Loading...
PC 08-22-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. AUGUST 22, 2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 2006, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Cary Chien Taghi Saadati Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director City Planner: Assistant Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Piu Ghosh Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27.2006 Planninf! Commission minutes: Corrections as noted: . Page 9, and other locations in the minutes: Change "moray" to read "morion" Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2006 Planning Commission as amended. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Wong and Vice Chair Giefer absent) Julv 11. 2006 Planninf! Commission minutes: Corrections as noted: . Page 13, Com. Saadati, last bullet: Delete "technical engineers work to" and insert "two engineers work together to" Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2006 Planning Commission as amended. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Wong and Vice Chair Giefer absent) Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 22, 2006 AUl!ust 8. 2006 Planninl! Commission minutes: Corrections as noted: . Page 20, middle of page, delete the sentence "Asked what size box tree is represented by a IS-foot high tree" and replace with: "Asked what would be the box size tree for a 15- foot high tree." Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2006 Planning Commission as amended. (Vote: 2-0-1 Com. Wong and Vice Chair Giefer absent; Com. Chien abstained) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff noted receipt of an email. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Gail Bower, Cupertino resident: . Discussed the issue of the valley oak tree No. 153 being removed at Blackberry farm and expressed concern about the tree policy at Blackberry Farm not being maintained. She requested that staff investigate whether or not a tree permit was issued for removal of the tree. . Said the plan calls for redoing the picnic area on the west side, and felt that since the entire hillside is eroding badly, it would not be a good use of funds to build new things for picnickers when the hillside is falling down. She requested that staff look into the issue. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. U-2006-08, ASA-2006-11 Terry Brown (Hamid Ghazvini) 21761 Granada Avenue Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for a new 1,180 square foot commercial/office building and three residential units (5,010 square feet). Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural site approval for the demolition of an existing single family residential building and the construction of one mixed use building with one I-bedroom unit and two 2-bedroom units, located in a planned development, as outlined in the staff report. . She reviewed the site analysis, parking requirements and tree specifications. . Staff recommends approval of the use permit and architectural and site approval in accordance with the model resolutions. No environment action is required as it is categorically exempt. . Explained that the sequence for transplanting the trees would be that the building would be demolished first, followed by the transplant of the trees, which is based on the recommendation from the arborist. . Responding to a question about what additional measures would be taken to protect the freshly transplanted trees, she said that the buildings that are going to be located close to the tree are going to be on a pier and grade beam foundation so they don't have to dig into the root structure of the trees. . She said all mitigation measures and protection measures will be according to the Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 22, 2006 recommendations of the arborist and apply to the trees being transplanted as well as those not being transplanted. Mr. Piasecki: . Noted that Condition No. 13 states that if for some reason the tree doesn't survive, they are obligated to provide a comparable diameter replacement tree or field growing trees. . The tree will be checked before occupancy or before final approval to make certain it has survived. If the tree does not survive, experience shows that it will usually die within a year from the time they start construction. Ms. Ghosh: . Noted that the oak tree that the arborist had not reviewed was a healthy young oak and could be transplanted. . Said there is no specified FAR for this particular zoning . Said the two other properties with significantly higher units per gross acre than allowed in the General Plan were likely built in the late 80s. Terry Brown, representing property owner: . Said the FAR of .81 includes the covered parking for the residential units similar to the FAR for the two projects that were approved on Orange Avenue. . He said the design and layout of the project, density and mix of use was greatly dictated by the burdensome tree issues and they worked with staff and the city arborist to develop methods to make sure they preserved all the trees. Although it is burdensome to design a project because of all the trees, once built the trees are an asset. . He said they looked forward to a high quality development and appreciate the Planning Commission's consideration. . Said he agreed with staff recommendations for changing the dormer and balconies. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Gail Bower, resident: . Asked what the status of the deodora tree on the Granada property was. Staff said it was being saved. . She suggested that either the arborist's recommendation or the tree ordinance be used to protect the trees during demolition and construction. Hopefully someone will be on site when the demolition happens to make sure to protect the trees so that they can be transplanted and can be reused or saved. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Expressed concern with the amount of buildup in the Monta Vista area and questioned where the high density planned development would end. . Said she supported the Queen Ann style design, as it was the standard there and appropriate for the area. . She questioned the age of the structure and whether or not it was protected by the historic ordinance. . She also expressed concern about the safety of the onstreet parking. Ms. Ghosh: . Referred to the zoning map and illustrated the location of the neighborhood commercial light industrial area which extends up through Granada Avenue to one parcel south of Granada Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 22, 2006 Avenue and is bound by Orange Avenue to the west and the railroad tracks to the east. She said the portion to the south is single family suburban residential with the school on McClellan outlined in blue. . Said that the General Plan does not list the house as historical. Chris Ciardella, Granada Avenue property owner: . Supports the project. . Said the project was an enhancement to the neighborhood. Bob Bell, Cupertino resident: . Owns the property across from the development and supports the project. . Said the property was changed to neighborhood commercial about 30 years ago, and the home is in a state of disrepair. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Saadati: . Supports staff recommendation. . Said the project was consistent with other properties developed in the area recently. He recommended more emphasis be put on the protection of trees beyond the construction phase. Com. Chien: . Said it is an area that residents will question why it is different. It is clearly different because it is zoned P which allows commercial as well as residential and why there is a lot of the mixed use there. . The proposed project is asking for a mixed use and the neighbors should not feel that this will be happening and pervading Cupertino; it is strictly for this area which is zoned P, different from Rl standards. . Supports staff's recommendation. Chair Miller: . Supports staff recommendation. . The project fits well into the neighborhood and there are no major issues with the project. . Said he was pleased that the applicant has taken the measures to save the trees and was impressed with the efforts in designing the houses with the trees in mind. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application U-2006- 08 and ASA-2006-11. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Wong absent) 2. M-2006-03 Curtis Leigh (Cupertino Town Center) 10440 So. DeAnza Blvd Modification ofa Use Permit (U-2002-06) for 19,135 square feet of retail space to clarify that general commercial uses are allowed. Planning Commission decision isfinal unless appealed. Ms. Ghosh presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for modification of a Use Permit for 19,135 square feet of retail space to clarify that general commercial uses are allowed. . Reviewed the history of the application. The City Council approved the use permit on May 19, 2003 for the entire 12 acre Civic Park site for medical/professional offices for 123,695 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 22, 2006 square feet, general office space for 141,850 square feet, residential units up to 142 units of which only 131 were built, and retail/restaurant only space for 19,135 square feet. At that meeting there were comments from the applicant and the Council; the applicant had expressed the desire and the intent that the mid-block retail element proposed was very important to the success of their project and that they had great interest in several restaurants at that point., At the same time Council commented that they envisioned the project to be the Town Center of the city and that the healthy retail space fronting on DeAnza gave special interest to the DeAnza frontage as proposed by the applicant. . Said the applicant has strong interest from a financial institution for space fronting DeAnza Boulevard and that they would like to have a coffee shop and restaurant on the DeAnza frontage, and several personal services establishments and other establishments along Town Center Lane and one restaurant at the corner of Town Center Lane and the park. . Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the modified resolution with wording change. Ms. Ghosh: . Explained the criteria for the recommendation of 50% retail/restaurant and not 75% or less. . Said they want the minimum space to be used as retail/restaurant even though giving the applicant the flexibility of using some of that space for other uses. The applicant indicated that they had interest for 6,000 square feet of financial space; and coming up with something that is largely retail/restaurant, it was determined that 50% would be a good figure to use as a majority. . In terms of the frontage, it was determined from what the applicant provided on the floor plan that they wanted roughly 57% or 58% of the frontage on DeAnza Boulevard for the financial institution, and this figure was rounded out to 60%. Com. Saadati: . The original plan for this development was to make the area very active. Is that going to change substantially? . Based on the code, what would the occupancy be on the financial institution portion versus retail, because with the financial institution, it will be a fixed number of people using it vs. the retail/restaurant having people coming and going. Ms. Ghosh: . The applicant is suggesting a restaurant on one corner, a coffee shop on the other corner and a restaurant on a third corner. They are attempting to activate the different corners and utilize the plaza space that they are going to have on the frontage for seating. Mr. Piasecki: . Said it was not significantly different for this size of a facility. The expectation is for about 3- 1/2 persons per 1,000 square feet for office, and there is between 2 to 3 for retail. The push from the applicant's standpoint is they are looking for flexibility to make it more marketable and staff does not have a concern about that. . Said the goal is for it to be a highly successful marketable center as well, provided they get some of the retail/restaurant on DeAnza Boulevard and at least 50% of the 19,000 square feet in retail/restaurant. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Asked staff, in light of the economic development and the use of the buildings for some economic benefit to the city, what would the loss be to the city relative to revenue as opposed to having retail. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 22, 2006 Ms. Wordell: . Said it would be the sales tax from the financial institution, whatever the sales tax would have been for retail; approximately a 50% loss to the city. Mr. Deke Hunter, Applicant: . Reviewed the history of the application from its inception in 2003. . When the application as submitted which was approved in 2003, there was a great amount of interest on the mixed use element. . He said he proposed to have 2 restaurants and 2 quick service restaurants in the center. . He noted that completion of the project would be the end of the year. . He explained that the nationally recognized tenants are more interested in the revitalization of Valko or other major venues which would draw from more than one or two miles, and said the left hand turn issue may be a hindrance to accessibility to the proposed project. The neighborhood feel will be a reflection of the tenant mix that they have. Chair Miller opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Suggested that the financial units on DeAnza Boulevard be limited to 60% in the frontage along DeAnza Boulevard as there are presently many banks along the street and she felt it had become the banking district of Cupertino. . Expressed concern about accessibility to the center, and the type of parking available along DeAnza Boulevard. She said it would help to know the ingresses and egresses into the complex; and questioned where the restaurant parking would be. . She commented that because of the confusion about access and parking, she would normally pass such a development by. Deke Hunter, developer: . Referred to the site plan of the retail spaces and stated that currently there is no street parking of consequence on DeAnza Boulevard; all parking for the retail on DeAnza Boulevard is within their own respective shopping centers. . Apologized to the neighbors and community as they were in the final phases and rebuilding the two points of ingress/egress along DeAnza Boulevard. . He illustrated the ingress/egress points and the location of the perimeter parking as well as the pedestrian access. Assistant Attorney Eileen Murray discussed concerns with Deke Hunter about trash removal, and mail service to the tenants of the complex. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Chien: . Relative to the term 'retail/restaurant' he asked staff if it was an oversight or if the developers did not understand, and they prefer commercial. Mr. Piasecki: . Said staff understood exactly what they were saying when this came forward and we had understood that they were trying to maximize the retail restaurant component. He said when they do not need to do that, they will use the term 'general commercial' because that is the Cupertino Planning Commission 7 August 22, 2006 broader description. Retail/restaurant means literally retail/restaurant. He said it is possible that the applicant misunderstood, but staff feels that when it goes to the public hearing process, perhaps 50% of the people would understand the distinction and it was important that if it is going to be changed, it go through the public hearing process and changed in public and through the open process so that there was no confusion that there is now more flexibility. . Staff feels it is in the public's interest to insist that the applicant seek out predominantly or at least half retail/restaurant components and that they get a good part of that on DeAnza Boulevard. They also want the applicant to be successful. Com. Chien: . When the project was initially approved in 2003, they wanted retail to promote pedestrian activity and that has not been eliminated with the change. There are several interested restaurants and QRCs. . He said the interest for pedestrian activity still exists, and he appreciated staff taking the time to come up with the compromise and said he hoped the applicant would work within those compromises to avoid any future misunderstandings. . Said his main concern was that they stay within the spirit of the 2003 findings, which he felt they did. He said he supported the application. Com. Saadati: . Said he was not sure if it was realistic to expect 100% restaurant and retail in the timeline to get it filled. Staff's proposal for some flexibility and bringing a balance with a financial institution, may help the restaurant survive. . Said he agreed with Com. Chien and supported staff's recommendation, and said he was hopeful they could keep 50 or 60% retail and restaurant and that they be successful. Chair Miller: . Recalled that when the application was submitted several years ago, it involved a lot of give and take and negotiating, and said to some extent it was a contentious application. . He said his understanding was that the term 'retail/restaurant' was a council directive and part of the agreement. He expressed concern that they were giving the applicant flexibility to fit the tenant into the slot and making the rules to fit that particular tenant. . He asked staff if they were concerned about the loss of retail sales dollars? Mr. Piasecki: . Said there is always a concern about loss of retail sales dollars. He pointed out that they would not get the retail sales dollars only if they adhered to the retail/restaurant only limitation. At the same time, most of their shopping centers have a mixture and this is not atypical. . He concurred that there was a lot of prior discussion, the intention was that it would be retail/restaurant, but they are trying to be realistic that the applicant has some good tenants lined up. He said that although they may not get the center they thought it was three years ago, it may become that and perhaps allowing this kind of flexibility will allow the applicant to attract some good restaurants. Chair Miller: . Expressed concern about changing it and not giving the Council an opportunity unless they chose to appeal or not. He asked if they could insist that the application go on to the City Council regardless of what was decided at the meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 22, 2006 Mr. Piasecki: . Said there were two options; to refer it to Council for review or request that staff notify the City Council of the decision, should they decide to appeal it. . Said that referring it to City Council would require a separate resolution stating that while a recommendation may be made, it is being referred to Council. They may take no action which would make it effective, or Council could modify it. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approval Application M-2006-03. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Wong absent) Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to forward the application to City Council for review. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Wong absent) 3. TM-2006-08 Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion Park) 10123 No. Wolfe Road Tentative Map to crate 10 commercial condominium units and 204 residential condominium units on an approximately six-acre Parcel (Rosebowl). Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staffreport: . Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to create 10 commercial condominium units and 204 residential condominium units on an approximate 6 acre parcel (Rosebowl). There is presently an approval on the site for a mixed use development of retail and residential; the retail is about 105,000 square feet on the lower level which is a 2 level high volume space and then 4 levels of residential for the 204 units. . Illustrated the site plans and floor plans showing what the space was approved for. . Several issues relate to the proposal. Some came up in a discussion with Com. Miller prior to the meeting a few days ago. One of the concerns was that how do we know that the subdivision that occurs later, is in conformance with what was originally approved. We are going to propose that there can be some conditions of approval; that there be a new condition of approval that would specify that there would be review at staff level to assure that when the condos are finally sold, that they do conform to what was originally approved. We are also going to be proposing some additional reciprocal parking and access easements; we want to clarify the pedestrian access further. . Another concern expressed is that by subdividing the commercial spaces, Vall co Fashion Park and perhaps the city as well would lose control over what is an appropriate tenant mix there. . She said she understood from the applicant that they do still retain control; it would still be true for all the access as well. She suggested that the condition be made part of the project and not just rely on Valko Fashion Park to say that they will be retaining approval of the tenants and also reciprocal access. . Some additional conditions staff is recommending would be that the subdivided parcels should be verified by staff, that they do conform to the original approval; that there be reciprocal parking and ingress/easements for the commercial/retail parking spaces to other commercial uses anywhere in the center, and also the Valley Transportation Authority for park and ride uses which is part of the use permit. . She said the pedestrian access along the east side is going to need to round the corner to the south to meet up with the metropolitan pathways; therefore staff would like to have that easement extended further along the south property line. . Lastly, the Valko property owners or successor would be involved in selection of the retail tenants which would be a covenant recorded with the tentative map before the final map. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 22, 2006 . With the additional conditions, staff recommendation is for approval of the tentative map. The property owner can address more background on why they are seeking a commercial subdivision and how they expect to retain control of some of the things pointed out. · Said the tentative map conforms to the footprint of what was previously approved; the 204 residential units were proposed at that time to be for sale, and there was no mention then that there would be separate subdivided units for the retail. Ciddy Wordell: . In response to Chair Miller's request to identify the 10 condominium units, she said they were not able to do that; the retail space is shown on the ground level and the tentative map does not need to specify what those would be. The property owner will explain what their concept is of how those would be subdivided. . They use the term commercial; the Use Permit says retail; it is a similar issue to what was just discussed, but it is retail. There is no flexibility to do something other than retail. Mike Rohde, Vallco Fashion Park, applicant: . Relative to the other 105,000 square feet of retail, he said they would likely break it up into three or four tenants. The center section which is about 8,000 square feet would be a good use of a restaurant or two restaurants; the easterly portion is a possibility fo! a market or another retailer; they are talking to multiple retailers for the particular space. The retail on the west side which is close to 58,000 square feet has the opportunity to be broken up into two or three different retail components. . He said the concept was high volume retail, with 17 foot high ceilings. There is parking below the retail and parking in the center section above that retail. At grade behind the center retail there will be parking directly behind it to feed retail. . Said that the plans were to move forward with the Rosebowl, and he felt it was a preliminary type of discussion, but the tentative map is a necessary instrument for them to move forward. Chair Miller: . Asked the applicant to explain how they could maintain control over the retail space. Mike Rhode: . Explained that part of the mall will continually control the retail; they are working with the leasing company to help come up with a tenant mix that is right for that particular space. There is some criteria in the documents with the department stores that limit some of the uses that can be utilized. . He said they felt this particular retail will be easily sold, it will help sell itself and will be a stand alone project. It is depicted with storefront retail as well as enough parking to be a self contained opportunity. . Said there was no intention to sell the individual condominium units in the future; and he was not opposed to a condition being imposed relative to the sale. Ms. Wordell: . Clarified that the issue arose before and they were advised that a condition stating that the individual condos could not be sold in the future, could not be added. Chair Miller: . Said that although the present applicant stated they did not intend to sell the spaces individually in the future, the same applicant may not always own the center, and some future applicant may decide that for them it makes sense to sell off the individual spaces. He said he Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 22, 2006 felt selling them individually would be detrimental to the center; and questioned what mechanism could be used to allow the applicant to get what they want, but also ensure that the center and the city benefit also. Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray: . Said that they both could agree to make it a condition to remain rental space. Mr. Piasecki: . Suggested the option that the Planning Commission specify the applicant agrees that the commercial area will remain under one ownership and that Vallco Fashion Park or the successors thereto will have control over the tenancy of that space. If they should transfer it, it would have to transfer in bulk to somebody else and they would still retain control of the tenancy which would in effect say that you don't want to sell it to somebody else, and somebody else wouldn't buy it if you have control over their tenancy. . You would specify that it would occur should they desire to transfer ownership of any of these individual parcels they will first come back to the city and amend the use permit, and that they would do this as a separate development agreement, some instrument acceptable to the city attorney. Eileen Murray: . Said it was appropriate to make it a condition that it would all stay as one unit and that there be no sale of it without approval of the city; hence it would have to come back to the Planning Commission. She said it was difficult to restrain the sale of property, but they could have a condition that it comes back for approval. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Rhoda Fry, Cupertino resident: . Requested that if the Farmers' Market could not remain at Vallco, another location III Cupertino be found. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Asked for a definition of commercial condominium. . Said it was important for Cupertino to keep Vallco intact as much as possible; it is primarily a shopping center, and it is hoped that in the future all parts of it will remain as a shopping center, so that residents of Cupertino can continue the long standing tradition of shopping at Vallco. . Expressed concern about the removal of the inner line of ash trees along Wolfe Road which was an item that came up in the initial preparations of this development. Said she understood that the line of trees along Wolfe Road is to be retained and not harmed in any way; and also the inner row of ashes, if they are the ones immediately adjacent to the Rosebowl development property, were supposed to remain. She said she was concerned about the wording that they are to be removed; someone may have to look back at the wording. . She addressed the issue of the removal of ash trees along Valko Parkway. She said it is not known whether Vallco Parkway will be brought down another lane on each side; therefore it is important to leave the ash trees up at this point. If they are removed, will they be replanted as the double row of ash trees is a long standing hallmark of the Shopping district and of the commercial district. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 22, 2006 Mr. Piasecki: . Confirmed that landscaping was not being reviewed at this meeting. . Said that the application does not change the previous City Council approval which supports what Ms. Griffin said. Every attempt will be made to keep all of the trees; some are dead and will be allowed to be removed, but there is heavy scrutiny over the entire tree row down Wolfe Road, and this doesn't alter it. The approval is granted by the Council. Com. Saadati: . Stated that the use of the building is not changing, it remains as it was approved previously. . Said he supported the staff recommendation with additional conditions. Chair Miller: . Said he supported the application with the recommended conditions. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM- 2006-08 with the conditions discussed in the staff presentation and a condition added that any attempts to sell it by Vallco International or its successor come back to the Planning Commission; also that the applicant will sign an agreement acceptable to the city attorney stating that and that the tenancy of that space will still be under the control of Vallco or its successor, even if the entirety of the commercial space were to be transferred, that it would still come under their jurisdiction and control. (Vote: 3-0-0) OLD BUSINESS 4. Report on tree removal procedures for City property. Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report: . Explained that staff was responding to a request from the Planning Commission for a report on whether city property was subject to the same tree removal permit requirements in the heritage and specimen tree ordinance. . The city has an ordinance that protects certain trees, whether they are very unique heritage trees, or whether they are specimen trees that are particular types such as Oak or are protected because they are part of a use permit or subdivision. . She reported that public property is subject to the heritage and specimen tree ordinance and therefore if trees are removed, they would need to get a permit. The current ordinance reads if there are certain trees that are unsafe or diseased, they could be approved for removal by the Director of Community Development. It would require an application but approval would be at staff level and those are trees that are in subdivisions, use permits, zoning actions. Therefore a tree that is removed on public property would have to come to the Planning Commission. Some of the wording is proposed to be changed in the tree modifications to be reviewed in September. . Regarding the Oak tree removed at Blackberry Farm, which was one of the reasons this came back to the Planning Commission, they are required to get a tree removal permit. The tree was removed for safety reasons and they have applied for a tree removal permit although it hasn't been scheduled. It was also pointed out in the staff report that the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan indicated that one of the mitigations for their tree removal is that they will be coming to the city for a tree removal permits; hence for that area it is already on record that they will be applying for tree removal permits. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 August 22, 2006 Com. Saadati: · Asked what the possibilities of the permits coming before the Planning Commission were. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that if a tree is unsafe or has to be removed for emergency purposes, an application is made to the Community Development Director and approved at stafflevel. If it was a tree that was approved through a subdivision or a use permit, or for any reason such as an institution or public property, it goes to the Planning Commission irrespective of whether it was unsafe or emergency or whatever reason anybody wants to remove it, if it is a protected tree. . Said that there would be public notification in a publicly noticed meeting. · Explained that the tree removed at Blackberry Farm was removed for emergency safety reasons, and they did not need to publicly notice it. Com. Chien: . Said that tree removal has been a hot topic in the community recently, which prompted the report. Residents are expected to abide by a very high standard, which is while not every tree is protected, the process to remove them is. He said it starts with the city setting that example. . A city tree was removed and staff has been asked to report on what occurred; did the city go through the normal procedures as the residents would have to? Clearly they are doing so retroactively, and the residents will know that the city needs to abide by the very high standards set before residents are asked to. The tree ordinance is going through several revisions which will be reviewed in September. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Gail Bower, resident: . She noted that it was a stalwart tree, and she questioned what the safety issue was with the tree, particularly since there is a parking lot designated for -that spot should the Blackberry Farm program actually go through. . She reviewed the process to be followed for tree removal which was posted on the city website and pointed out that the tree could be removed before the application process was completed with the city. She said there was no posted notice about the proposed tree removal. . Said there should be a much stronger language on the website and much more visibility given to the city ordinance about trees, so that people clearly can see on the website what the tree process IS. . She said that in terms of the changes being considered, she would recommend higher penalties as a deterrent should a tree be removed without a permit. . Relative to the ordinance changes, she recommended that there be a third party such as the Planning Commission to look at tree removal permits before anything happens. . She recommended adding the California Buckeye tree to the protected list as well as the Incense Cedar or perhaps all cedars. Chair Miller: . Said that if a resident sees inappropriate activity relative to cutting down trees, they should call Code Enforcement to have them come out to the site. Rhoda Fry, resident: . Said that the felled protected heritage Oak already girdled by asphalt was inconveniently located in the proposed parking lot with parking spots within its drip line. This area has been Cupertino Planning Commission 13 August 22, 2006 extensively studied by multiple tax payer finance experts. How did the safety issue come up? Why wasn't the area secured with caution tape? . She illustrated areas on the site plan where trees had been removed. . She said she did not understand why there are plenty of tree stumps on the property, the pine and oak stumps were promptly removed, located within sight of the 1776 DeAnza expedition and Captain Stevens settlement; the oak stump had archeological, aesthetic, historic and interpretative value; it would have been an asset to the new park. . She recommended removing the asphalt on top of trees; stop allowing people to park on top of trees; there is plenty of parking available. Maintain the trees, and set an example of stewardship. . Said that being environmentally sound is also being fiscally sound; the city was denied an $800,00 grant due to environmental concerns on the Stevens Creek Corridor project. She said Cupertino can make better decisions relative to the environment, and she was pleased to see that the Planning Commission was sensitive to the city trees. Chair Miller: . Said he asked that the item be added to the agenda based on Ms. Fry's observation at the last meeting that the tree was removed. He explained that the purpose was to clarify what the regulations were and what the requirements were for tree removal on the city property. In so doing, it was discovered that the tree was removed and the process is that they have removed it, and have made application for a tree removal permit which will be agendized for a Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the details of that particular tree will be discussed. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she was encouraged that the city of Cupertino protected its trees and noted that city staff was extremely helpful recently on protecting an Oak tree on Judy Avenue. . Said it was important on construction sites that trees be fenced off and protected during construction. . It is also important that Cupertino residents are aware that code enforcement officers will come quickly when called. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Chien: . Said he looked forward to the tree ordinance revisions that would be reviewed in September. Com. Saadati: . Said that more outreach was needed to inform residents of the tree ordinance and the process to be followed in order to remove trees. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: . No meeting held since the last Planning Commission meeting. Housin2 Commission: No report.