication that occurred between the tree contractor and the city employee. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. . Ifa city tree falls on a car, it is referred to ABAG. . There is a liability issue if it is a city tree. The property owners are responsible for trees on their property; and the city maintains city trees. Ms. Wordell: . Said that the tree ordinance states that removal of a tree requires a permit. . The current practice is to require a recorded covenant for protected trees so that if somebody purchases a property they are aware of it. Com. Wong: . Asked staff if they preferred the redwood tree as the replacement tree, and if it was amenable to both the applicant and staff. Mr. Jung: . Explained that the growing zone on the west side of the building is about 11-1/2 feet wide. In addition the redwood tree grows rapidly and has very small cones firmly attached to its branches and would be not be as messy as the Canary Island Pine tree, hence the property owner would have less of a maintenance issue with it. . He said that staff was interested in replacing the trees that were topped because they would not return to their original state again. Mr. PiasecId: . Noted there were hundreds of redwood trees at DeAnza College which were subject to heavy traffic under their canopy in very small planting areas, and they grew successfully in that area. . He said that redwood trees were excellent for taut situations. They can be planted with a root barrier next to the concrete or sidewalk area which will direct the roots down into the ground instead of outward. Mr. Firenzi: . Said that he did like redwood trees, but was concerned that in the future, their roots would damage the cement slab of the store itself. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Last year there was total miscommunication about tree protection in the city. There are many things to do to educate people and she said he hoped that commercial owners would call the city first, ask if they need a permit, rather than having an incident where you have a sheriffs department come down and have to halt a cut down. . Recommended replacing the same type of trees at the location of the ones that were topped. For consistency on the property it would be much better to put back the same type of tree since it is highly visible along the Lories' Diner. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12 May 9,2006 . Said she was pleased that the city has a tree plan for that area; it adds a great deal of beauty to the area; it makes people want to come there. She said she hoped that they would consider putting back the same types of trees. You can top a redwood but you can't top a pine tree. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: . Relative to the recommendation to keep the other 5 Canary Island Pine trees, he asked if they would grow back where they had been trimmed. He also questioned if it was reasonable to take them down and replace them with redwood trees. Mr. Jung: . Said that there has not been any additional growth from the trunk of the Canary Island Pines; and it was doubtful they would ever look like they did in their present state. . As far as recommending whether to remove them and plant additional trees, he said he was not sure they would have a recommendation because if the concern is with the maintenance of the tree and the liability, staff feels that the redwood tree would be a more suitable replacement for it. The 5 Canary Island Pines have not been destroyed like the other 7, hence staff is ambivalent about removing a healthy tree. . He said he would not recommend topping a redwood tree, and he disagreed that they could be topped successfully. . Problems have occurred in the past with people topping redwood trees, and years later having the water spouts break off. He noted that there was a subdivision where the branches from the water spouts actually fell on someone's house because of a previous redwood tree topping. Com. Wong: . Suggested that replacement trees should be uniform since the redwood trees would be visible in the back. . Asked if the applicant would rather they all be replaced with redwood trees. Mr. Firenzi: . Said he would prefer a uniform appearance; but commented that the property would likely be under another use by the time they reached that height again. He said it would be pleasant to have some type of tree that would provide shade to the walkway and between the handicapped parking and the walkway into the store. Com. Wong: . If we were to suggest that instead of having a 36 inch box Coastal Redwood tree, prefer to have another kind of tree with more color, and may not uphold the roots. He recommended that the applicant work with staff on a uniform tree replacement. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked the applicant if he would be willing to replant 36 inch box redwoods if the Planning Commission were willing to let him remove the remaining Canary Island Pines. Mr. Firenzi: . Said it would depend on the cost; but they were willing to work with the city to reach an agreement. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 13 May 9,2006 Mr. Jung: . Commented that the 24 inch box redwood trees cost about $220 each and the 36 inch box redwood trees were $600 each. Com. Saadati: . Asked if putting in more 24 inch box trees would be appropriate. Mr. Jung: . Said that because the redwood trees grow large and quickly, they should not be planted too close together or it would result in a similar situation to Perimeter Road next to Vallco where the redwoods are planted too close together, and none of them look attractive. Commissioners added: . That the 24 inch box tree grows faster and usually grows healthier. The 24 inch box tree will look scrawny compared to what is there now. They would not get close in size to what is presently there. