The URL can be used to link to this page

draft minutes 6-26-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 5:30 P.M. June 26, 2007 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Study Session of Planning Commission of June 26, 2007, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Commissioner Gilbert Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: David Kaneda Marty Miller Gilbert Wong (Acting Chair for Study Session) Commissioners Absent: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer (arrived approximately 8 p.m.) Cary Chien (arrived at 6:45 p.m.) Staff present: Community Development Director: Assistant City Attorney: Senior Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant Planner Public Works: Steve Piasecki Eileen Murray Colin Jung Aki Honda Snelling Gary Chao Piu Ghosh Glen Goepfert STUDY SESSION 1. Global Green Sustainability Project - Draft Report. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: . Stated that the 2007 Work Program approved by the Planning Commission and City Council included implementation of the sustainability policies in the General Plan. . The implementation of the sustainability policies has been divided into two phases; the first phase, a summary analysis of the currently existing efforts of the city related to green building and sustainable development has been prepared which provides direction for the second phase. . The consultants from Global Green will present an update on their progress on the project. Walker Wells, Global Green USA, Consultant: . Said their presentation would include a summary of the analysis they had been working on for the last three months related to the topic of sustainability. The study has included the City's General Plan, goals, policies, programs, and ordinances and an analysis of those based on some of the elements of sustainability and the one of the most commonly used green building programs. . Said that the project was a result of direction from the City Council and Planning Commission for the City to move forward at a faster rate in terms of implementing the sustainable policies Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 26, 2007 in the General Plan. The purpose of the analysis is to provide an inventory of what is happening in the city to identify that degree of implementation, and to provide some judgment in terms of how Cupertino is doing relative to the two topics. Sustainable city programs and green building programs were the areas studied and a background on each was provided at the previous study session. · Sustainability fosters new synergies among city programs and the public in an effort to link environmental responsibility, social equity and economic stability. · Green building is the umbrella that includes a number of issues including energy efficiency, water efficiency, recycled material use, healthy indoor air quality, and land use that cities are implementing or operating programs around. Green building and green building programs can be a way to tie together different activities that the city may already have underway and identify any gaps that may need to be filled. · The dominant green building program and one used for the analysis is LEED (the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design). He said there were a number of LEED rating systems and they used the LEED system for new construction as it is the most tested of the LEED rating systems. Monica GilIcrest, Global Green USA, Consultants: · Said the study was broad based in order to include what is currently happening; the focus being on the goals and policies, and looking at the intent of what the city wants to achieve and things that back it up. Included in the study were the General Plan update from 2005, the Municipal Code, website information, handouts, the Cupertino Scene and interviews with city staff to find out what happens in practice as well. The General Plan clearly delineates guiding principles that helped define what the intent is for the City of Cupertino when looking across the board at where the City wants to be headed. The policies primarily came out of the General Plan. · She said the main focus was on Section 5 (Environmental Resources and Sustainability) of the General Plan, as it is where the City has spent its time defining where it wants to go in terms of environmental resources and painting its own picture of the future of sustainability in Cupertino. She reviewed Table 1, General Plan Policies Related to Sustainability, outlined in the draft report, Pages 9 and 10. · She reviewed the environmental programs that the City administers, input from the City staff interviews which are included in the draft report, Pages 7 and 8; and Appendix BLEED NC Rating System Analysis. She said that in the City of Cupertino there are a number of policies on the books that support sustainable sites and are consistent with the LEED policies. Cupertino is trending because a lot of focus has been spent on smart growth and new urbanism and those types of principles. Walker Wells: . He said as mentioned in the earlier study session, there were two possible paths to follow; one of a sustainable city program or the path of a green building program. Their analysis concluded that if the City were to decide to pursue a sustainable city program, they would need to fill out or augment what is there in the areas of economic and equity components of sustainability. Currently most of what the city is doing in the way of sustainability is related to the environment. . Secondly, in the process of developing a sustainability program the next step revolves around creating a metric to help determine if you are doing better or worse across that topic area. While there may be goals, policies, and some ordinances in place for implementation, the next step would be to assess the indicators in certain areas, such as how they are doing in protecting heritage trees; are they doing well vs. just having a policy that says they want to preserve them. If the city were to do this, it would be something the city would need to do it on its own. He said there was some local support with many knowledgeable people; however no regional Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 26, 2007 entity to provide a lot of support on sustain ability programs. Because it would be more homegrown, they estimate it would take about 18 to 24 months to flush out the components, develop the indicators, set priorities and get it up and running. . Relative to green building, the main conclusion is that if you were to go down this path, it would be consistent with what is already happening, which is a focus on the environmental element of sustainability. It would be a very effective tool to further implement those environmental goals. The next step to do that is to look at the trends of what is being built and what is likely to be built in the City. If a program was put in place, it would target the right type of development. There is a lot of regional support on the green building side, including groups such as Build it Green that support public agencies in the Bay Area and also other parts of California are putting in place and implementing programs. He said there were also workshops on green building, as well as certification programs. . There appears to be more things to leverage on the green building side that are pre-existing than there are on the sustainability side. He said if the decision is made to go forward with the green building program, they could go through the next few steps and have the basic framework of a program together in six to nine months. . He referred to the issue of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and the impact it may have on local governments and what local governments might be expected to do to respond to AB32. He noted that there were speculations that Environmental Impact Reports may have to include a section on global warming impacts on certain development projects. He said it would be advantageous for Cupertino and put the City ahead of the pack in being prepared, to be more specific in documenting the actions it is taking to benefit the environment to reduce energy, hence reducing carbon emissions. . He said an example of an equity indicator is percent of housing that is affordable to people earning the average wage in the city. Others would be the level of educational achievement, degree of literacy, and access to health care. Com. Kaneda: . Asked if there were cities that required sustainability for private sector, not government organizations? Walker Wells: . Said there were some CItIes that have started requmng green building of private sector development, including Santa Monica which requires that all development down to the single family home meet about ten discreet, prescriptive criteria around sustainable building, green building. They have their own ten requirements, not LEED or Point. For larger projects, they are asking them to meet the intent of LEED, and document that they are not getting LEED certified but are using the LEED criteria in the design of their project. . Pasadena, Long Beach and the City of Los Angeles are not saying you have to get LEED certified, as LEED certification happens outside of your control, but are requiring that it be shown that the developer is being serious about the LEED process by submitting a checklist that LEED would approve. . He said it would be important symbolically for Cupertino to adopt a policy for its own buildings, whether it is for new construction or existing buildings. If you are looking at having an environmental impact, you need to look at private sector development which is why one of our next steps is this outreach process. It is to talk to the community that is building because that is who we need to be engaged with. Com. Kaneda: . Said in his opinion the trend on the level of green or sustainability had changed over the years. He said that five years ago there was little talk about it; three years ago there was a lot of buzz Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 26,2007 about it, but little getting done; and a year ago leaf silver was a major item, and now is not big since platinum is major or zero energy buildings is the big thing. Walker Wells: · Said he felt the trend was occurring but happening among the relatively small slice of leading edge builders, the top 20% to 25% targeted. He said with all the programs they are involved in, they are trying to capture all buildings with some fundamental training, education, and familiarization with the criteria that needs to happen. The high achievers may be achieving higher, but there is still a need to lift everybody up to the same level. · He pointed out that cities were becoming more sophisticated in how they set up their programs. Cities such as Washington O.c. and San Francisco are taking the approach of creating temporal markers as part of the program to measure progress over a period of time. . Provided a comparison of the LEEO for homes and Alameda County's rating system. He said most of the criteria are the same; the main point of divergence is that the LEEO for homes does have a house size based criteria, 2400 square feet would put it at zero; a smaller home would give more points; a larger home would require earning more in other parts of the rating system. He noted that Green Points does not have that. Relative to administration, LEEO asks for more documentation, a more vigorous third party certification whereas Green Points tries to be more accessible to a broader pool of people. He added that it is not necessary to make a choice, it can be said that one program will encourage the use of Green Point and then give you a certain level of incentive if you get all the way to LEEO or give an incentive for either one. Walker Wells: . Said that Energy Star homes are the foundation for almost every green building program in the country. The meeting was open for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they prepare and implement a green building program. (Vote: 3-0-0; Chair Giefer and Vice Chair Chien absent) Adiournment of Studv Session: The study session was concluded and Vice Chair Chien reconvened the meeting of the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Regular Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. with the same Planning Commissioners and staff present. Chairperson Lisa Giefer was absent and arrived later in the meeting as noted below. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Planning Commission minutes of June 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the June 12, 2007 minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent) Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 26, 2007 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff noted receipt of a modified condition of approval for the Villa Serra application. POSTPONEMENTIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR . Vice Chair Chien requested that Item 4 be discussed first since applications 2 and 3 are housing development projects and it is important to have a full body present for those applications to be heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 4. DIR-2006-17, Steve Cox (HPC Architecture) 10100 No. Stelling Rd Referral of a Director's Minor Modification to a use permit (I-U-73) to expand an existing pre-school program for 54 to. 158 students at an existing church (Abundant Life Assembly of God) Planning Commissiort decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a Director's minor modification to an existing use permit of a church property. The applicant is proposing to expand an existing preschool from 54 students to 138 students; the project will not involve any outside modifications or additions. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the model resolution. . Answered questions relative to the Pang Engineering Report. Steve Cox, Applicant: . Explained that they were able to expand the facilities without new construction. They also plan to do code upgrades for handicap accessibility on the existing facility. Greg Wendschlag, Senior Pastor, Abundant Life Assembly of God Church: . Said they were pleased with the service that the school offers the community and the hundreds of children who have enjoyed the preschool education. He indicated that they notified all residential neighbors on Alves Drive and spoke with many others, and received favorable feedback. They are working with one neighbor who expressed personal issues. . He reported that the main bible study is on Wednesday night, starting at 7:00 p.m., preschool closes at 6:00 p.m., therefore the preschool traffic does not overlap with the bible study traffic. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application DIR-2006-17. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent). 2. ASA-2007-03, TR-2007-02, EXC-2007-06, V-2007-02, (EA-2007-02) Michael Ducote, 20800 Homestead Villa Serraffhe Grove) Architectural and Site Approval to construct an additional 117 apartment units, a public park, a recreational facility, and leasing office within an existing apartment complex (Villa SerralThe Grove) for a total of 505 units. Tree removal for removal of 123 trees and a replanting plan on a proposed modification to an existing apartment development. Exception to the Multiple-Family parking Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 26, 2007 requirements; variance for front, rear and side yard R3 (apartment) requirements. Continued from the June 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: July 3, 2007. Aki Honda Snelling, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application which was continued from the June 12,2007 Planning Commission meeting, at which time the Commission requested the applicant study the site plan to see if there were ways to revise the site plan. The applicant submitted a reviewed plan which is outlined in the staff report. . The revised plan incorporates some reconfiguration of the site plan by switching some of the building types around and changing some driveways on site to accommodate some comments that the Commission recommended at the last meeting. As a result, the revised proposal is for 116 units as opposed to 117 units and they have eliminated the need for front and side yard set back variances along Homestead Road and Stelling Road. The proposal now accommodates 889 parking spaces on site, which equates to about 1.78 parking spaces per unit. . The applicant's responses to the Planning Commission comments on June 12 are contained in the staff report. . She said that widening the park area would bring the Franco CuI de Sac street to 32 feet from 40 feet. It would be taking 8 feet of public street road way space but creating city park public space in its place. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the architectural and site approval variance, parking exception and tree removal permit based on the model resolutions, with staff s recommended changes and also to refer the application to the City Council for final review and approval. . Said that recommending referrals of the application to the City Council was typical of large scale projects such as the 116 new apartment units. Steve Piasecki: . Said that other factors were that there was a city facility involved, the relocation of the TOC, the dedication of the public park and the question about who maintains how much of that. They are all appropriate questions for the City Council and they should have the final say on it. Com. Wong: . Said there was no mention of the Stelling Bridge improvement, the $50K, and the next application is going to have the same thing as well. He asked what the nexus was and how the applicant felt about it and what staff was asking them to do as there was no proposal to indicate what they were asked to do. Steve Piasecki: . Said that the applicant would prefer to keep the money rather than fund the enhancements to the bridge. The concept which is one that has been embraced by Council policy and in the General Plan, is one of connectivity, trying to make connections between new development and existing projects throughout the community. . In this case, while there is Serra Park in Sunnyvale, the other park they might walk to or schools they may go to are Garden Gate, although the new rentals would go north to Nimitz. They may want to go to Garden Gate to utilize the open space facilities or Memorial Park or walk down to the Whole Foods site. The concept is that both projects on either should do something to help with the connectivity and that is primarily aimed at providing some pedestrian scaled lighting fixtures over that bridge. It would have to be fairly lightweight, perhaps painting the present gun metal gray barricade to make it a more attractive pedestrian Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 26, 2007 walkway. The nexus is that they are generating more pedestrian activity with the projects and a significant part of that needs to go south to access facilities. It is important to provide an enhancement that is primarily going to benefit the two projects. Com. Wong: . Regarding Franco Court, there was a great deal of discussion at the last public hearing that there was a significant amount of Commissioners as well as public who had concerns about not having any parking and leaving Franco Court alone. We are now encroaching 8 feet into a public street and also putting in 13 spaces on that public street. He asked staff to comment. Steve Piasecki: . Staff feels it is important that streets serve the adjoining land uses and that on street parking can be a very effective tool for slowing speeds and making it safer for children and the elderly. It is done where it makes sense, especially where there is excessive curb to curb and