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Chair Miller, to approve TR-2006-07 with the modification that all the trees be removed and replaced with 24 inch box Coastal Redwood trees, and the 36 inch box Coastal Redwood be replaced with something that both the applicant and staff are agreeable to. Com. Wong: . Explained that the reason for the suggestion of Coastal Redwood is that it would appear out of the ordinary to have five pine trees that are topped almost two stories high, with four or five other replacement 24 inch box Coastal Redwood trees. He suggested conformity in the landscaping plan to enhance the appearances of the two businesses. Com. Chien: . Said he disagreed that the Planning Commission should be in the business of telling property owners what they can and cannot plant. The Cypress Pines are there and he did not see any reason to cut them down. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was not supportive of tree removal unless absolutely necessary, and supported trying to maintain the urban canopy. . Expressed her disappointment about the dreadful appearance of the trees and commented that she thought the skinned trees were being prepared for removal. . Said she supported removing all of the western trees if they were replaced with 36 inch box redwoods to provide a large green screen between the neighbors. . She said she would also consider foregoing the replacement of the 36 inch redwood tree, which staff is proposing, and suggested the applicant work with staff to consider planting an ornamental tree such as a Japanese Maple which would soften the edges of the building. Com. Saadati: . Supports 36 inch box trees. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 14 May 9, 2006 Mr. Firenzi: . Said that he removed the trees after one tree fell, and he was concerned about more trees falling into the property. The owners of Lorie's Diner had also expressed concern for the safety of their customers. . He said he was willing to change the trees to the 36 inch box trees. Vice Chair Giefer: . Proposed a friendly amendment to increase the size of the redwood trees to 36 inch box size and allow the applicant to remove the 5 remaining Canary Island Pines, and replace them with the 36 inch box redwood trees. Com. Wong: . Accepted the friendly amendment to his motion. Chair Miller: . Accepted the friendly amendment to the second to the motion. Mr. Jung clarified the motion: . To revise staffs model resolution to allow the removal ofthe 12 Canary Island Pine trees on the west side of the building, and that they would be replaced with a 36 inch box Coastal Redwood, one/one replacement, and that the Coastal Redwood removed on the east side of the building be replaced by a 36 inch box tree of the species to be determined by the applicant and Director of Community Development. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Chien No) The agenda was moved back to Item 1, North Vallco Master Plan. Com. Chien: . Said he felt the audience input was overall positive. Many property owners expressed what they would like to see. Hewlett Packard and Apple's comments were particularly enlightening; their concern was how the Commission would address how to attract businesses to the area since continuation of a successful business climate is what would ensure not only their success, but also the city's success. . Many property owners want to convert their property into residential, and they have the overlay to do so. It will be intensely debated amongst the Commission and Council given all the discourse that is happening in the community. Chair Miller: . Reported on his visit to Petaluma, California where they had experienced the same concept of forward planning. ./ Petaluma was not pleased with their results as they chose architects, not planners, as consultants. They paid $800,000 for their design and did not have positive results. ./ The city planned for some areas of new development and a number of areas of older existing development, and when they planned, they focused on the new development and neglected to look at the old development and what might happen in terms of remodeling and rebuilding. When those people eventually came in, they weren't totally prepared for them. ./ Said he was disappointed in Petaluma's process and results. . He reported that the city of Hercules, California had more positive results with their plan. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 15 May 9,2006 ./ Hercules is situated on the Bay, and attempted to design their large waterfront district from both a residential and a commercial standpoint. A Planning Commissioner at the time they were working on their process came forward and offered to do some forward planning, and spearheaded the entire process; and as a result he was hired at the city's Director of Planning. ./ Hercules collected data and questions they felt they needed to answer in order to move forward with the process as to what made sense from an economic standpoint and from a development standpoint. ./ They had a fact finding session and then went around to all the individual stakeholders and held sessions with them. When they met with the residents they decided on a format called the town meeting, where participating residents met in a large room and broke up into groups to brainstorm, compile their thoughts and turn in a formal written summary of what they had done. ./ They did that with other groups as well and then had a core design team that sat down and held charettes, which is a condensed design session that took place over a period of a week to ten days. ./ The core task was accomplished in a three month period. ./ He said it was a successful approach and he toured what they had done. ./ Hercules spent $300,000; and effectively charged back to the developers in the areas so that the city did not have to layout most of that money. . He also reported that he had spent time studying Mountain View through the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. He toured the city, and was very impressed with the different way they managed it. Rather than doing town meetings, they formed a task force with residents from the city, who looked at a number of different solutions that might be successful in Mountain View. The task force then worked with staff and the consultants to come up with the final plan which they presented to the City Council. . He presented two suggestions to involve the Cupertino residents in the process. One through a task force and the other through a town meeting, noting that how they take resident input and get the residents to feel that they participated and feel good about the result is very critical to the success of the process in Cupertino. Com. Saadati: . Said he would like to see Costco or another big box in the area next to the freeway, because of the good access. There are presently no big boxes nearby and it would bring taxes into the city. . As time goes on, if some residential would be complementing the businesses there, it would be worth considering, but said at this time he would not be unduly influenced considering there are two big campuses there and they need a lot of other businesses that would complement their business or work with them. . Commented that from the community input, some property owners wanted to demolish and build residential; and more input is needed from the residents. He said the bulk of the issue has gone away from the time the discussion began. . Relative to getting input from residents, he suggested the Cupertino Scene; inviting the community to come and speak; sending postcards and put on the website, sending emails; and getting some of the developers input. . He noted the challenge was that there were only 1-1/2 months; the selection of a task force may take a month with not much time left to do the work. Town meetings could be held for people adjacent to the area. He said he did not feel they did an adequate job of outreach to the adjacent communities. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 16 May 9, 2006 Com. Wong: . He said they were successful in getting diverse stakeholders from the retail in Cupertino Village, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Pacific Resource, and the owners North of Prune ridge on Tantau. . Former Planning Commissioner Angela Chen suggested in a General Plan how they could be proactive in planning and it is what they are attempting to do, even though Apple is coming in with 50 acres. Business developers or owners want to know if they will be doing industrial or housing before they move forward. . If planners want to suggest or community folks want to suggest that on the edges we might want to include parks or retail or synergy with other buildings, we should have this information up front to whoever the owner may be, so that when they come into the Planning Department and ask what can we do with the property, even though it is zoned industrial, there are some community benefits that we want to see on this Master Plan area. . He said as suggested perhaps the best way is to send postcards out to the neighbors and residents and have a town hall meeting to get ideas and gather information, and have staff put the information together and have the Planning Commission present it to the City Council. . He said he felt they were headed in the right direction; it is a vision with no preconceived ideas with the goal to come up with a master plan. . He said that the Apple and HP campuses may not be filled for about four years, and he felt they could not wait three or four years; but must be proactive now and can start with North Vallco and go into other areas of Cupertino. Chair Miller: . Asked the Commissioners if they felt it was advantageous to hire consultants to assist in the process. Com. Wong: . Said that he felt the previous City Manager from Mountain View would be a helpful resource. Vice Chair Giefer: . Relative to the draft scope of work, she said her suggestions for inclusion were incorporated into the document. . She explained that the San Jose Mercury includes a feature at the end of their articles called "Why This is Important." She said with the dissent there is within the community which arises at different time regarding the Planning Commission's and City Council's decisions, it may be worthwhile to put all the legal verbiage that needs to go into the public notices and include why the public should pay attention, participate and be aware of what is happening in the community. . She also suggested putting a website link on the card with the information so that people can rapidly access the internet; put a phone number so people can respond and get information; have the city channel do a presentation of what a particular issue is about. . She said rather than forming a task force, a community congress, town hall meetings and utilizing the city channel would provide rapid input, for quick reviews of the issues; why they are pertinent and state the advantage of people coming to the meetings. She suggested that if the city channel did quick reviews of the issues as they are being reviewed and publicized that they are pertinent and why people should come to the meetings, it would result in a greater overall public participation. . She said that because the majority of the land is already defined by the purchase; Hewlett Packard has a development agreement; Apple may have a development agreement in the Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 17 May 9, 2006 future; the focus needs to be how to determine how to externalize these secure campuses and make them part of the community, and determine what services the employees have. . She said if they turned every other parcel in this area to residential which she was not advocating, the impact on the real estate would be minimal compared to the ownership that is currently there. It changes the focus of the discussions, since they will be talking about what services the adjacent residents in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara need, and what services and facilities do the daytime business residents need close to the office parks. Com. Chien: . Addressed Chair Miller's question about how to get data, since data is crucial to the discussion. . Suggested partnering with Hewlett Packard and Apple to invite their employees to come and speak about what they would like to see as individuals who work there. Often the corporate representatives look at it from a high level and there isn't the deep insight into what these employees want. . Suggested approaching the employers to seek their interest in a flier with both the city logo and their company logo, and invite their employees to participate with the verbiage that Vice Chair Giefer suggested about the importance of the process. Chair Miller: . Said he was uncertain of the time frame to complete the task; the City Council said come back and report to them in July, but did not specify that it had to be completed in July. . Since the Council gave us the go ahead to do this, Apple has come in after that point, and I think that makes our planning exercise a lot more important and I am hoping from a Council standpoint, that they might see that it is worthy of taking a little more time and making sure we do it right. . Hewlett Packard is content with the way things are, and doesn't want any major changes to their campus. Apple was uncertain of their plans; they are still in the purchase phase and are not prepared to plan. . In terms of connections or links to vendors and suppliers, Apple said it was important that they have them physically; but HP didn't feel it was important and what has happened at North Valko would bear that in mind, that apparently HP's vendors and suppliers don't feel the need to be close to them, or perhaps they are larger vendors and suppliers and have very fixed locations. . He said it was worth taking a look at getting input from people who are going to work in those environments to see whether it makes sense to do something that is different than the standard corporate campus that people have been doing since the 60s and 70s. . A previous speaker discussed the Google campus which includes additional amenities. . Staff suggests that the focus be on scope and time frame to be given to the City Council in July. . He said he hoped that they could move faster and get the scope and schedule done sooner and move forward with the collection of data and taking more input from the residents. . From a data collection standpoint, we can think through the kinds of questions we need to answer at this point, and start to collect that data and talk to people about that. Discussion ensued regarding the starting time for the May 23rd meeting. There was consensus to begin the meeting at 5 p.m. Cupertino Planning Commission Regular Meeting 18 May 9, 2006 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: . Chair Miller reported that the storage facility application was discussed. Housin2 Commission: . Com. Wong reported that the meeting will be held May 11, 2006. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin2 With Commissioners: Com. Chien reported: . The Teen Commission conducted a successful bike and walk-to-school day, with an increase in participants from the previous year. . Parks & Recreation Commission is experiencing soccer field reservation problems as a result of increased use of recreation on the fields in Cupertino. . The Art Commission was directed to look into the proposed wall art at Whole Foods. . Public Safety Commission stressed the importance of emergency preparedness in homes. . The County has certified the petitions gathered by community members for the referendum on two development projects in Cupertino. The two parties that are the focus of the referendum disagree with the method used to collect the petitions and have taken official action with the city. The city's position on the way that the referendums were collected is neutral. . June 6 is the primary election, registration deadline is May 22, 2006. Economic Development Committee: . Com. Chien reported that there was discussion about the referendums and how that plays into planning the city. The EDC is considering developing a mini department, hiring an Economic Development Manager, to have a full time person work on bringing businesses into the city to make it more profitable. Report of the Director of Community Development: . Ms. Wordell reported that the republished General Plan would be available shortly, and will be sent to the Planning Commission, in printed copy and on a CD. She reported that the General Plan would be on the website, and CDs will be available for minimal cost. She noted that a printed copy of the Plan would be very costly. SUBMITTED BY: The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting at 5 p.m. on May 23, 2006. ,.../~ ~~ ~ Elizabet~nling Secretary ADJOURNMENT: Approved as amended: June 27, 2006