excessive right of way, which is the case. He said they did not need parking to serve Villa Serra because the parking study indicates only 1.3 parking spaces per unit. It is the Commission's call and not essential through this project that you have it, but in the interest of serving uses as opposed to creating big wide streets that people speed down, staff feels it would be an asset to have. Com. Wong: . Expressed concern that if the ordinance called for 2.0, why not just have a parking survey for each application that comes through, and not follow the ordinance. Steve Piasecki: . The ordinance states a default value of 2.0 and says you can do parking surveys. In this case, there are apartment units and the new units are largely one bedroom which don't generate the same levels that other projects generate. It provides a mechanism to be sensitive to what is actually being proposed. . He reiterated that it was the Commission's decision to make recommendations to the Council. Staff does not feel it is appropriate to have 2.0 or 1.8, and you can get by with 1.4 or 1.5 and would be more than comfortable. Glen Goepfert, Public Works Department: . Said Public Works would have a different take on that; they don't want overnight parking, in which case the parking would be not as useful as excess parking for Villa Serra. As a fine point, Public Works would prefer not to see the road narrowed at all by parking or by the curb being moved out because there is a potential for conflict between the truck traffic and the constant flow of residential traffic. . He pointed out that there was now a prohibition on parking on the west side of the street which was likely put there to keep truck traffic from parking there; part of the No Parking At Night would be to prevent that type of traffic from being there. . He said Public Works feels if they don't need the parking, and it seems from the traffic consultant as well as the applicant's own information they have compiled, that not more than 1.4 or 1.5 parking spaces per unit is needed, and if no overnight parking is allowed, they did not consider it parking for Villa Serra. He said Public Works prefers to keep the width status quo; which is different from Community Development's opinion. Com. Wong: . Asked if the Stelling Bridge was in the Caltrans or City of Cupertino's Public Works jurisdiction. . He asked staff to comment on moving the TOC south. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 26, 2007 Glen Goepfert: . . Said that because it is a state bridge, Caltrans could affect what is being done, but generally when a municipality is in favor of doing enhancements on a bridge within certain limits, they see it as the city's project. He said he did not anticipate doing anything that would be a problem to the highway. · Said that the requirement was that any move of the TOC would be fully funded by the project; all amenities would be there and all utilities would be replaced. Previously it was thought that there would be a remote location where the cost could potentially be very high; and $500K may not be enough. However, it appears that Community Development has a condition that fulfills those requirements and by moving it to the south perhaps there could be a lower price. r don't know what that is because what we are calling for the applicant to do is to dedicate an additional piece of land which satisfies and would give us an equivalent piece of land for the TOC and is responsible for funding the total move; so we think it fulfils those requirements in that memo and we think that moving it to the south is fine. · One of the conditions is if it exceeds $500K, it would not come out of the city's budget as a net cost to the city; it would e funded completely by the developer. Steve Piasecki: . Said the issue is greening of the corner, thus fulfilling Council policy that is in the General Plan. A park is needed to do that and this is one way to have the park and TOC too, and it is an expensive way to do it. He said it was a win/win for everyone, it meets the policy structure, will green the community more and is less expensive than trying to relocate it. Com. Wong: · Asked staff to address the area for trash and recycling. Aki Snelling: · Staff recommends doubling of the trash enclosure space to provide the necessary enclosed space for the trash containers, toters and cardboard recycling inside. By doubling the width of the trash enclosure, it would reduce the need for trash enclosures on site. Com. Wong: . Relative to schools, he said that the staff report stated that homeowner occupied homes, would remain at Garden Gate School vs. renter occupied may be split between Garden Gate and Nimitz Elementary School. He expressed concern as a property manager that they would be discriminating between homeowners and renters, and asked how they could collaborate more with the school district, instead of saying it is not a city problem, but a school district problem. There is some inequity between renters vs. homeowner occupied. Steve Piasecki: · Said that it was not a city policy to determine how that happens; the school district has been doing it successfully for years. He clarified that as rental units turn over, there is disclosure to them, stating that the unit used to go to Garden Gate, but now goes to Nimitz. He pointed out that the quality of education throughout the district is about the same Com. Wong: · Said as the city grows and they want more rental properties, they need to work harder with the school district and discern that if they do A, then B is going to happen, and that is a concern. · Referred to the information on the dedication of maintenance of land for public park purposes, and expressed concern about items being distributed at the dais at the last minute. He said he Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 26, 2007 was concerned with a property owner should maintain a public park for the city. He said he was not comfortable supporting the item. Steve Piasecki: . Clarified that the information was distributed at the last minute because staff felt the condition needed more clarification. The applicant and Planning Commission continued the item for two weeks; if it had been continued for a month, there would have been more time to put the information in the meeting packets. . He said they needed to provide better structure so the applicant was aware of his full obligations. He noted that it was required of the Morley project, requiring similar conditions across the street with the half acre park that is publicly accessible and maintained by that property owner; the rationale being that the park is principally benefiting Villa Serra. If it was not in a public park configuration, it would be private; if it was private, they would be maintaining it, and it would potentially impact their yield. . He said in fulfillment of city policy, the goal is to provide a public amenity that all folks can use, be visible to the public and make the community look green to the people who use the park and also the people who drive by and see the community. . Why narrow Franco Court? Asphalt is horrible; when it comes to sustainability; green is great. The same is being done on Stelling to try and green up the corner. The applicant's obligation is something that the Council will have to take up because if the applicant doesn't provide the maintenance, the public will. If the proportion is 75% applicant and 25% public; one can make a case for that and staff is willing to listen to that. He said he felt the concept that the public should pick up the tab for it, when it was part of a comprehensive package to make this project fit into the community better, is arguable and he suggested that should be a greater obligation on the part of the applicant. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said she had not had the chance to review it carefully since she just received the information, and said she would be interested in the applicant's view. She agreed with staff that the users were likely going to be 75% of the residents there; therefore it is more like an amenity or added green space to their project. . She agreed that it would most likely be used by residents and said it offers an attractive green space for the unattractive corner area. Com. Kaneda: . Expressed concern about the possibility of narrowing Franco Court since it was the only access to the fairly high density area where the condos are and putting the parking in along Franco Court. Steve Piasecki: . Clarified that it was not narrowing the road and putting parking in along the narrow section. . He said it was already discussed that they did not have to put the parking there, and that Public Works would prefer not to, especially if it was being done as daytime parking. Com. Miller: . Asked Public Works staff if the recommendation for no parking further down on Franco Court was because at night time they did not want large vehicles parking there, or because there is an issue with traffic at night that there isn't during the daytime. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 26, 2007 Glen Goepfert: . Responded that the night time issue would be to keep overnight parking from being there with trailers and trucks. The other issue is an operational issue as far as having the width available for the conflict between truck traffic and the residential traffic that will try to go around it. . Said he felt as a life and death issue, not narrowing the road was not an issue since there was no accident history for that area. . Said he felt the No Overnight Parking is a sufficient issue to make since it is the existing condition, and there is no reason to allow overnight parking to be there. Com. Wong: . Asked if the costs were exceeded by $ lOOK to relocate the city courtyard south, where would the excess funds come from? Steve Piasecki: . The width is 115 feet, which would be the city corp yard plus the width of those parking spaces; if 8 feet were added, it would get closer to staff s original number. If the city desires to relocate the TOC to a remote location, first we have to find that it has to be a location along a fiberoptic line; it is likely to cost quite a bit of money unless we find that there is excess room in the future in our own corporation yard, and there are some private fiberoptic lines that we are not aware of. . If converting the space to public park, the park dedication funding could be used to buyout this site and relocate it somewhere else, which is an option. Glen Goepfert: . Said it was difficult to estimate the relocation cost; but that it would be less because the applicant is being required to fund the relocation on the site to the south irrespective of the cost. Public Works wants it understood that in order for it to be moved, it needs to be fully funded. Steve Piasecki: . Said that what is critical, is with the expansion of the park area into the existing TOC site and the relocation of the TOC, the applicant may qualify for up to 50% credit against their park dedication fees which is about $400K. There is a significant benefit for the applicant to try to accommodate this move; not only in having a nice park at the corner, but recouping some of the park dedication funds that they would otherwise have to pay. Com. Miller: . Asked staff if, from an operational standpoint, there were any issues relative to the TOC moving twice. Glen Goepfert: . Said that the main consideration is that there be funding for the move, if a second move is required. He said there is funding available for the first move and there may be a limitation of four years and they do not want to be in a position of having an underfunded project if another move IS necessary. . Said they had not received extensive input from San Jose Water Company regarding impacts of moving the TOe. The facility is part of what the city has long term leased to the water company, and they are amenable with the conditions so the city can move forward on the project. Chairperson Lisa Giefer arrived at the meeting, and chaired the remainder of the meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 26, 2007 Vice Chair Chien: . Asked staff to comment on the temporary relocation of the TOe. Glen Goepfert: · Said from Public Works' point of view, the move of the TOC south was acceptable because it incorporated the conditions they put forward, and it serves the purpose of giving a larger park. · He said the second stage is unclear; but they understood that if it did not come to fruition, it would be the permanent location which is acceptable since it fulfilled their conditions. Their conditions would have to be fulfilled for the second move as they do not want the city to have a net cost and staff has discussed some ways where that could happen. Steve Piasecki: · From your thinking from this application, consider this the permanent location, but the TOC has moved in the past. It used to be in City Hall; there are different functions in the TOC that make this workable and desirable from their standpoint; outdoor storage, fiberoptic line, the ability to have the testing activities for some of the signalheads all in one location. This works reasonably well for them. But it is still a relatively small site and there may be an opportunity in the future, where the city says we think taking our industrial use out of this residential area is a good thing to do; and if we do that, it is fine, this applicant we would expect would participate if that happens in the short term. If not, then they wouldn't. · Public Works would not want a second move to be identified as a project until all the funds were identified and as in the first case. If there is a way, it may be decided that staff is saying that the city decides they want to do it, but Public Works would not want to have a partially funded project before it became something that got on the capital improvements list where there was an expectation that it would happen and that we were looking for that funding. Identifying it this way, and getting some help with it, if it can happen is appropriate. The expectation is that it is going to be in this location, and permanent. The other situation may occur; however, the condition would be before it is taken on as a project, it would be fully funded. Steve Piasecki: · Said that they could attempt to control parking in the middle of Franco Court through signage. Com. Kaneda: · Said that there was mention of a well in the park, and a possible structure associated with it. He asked if it was possible to underground whatever needs to be there. Glen Goepfert: · Said that Public Works has not spoken to the water company about totally burying the facility; it would be a major expense and is not something they would want to do operationally. Currently there is an electrical draw from the street where there are transformers to a service pole that goes to the well to the pump, which is the portion they would consider undergrounding. It would take a lot to put the wellhead below ground and it would have to be serviced underground, which is not feasible. It would be more practical to have a surface building surrounding it. · Said that the depth of the well was about 400 feet, and he doubted they would want to relocate it if it went dry. He said it would likely be a limitation if it became infeasible to draw water from that location. They would have to upgrade and replace pipe at some future date; some work has been done recently. The life of the well would be dependent upon water availability or the feasibility to draw it from there. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 26, 2007 Steve Piasecki: . Said that in the event the well went dry in the future, it would be an issue for the city and the water company, and the applicant would not be expected to participate in resolving the matter. John Moss, Prometheus Group: . Said the solar was for the swim pool for the common area. The panels would be on top of the recreational facility. . Relative to the condition about the TOC relocation, they do not object to it coming to the south; the cost will be minimal and will be borne by them. If there is a storage container on that site, they are willing to relocate it to the other part of the site, but an open ended condition about reconstructing some facility does not seem equitable, and they would like clarification that it would simply be a relocation of the existing cargo container or whatever containers the city wants to have at that property but not a reconstruction. . Said constructing a restroom facility at the park was not their previous understanding from prior discussions. In the event the city requires a restroom facility for such a relatively small park, there is no budget for it, nor the expectation that it would be something equitable for them. In the event the park is mainly used by residents clearly they are within a stone's throw of their own unit for the most part where there are restroom facilities built in the common area setting, in addition to their private residences. If the city requires a restroom for public use, the expectation was that it would be funded by the city. . Relative to park maintenance, he said he did not feel it is equitable for them to pay for maintaining a public park. They would support a private park, but would expect that they would fund the full cost of maintaining a private park. In the event it is public, it seems equitable that the public would maintain that regardless of the percentage of the park being used by residents vs. another one. . Said that relative to the $50K for the Stelling Bridge, they did not feel the nexus to them was reasonable. . He said their preference was to build the parking in that location at the beginning of the project. He said he was confident they had ample parking on the property, and it was best to have additional parking at that location, and that the park was sufficiently sized. . Said that relative to the parking on Franco Court, he agreed that in the event the parking will be limited to certain hours of the day, evening or daytime use only, it does not seem that the parking as a result of that would be essential. If there are concerns about trucks parking there overnight, signage and enforcement can be used to keep trucks and other vehicles from parking there overnight. . Said he was aware of Public Works' position, and his assumption was that that if it was offsite, the cost differential may be significantly more than $500K. If the project is approved and costed out at $1 million, he said they would not go forward with the project. He said they assumed it was a relatively small cost. Vice Chair Chien: . Asked if the applicant understood that they would be responsible for the cost associated with the request made by the San Jose Water Company. John Moss: . Said he was not clear on the request as the request from the San Jose Water Company was for the referenced enclosure, which would go over the well site, and if it is a modest structure as described, that language may get refined between now and Council, because it is expected to be modest; it is just an encapsulation of a well and should be very basic. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 26, 2007 Vice Chair Chien: · Said he disagreed, that if it was going to be in the middle of a park, it should be a structure that fits into the park and not just be a shack. . Said John Moss had stated he did not agree with the $50K maintenance for the Stelling Bridge. He said part of what they were trying to accomplish with the plan as eluded to by the Director of Community Development is the greening of Stelling. He asked if Mr. Moss was interested in putting any money into the frontage area of their property on Stelling, referring to the west location, because there were no drawings or sketches of what that frontage may look like other than the rendering that staff showed. John Moss: . Said it was his understanding they were re-Iandscaping the frontage as part of the proposed landscape plan. Relative to the $50K associated with the Stelling bridge, he said he agreed that any improvements to any public facility are always positive. The question is the nexus for them building 100 units here and their utilization of those improvements relative to the rest of the city; the community, and effectively the state. He said he did not feel it was equitable. . Said the landscape plan would be reviewed with the architect; the sketch was not intended to be the end result in detail. Colin Bly, Gizardo Partnership, Landscape Architects: . Said their drawings do not reflect the widening landscape strip for the road, but they would consider a park strip. John Moss: · Clarified that if it was a private park, they would maintain that facility and would expect to maintain it in their cost which would be relatively nominal because they already have a larger landscaping contract. If a separate party comes out to do that maintenance, it may be excessive in terms of costs to maintain. · He said he would be receptive to discussing the city funding it, but his company providing the maintenance. Eileen Murray: . Said she did not have a legal opinion on the issue as it would be negotiated with the City Council. . Said she understood John Moss's comments, and agreed that if it was a private park, he would do all the maintenance. As far as it being a public park, the Council would make the final determination. Said she did not consider it a legal issue. . Said it could be a condition that if the applicant wanted it passed, they would have to maintain the park. . Said although it was not her decision, she would take exception to a public restroom in the park. Com. Kaneda: . Relative to the green building practices statements which state meeting the minimum standards of Title 24, he said he did not feel meeting the minimum standards were considered a green building practice. John Moss: . Clarified that the evolution of the list was coming from the County of San Mateo which created their standards for sustainable green building development. The County of San Mateo Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 26, 2007 and City of Cupertino to date have not concluded the formal process of creating such a document. He said he did not disagree with some of those items that are fairly straight forward in nature, but it wasn't a list they created and said they would we fulfill everything. Com. Kaneda: · Asked the applicant if there were willing to go beyond the minimum standard. John Moss: · Said it would depend on the definition of 'beyond' and what that involves. They would be open to doing other things in the area of sustainability beyond what is on the list. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Lowell Forte, Celeste Circle: · Said the traffic study did not contain a report, and they would have to rely on what the department indicated relative to traffic congestion potential and the peak hour impacts. The drawing includes a new driveway contiguous to the proposed park and to the complex on Franco Court that is not mentioned in the report. He said the driveway would serve the increased traffic flow generated by part of the proposal that says they were going to combine the two complexes. Consequently, there will likely be additional traffic that is not considered on the Franco Court from these two complexes. . He said the parking study competently supports the lack of need for any onstreet parking; and said that it would likely be the city's numbers that will keep Franco Court wide open. · He pointed out the problems encountered when trying to get out of Franco Court when a truck is trying to get onto Franco Court from Homestead, the motorist is forced to back up and move 8 feet away from the street and intersection or risk getting hit. The narrowing of the street would create a bigger problem with congestion. . Hopefully the entitled initial study of the environmental evaluation checklist means something more than details will be forthcoming. Eleven items have been indicated and marked as less than significant impact; this generates three questions; what is the distinction between less than significant; and potentially significant; secondly who defines these terms so the public can assess and/or challenge the definitions and applications. . He noted that the positive and negative environmental impacts tend to be cumulative, and said that common sense should be used. . The developer seeks the city to rezone these complexes from an R3 to P which is Planned Development zone, and to increase the allowable density to 20 to 35 dwelling units per gross acre. This is an infill project; the developer wants to cover green space, open space once thought important by the city, with rental units. Infill is one of the buzz words heard along with smart growth and sustainable development; infill is supposed to promote affordable housing, provide housing closer to jobs, preserve open space, reduce traffic congestion and improve the environment. This proposal does none of these in a positive fashion according to the city's own EIR report. . He said the situation is merely spot zoning, by changing the impact of what the people are doing, it is not making the place any greener. . He suggested that they get rid of the park; he considered it a danger zone, with no traffic history yet related to accidents that will occur when there are family and children on a busy intersection. If the park is given back, they will have more parking spaces, the frontage they want on Homestead, and it can be greened up like the Crossings in Mountain View. Steve Piasecki: . Noted for the record that there was no rezoning request in conjunction with the application. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 June 26, 2007 Janet Takahashi, Celeste Circle: . Expressed concern about the impact of traffic at the corner of Franco and Homestead Road; Franco is a dead end street with excessive traffic already. It is the only access for the Cupertino Storage and the 97 units on Celeste Circle, and the only way for the big rigs to come in for the docking because they cannot go in through North DeAnza. In addition, Villa Serra is planning on putting in an access road for their additional units and because the other two exits are quite dangerous, there will be more traffic coming through that exit and probably more than double what is already on the dead end street. . Said that the signal light for making a left turn onto Homestead, allows only four cars, two if there is a pedestrian crossing Homestead. Added to the traffic trying to exit Franco lengthens the exit which will then back up Homestead quite a big or keep it at a short cycle and the cars will be queued up trying to make a left hand turn. . She said that having the park on the corner would create more congestion and present a potential safety risk to children because of the heavy traffic, people trying to make turns and using the bike lane for turning. She reiterated that having the park on the corner was not a good idea for safety reasons. Suresh Penikalapati, Celeste Circle: . Expressed concern that creating a public park in a heavy traffic zone was potentially a safety hazard. He said he did not feel the need for a public park and it would open an entrance that will create more traffic. In the event of earthquake or any public catastrophe the only exit is that and traffic coming from the new proposed entrance will be blocked. Kerry Cai, Celeste Circle: . Said she was concerned about the safety factor and that the project would create a dangerous zones around the area because you would create a four way drive on a busy road without a traffic light. Xuan Yu, Celeste Circle: . Asked what the main purpose was for the proposed daytime parking on Franco Court and what occurs at night. Did it mean that people need to park in the shopping mall or sneak to the Celeste residents' public parking area? The majority of the residents work during the day which would decrease the need for parking during the day. . Relative to the complexity of the traffic by adding the new entries on the Franco Court, adding the additional exit on Franco would open six new driving directions; in order to avoid any traffic or accident, a four way stop sign would be needed. . She questioned if the four way stop sign was not being installed, would the city put in new traffic lights on the new exit from Villa Serra exit. If traffic lights are installed, what is the cost and who will cover the costs for the city? . By adding additional apartments will it increase the need for water supply; how will the city accommodate the additional water needs? Suresh Subramanian, Cupertino resident: . Said a concern is family safety; Celeste Circle has only one entrance and exit and will be an issue in the event of a major disaster. When a truck comes into Franco Court, it is difficult when parked at the signal and you have to back up. . She said an environmental issue is that the amount of noise level within Celeste Circle today is high because of the PW Market next to the compound. She said she heard that there would be a lot of tree removal. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 26, 2007 . The residents have a vested interest and want to live in a neighborhood where the property values are not negatively impacted due to something that is happening in the neighborhood. . Said she did not understand the motivation of the promoters in building additional units in a complex where the occupancy rate was less than 50%, based on information from a recent Prometheus meeting. · She expressed concern about the possibility of the units being converted into condos in the future which affects the school redistricting if condo units get preference over an apartment complex. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the big impact it would have on property prices. Vasundara Pothagantlu-Sivaraman, Celeste Circle: · Said she was concerned that the Villa Serra project would. negatively impact the value of the Celeste Circle properties. · Since the occupancy rate of Villa Serra is about 50%, she said she was also concerned about the likelihood that the units would be converted to condos which would affect the school district numbers and negatively impact the property prices. · When Prometheus adds the public park which they don't have to maintain, they have the advantage of access to Villa Serra on Franco Court. Also, it is the only entrance to Celeste Circle and appears to be a safety hazard. She asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the cutting down of the trees, the noise and additional traffic on Franco Court as well as the factors she previously discussed. John Moss: · Clarified that the occupancy rate was about 95%; the statement made earlier in the meeting with the homeowners association, was that the average apartment project in the Bay Area and US has an average turnover of 50% annually. Nina Darawella, Celeste Circle: . Said she did not understand why the city would allow lot line adjustments to be made and give away city owned street or land for private development. · Expressed concern about the safety issue on Franco Court; she does not want to see any extra pedestrian access from the middle of Franco Court, nor a driveway there. Said that the park at the corner would be unsafe because it was open to traffic with no fence. . Said that visualizing a 40 foot container truck turning into the street, she did not support an 8 foot reduction of the street. . Daytime parking sounds pointless because most people who are there would be driving to work daytime which is more dangerous because of the trucks going in, cars being parked, kids coming from between parked cars to cross the street once again. . The general consensus is that the patch of park is really needed over there; there is one less than a mile away at Serra Park which everyone goes to now. · In response to Com. Kaneda's question, she said trucks do park and stop, even currently, in spite of comments made as to why there were No Parking At Any Time signs along the street on the right hand side. The signs exist an do not control the parking or the stopping of trucks or trailers there. . She summarized her recommendations that there be no opening for cars or pedestrians on Franco Court for the Villa Serra project; no narrowing of the street; the fence to remain the way it is up high right from Homestead Corner down to the storage because currently the 40 foot trucks turn and shave off the trees to turn into the last driveway behind PW Market; keep it as is on Franco Court. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 June 26, 2007 Ming Shao, Celeste Circle: . Expressed concern about the safety issue of children riding bikes to school, biking on Franco where there is no bike lane. She said she was also concerned with traffic safety and commented that when driving her son to school a three minute trip on Homestead becomes a 15 minute trip because of traffic jams. . She said that she felt the questions being asked were not being clarified by the applicant; and she urged the Commissioners to consider the neighbors' opposition to the project. Ben Leung, Celeste Circle: . Expressed concern about the traffic traveling eastbound of Homestead to make a right turn onto Franco Court, because many motorists drive too far and overshoot into the left turn lane; causing accidents. . Said he was not opposed to the green proposal, but felt the location of the park was questionable. . Said that when trucks are turning from Homestead into Franco Court, if you are sitting waiting for your turns, sometimes the truck requires you to back up to give them more room, which creates a lot of hassle for the motorists. . Said he felt the parking did not make sense and suggested that the Sheriff s Department park there and monitor the area. She asked that her suggestion be forwarded to the Sheriff s Department. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said a major issue with the project is the overall density of apartments being considered. It seems staggering to have that much buildup on that project, particularly when the apartment complex is an older complex, with adequate parking and attractive vegetation. . Said there would be additional traffic problems on Stelling; there is presently a great deal of road work being done there in preparation for the project. . Said she understood the responsibility of the developer when new housing was built in the city, either providing in-lieu fees for green space or building parks; but was uncertain of the developer's responsibility with apartment units. She said with more units, there should be more open space, and the proposed project is too much density in a small space. . There are multiple entrances and exits from the shopping mall onto Franco Court; having additional entrances and exits from Franco Court plus the trucks is setting up dangers for that area. . Said that if they do need to have a park, pull it in more to the central part of the complex where the residents can enjoy it. It is too dense in too tight an area. Darrel Lurn, So. Stelling Road: . Said the area had not changed in over 30 years and it would be a good opportunity for the city to encourage the development of the area, especially the landscaping . Suggested that in order to improve the area, to consider using the North DeAnza Boulevard Conceptual Plan or parts of the Heart of the City which have extensive use of grass, bushes, trees, meandering sidewalks and setbacks to provide an attractive entrance to the city. . As far as the landscaping along Homestead Road, I think it could lead to the park if that is going to be developed. Whether the park should be developed, I think I would defer to the residents in that area; I think one consideration on the TOC, it sounds like you plan to move it twice. If you are going to move it twice, there is no guarantee that you will do it the second time; hence the public benefit or the park in consideration of this project should only be based on the first move. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 June 26, 2007 . Asked if the Villa Serra group had completed their student generation study which they indicated in April they were going to do. . Said he was opposed to parking on Stelling Road or Homestead Road and on Franco Court. . Prometheus did a good job at the Biltmore complex, but that was only an increase of 15 units; here on Villa Sera it is going to 30% increase. Daniel Yeung, resident: . Said he was opposed to adding 117 units since there was not enough parking space. Based on research on regional transportation indicator from the Bay Area 1998, the average vehicle per household is 1.82 in 1998; presently the builder is proposing 1.78. After 9 years it is still below the standard. Based on that, if the household income is higher, the vehicle per household will be higher, where did the numbers come from? . What is the reason there is no parking on Franco Court? Based on my observation, the major reason is use for the trucks to get in and out from the mall; there 'is no way the trucks can get into the mall from the DeAnza Boulevard and Homestead. . Said he estimated the property values would drop in value by $50K if the school district boundaries changed. . He asked the Commission to consider the potential problems and protect their properties. Tai Mei Yeh, Celeste Circle: . Expressed concern about the opening on Franco Court for Villa Serra; people walking to Public Works Market not using the pedestrian walkway. There is a lot of traffic jam on Homestead turning to the Stelling and it will create more traffic. . Another concern is the noise and the dust which is harmful to their health. Nancy Kum, Celeste Circle: . Said that for the residents of Celeste Circle, there is only one entrance to go in and out and questioned what the plans were for the construction period, relative to parking, demolition, and the debris removal and storage. She said it would create a hazard and danger to the residents of the area. . She questioned who would enforce the parking on Franco Court after the construction. She expressed concern particularly with parking during the weekend. Chair Giefer asked staff to address questions raised during public testimony: . If we did have limited daylight parking on Franco Court, what purpose would it serve? Glen Goepfert: . Said he did not see that the parking would be a positive in terms of weighing it against the function of the road and traffic; did not see an overriding need for parking on Franco Court and recommended against putting parking on Franco Court. Steve Piasecki: . Said one concept the Planning Commission may want to consider is if they eliminate the parking, they could consider medians that would direct trucks and cars into lanes and left turn movements and beautify the street, which may accomplish greater safety and provide pedestrian refuge. . Said they were not considering adding any more stop signs or signals onto Franco Court. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 June 26, 2007 Aki Snelling: . Illustrated the applicant's drawing showing the park widened out so that the street is narrowed from a 40 foot curb-to-curb to a 32 foot curb-to-curb; the park would envelope the area where the proposed street parking was. The trucks can maneuver into that street and into the driveways to the commercial parking areas along with the proposed parking they have on the south side of Franco Court below the driveway. . Relative to construction traffic parking, she said there would be a condition that they will be required to submit at construction management plan. Steve Piasecki: . Said it could be specified they not use Franco for construction through a construction management plan, specifying that all activity must come in and out from Homestead and Stelling. Aki Snelling: . The traffic study said 854 net new daily trips would be generated from this project; the project itself would be less than significant in terms of the traffic impacts on the surrounding streets and they did include a study of Franco Court and Homestead intersection and that was not found to be a problem. Steve Piasecki: . Said that people should understand when they do traffic studies, they do assignments based on essentially what is the gravity model; they look at where are people going in this area to and from during the day, and most people would be going north to jobs and coming back south to their homes. It gets disbursed over the many streets traveled on, whether they are going to schools, running errands, so that the dispersion is what tends to take the average daily trips and then focus on the peak hours which get disbursed. It is unusual that a project of roughly 100 units in this case would create a tremendous impact, but they focus on it, study it and take it seriously. . Reiterated that is why it continues to work. Com. Kaneda: . Said concern was expressed about the connection between Villa Serra and Franco Court; and asked if there was a possibility of not having that connection or would that not work. Glen Goepfert: . Said that not much was said about that connection in the traffic study; they looked at the existing connections and saw what the movements there were. There were no problems; with the new driveway it appears what the residents had been talking about was the possibility of cut through traffic. . He added that whether or not there would be sufficient circulation on the site was not considered by the traffic study. He said it would have to be considered specifically if there was no access from that side. Com. Miller: . Asked staff to comment on concerns that the park could create a safety issue if it was actively used by children as they might go out onto Homestead or Franco Court and it also provides a cut through to the shopping center. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 June 26, 2007 Steve Piasecki: · Said it was not uncommon to have public facilities on major streets, and is something to look at in conjunction with the design of the park. In some cases, the desire may be to have decorative fencing, want it to be more passive, have some mounding or tree rows to design it in a way that the active spaces for children are pulled back from the major street and that the less active, more visual spaces are pulled up toward the major streets. It may be taken into consideration with the design but it is not an uncommon characteristic to have open space; as a community you want to be able to drive down major streets and the city appear to be in the middle of a park. He said they have heard about the greenscapes along the major streets, which is a part of the desired design for Cupertino as a city and a park. · Said they considered putting the park in another location, but there weren't many good options, other than having a long, bowling alley shaped park. Com. Miller: · If you had more of a linear park, you could either put it along Homestead or you could put it along Stelling, or you could locate it, not so much a public park, but there are some spaces within the complex where you could locate a more private park, which would be less accessible to the public. On the other hand, what we have heard here is that most of the usage would be by the Villa Serra residents. I am not sure of the advantages of putting it on that corner vs. in some other place within the complex itself. Steve Piasecki: · Said if there was a linear park pushed up against Homestead or Stelling, the issue of lack of depth would become a serious question; there would just be a wide landscape strip. This part provides depth away from Homestead and gives you the opportunity to design it in a way that makes it entirely safe. The other thing you are doing is implementing the General Plan policy with this part; if it is converted into private space and it becomes the domain only of Villa Serra, it doesn't implement your General Plan policy for 3 acres of park per 1,000 population; that is something we have been following diligently for many years, and that is the reason our park acreage is as high as it is and we continue to look at that. If you didn't have a public park, you would have to seriously look at reducing the number of units in the project. · We are not interested in just infilling development; we want it to be an asset to the community and integrate well and connect well and green up the community so that it becomes the high end community that everyone deserves. That is the rationale for it. I don't think it would be as optimal as what you have in terms of this particular location. · Said there was a park deficiency in the Homestead area. · Relative to park space required for the project, he said that for the additional units, they are providing about 2/3 acre; for all the existing population in that area, they would need 20 to 30 acres. There is a lot of underserved population now, Serra Park in Sunnyvale is able to satisfy some of that. The proposed park should remain a passive park. . Said there was no requirement in the park policy for the population to include restroom facilities in the parks. Although larger parks should have them; it is not essential to have one in the proposed park. Com. Wong: · Relative to Franco Court, he said he was not changing from his previous position, that that there should be no parking on Franco Court and that the street should be status quo based on the Public Works suggestion. · He said he understood Community Development's position, but would rather have the street remain status quo. He said he was aware of the safety concerns with trucks driving in and out. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 June 26, 2007 . He said he did not support 8 feet going into the street, resulting in the park being smaller. The street will remain 40 feet if there are other Commissioners who support that. . Said he did not see the nexus on the Stelling Bridge; he felt it was a good idea to beautiful the bridge, but not at the expense of the private property owners. . He expressed concern regarding moving the TOC, but if the applicant feels comfortable paying for it and if it is within reason and Public Works feels comfortable with moving it, it was acceptable to him. . Relative to the impact on schools, he suggested rather than saying the residents have to go to the school district, the city should work harder to have better communication with the school district and also inform the residents that there are consequences with increases in students as a result of more housing. He said he understood the residents' frustrations regarding the boundary lines for the schools. . He agreed with speaker Oarrel Lum's suggestion about a double row of Ash trees as one enters the City of Cupertino which would be an inviting image. . Regarding the parking, said he felt strongly that they should adhere to the ordinance which says two parking spaces per unit, even though the traffic parking report says it can be as low as 1.3 or 1.4, even if it means reducing the number of units. . Supported the 20 foot setback variance for the south side. He said they should encourage rental housing units in Cupertino as many people desire to live in Cupertino and could move up from rental units to home ownership. . Said he supported some things in the project and opposed others. . Also on the parking maintenance, I do not see the nexus where the applicant would have to pay for it. I do not want to set that precedent tonight, so I would like feedback from other comrrusslOners. Vice Chair Chien: . Said that they are being asked to weigh in on a property right issue. Private property owners have rights to develop their property, which is the overriding principle when we look at these types of applications. However, the applicant is asking for exceptions, variances and that is why the city has flexibility to weigh in on some of these issues and we use our best judgment to make decisions in the best interests of everyone. . With regard to the specifics, last time I was concerned about the relocation of the TOC; I don't believe in giving up public facilities for private developers, as I wouldn't give up a firehouse for a private developer. However, this time it appears Public Works has worked out the situation where the developer has agreed to fully fund a relocation for the TOe. As long as we can maintain that continuity and service to our community, I am comfortable with that. . Said it since the property was located at the edge of the city, it was important that it has an extremely attractive frontage, for those entering the city and for the personal interest of the developer as well as the residents who live there. It is important to have the ORC review the frontages along Homestead Road and Stelling Road as those will be the main frontages people see as they come into Cupertino. . Said it was important that the Parks and Rec Commission have a chance to review the design of the park. He said while he shared the safety concerns, he believes and echoes staff's comments that they can get sophisticated with designs of parks and can design them in such a way to minimize and remove the danger that having a park in close proximity to a major intersection would present. . He said he was comfortable having that park there, and any time they can get a bigger {'ark for their residents, the city is always interested in doing that because parks add value to property and it is a self-interest thing and a good thing for all property owners. He recommended that the Parks and Rec Commission should look at the park before it is finalized. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 June 26, 2007 . Relative to the park maintenance issue, it is important to address how the parks will be maintained, specifically who is going to fund the maintenance of the parks. There have been cases where developers have continued to fund public parks because the park is on their property, adjacent to their property, or used by their tenants and customers, and they are not interested in seeing the city maintain their park, because they have a different standard for maintaining the park. He said there is a self interest with the developer to consider weighing in on the funding for maintaining the park and asked that the other Commissioners consider that, because he felt the city should not bear the entire burden. · Said he was not hung up on the issue of improvement of the bridge, and asked for colleagues' input. · Said he did not feel there should be parking on Franco Court because of Public Works recommendation. . Relative to narrowing the neck of Franco Court at Homestead, he said he was supportive of giving back to public property; however, there are traffic concerns with having to back up many times as large trucks come in; and he did have concerns about narrowing that road. . Relative to parking, he said he was comfortable with adhering to the ordinance of two spaces per unit. Com. Wong: . Said he supported closing the opening on the east side of Franco Court per the neighborhood concerns. Com. Kaneda: . Said he supported the project and the park. He said he felt they needed to increase the amount of high density housing in Cupertino, and he was surprised that many of the residents of Celeste Court didn't seem to want a public park nearby. . Said he preferred that the street be taken back to its original width because of the concerns about the truck traffic and potential problems. He said he did not support parking on the street for the same reason. · Said he was pleased they managed to get the layout of the new units in compliance to avoid asking for variances on either Homestead or Stelling. . Suggested the apartments be Energy Star Certified, solar heating on the pools and a 100% photo voltaic solution on the common areas. He said he was willing to add a proviso if it is less than a 10 year simple payback, taking into account the state renewable energy incentives, federal tax credit and accelerated depreciation, when rolled in would come in under 10 years. · Recommended that clothes washers be added to the Energy Star appliance list. Com. Miller: . Said he supported the project; rental units are needed in the city; it has been a long time since someone has proposed a new rental development. More often than not, there are conversions from rental to condos and as a city, concerns are expressed about that trend and it is good to see the trend reversed. . In terms of the density of the project, this site and area of town is in the General Plan and is allowed more density than this developer is proposing. They are proposing a fairly light increase in density compared to what they would be permitted to propose; there is no issue with the density of the project. . Said he did not see an issue with loss of housing value on Celeste Circle; the units will not be low income rental units, but market rate units and will not depreciate the area; they are more inclined to help the area. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 June 26, 2007 . In terms of the major issues discussed, said he supported eliminating the parking on Franco Court; does not support widening the park onto Franco, but leaving Franco at the original width in accordance with the residents' wishes and not having parking there. . Said he would support a widening of the radius on the western comer of Homestead and Franco so that it would make it easier for trucks to go in there without impacting residents who are trying to exit. . Said he did not support creating a driveway opening onto Franco, and was sensitive to the residents' concern that there is enough traffic there and that is their only means of exit and entry. It doesn't make sense to impact that further given that there are multiple exits and entry points into the Villa Serra complex. . Said he also did not see a nexus with the Stelling Bridge or fairness in asking the developer to build and maintain a restroom. There should be more equitable sharing of the maintenance fees between the city and the developer; that mayor may not include an agreement for the city to contract with the developer to maintain the parks, since the developer stated he could maintain it for less than the city because he has onsite facilities to do the rest of the complex. . Said there was opportunity for some cost savings, and there should also be sharing since the park is a public park, and it is not fair to fully burden the developer. He said he felt 50/50 was a reasonable sharing for the maintenance costs. . Supports the setback variance and the parking exception. Chair Giefer: . Said she supported the project; it is a project that meets the General Plan requirements, and comes in at a lower density for the area. . Said the park beautifies the entrance into Franco Court; the residents of Celeste Circle can think of this as the beginning of beautification that would lead into their complex which would make it look less industrial. . Relative to traffic issues, said she supported leaving the neck of Franco Court as is and was uncertain if they needed to fix the curb circumferences or look at other ways to assist trucks in turning better. . Said she supported the idea of improving the Stelling Bridge, but did not think there was consensus to support those improvements. . Relative to parking, said she accepted the applicant's parking study with the ratio of 1.76; there are a majority of single bedroom units and there will be many single people who live there or couples with one or two cars but she was willing to accept the applicant's parking study on that and their expertise. . Said the south variance was acceptable; park maintenance of 50/50 acceptable, and would like to see the Franco access kept into the plan for several reasons. It is signalized and allows greater access for the residents of the complex to gain access out to other points, make left turns; it seems to be safer for them as well. It will also serve as access for pedestrians who want to access the center; they won't have to walk to Homestead and make a right. . Suggested the following changes to Exhibit A: o Page 2-25, No. 1 states they will provide public amenities such as open space including a swim pool, spas, outdoor kitchen, etc. She said she did not think the pool would be a public pool, and suggested striking No. 1 because they are more internalized amenities for the residents. o No. 29, Clarify the use of solar systems, specifically that they are using the solar water systems for the swim pool and photovoltaic to provide part or all power, stating "if it provides 100% of the power for those public facilities within the apartment complex, provided that the payback is 10 years or less." If a study shows that you can provide 100%tof your power with all of the reimbursements and tax credits you get within a 10 year Cupertino Planning Commission 24 June 26, 2007 period, go for 100%; if you cannot, she said she supported having it slide down to whatever the 10 year payback period is. · Said she supported adding Energy Star clothes washers and dryers on the list, (Point 22). Vice Chair Chien: · Relative to Com. Wong's comment, said he did not oppose the entrance being on that side since they were addressing the issue of traffic, by bringing the road back to its original width and also the potential suggestion to widen the turn in on the west side of Franco and Homestead. He said residents of the complex need to be able to exit somewhere other than the two entrances. Com. Kaneda: · Relative to the access to Franco Court, said he could support removing the connection to Franco Court as it was heavily congested. Vice Chair Chien: · Reiterated that he felt it was important to have the project frontages look spectacular as it is a gateway property into the city; specifically Stelling Road should be an extremely articulate looking walking area. He said that it also included the bridge, and he supported the bridge improvements. The conditions state up to $50K, not necessarily at $50K. Steve Piasecki: · Said they started looking at a much more elaborate concept of removing the guard rails and replacing them with new attractive wrought iron facilities, lighting, and repainting. After realizing that it would be difficult to deal with Caltrans, they minimized it to lights and repainting, which is what the $50K is intended to do. Chair Giefer: . Said that the other application being considered tonight has the same stipulation in it; and it is a good way to complete the look and feel of that area and make it an entry way into the city of Cupertino. · Said she would support the bridge or park maintenance, but not both. Com. Miller: . Said he did not see the nexus as the issue. The bridge is used by more than the residents of 117 units and the residents of the other 20 units. It is used by all the surrounding neighborhoods but these two projects are being asked to foot the entir~ bill and that presents an issue in terms of fairness. He said perhaps the city should contribute some of the money for this, given it is more of a citywide project than just for these two, this addition to this project and the small project coming up next. Com. Wong: . Said he supported 50/50 for the park maintenance and 50/50 for the bridge as well. Steve Piasecki: . Relative to pedestrian scaled lights on the bridge, he said only three may be possible since they may have to put them on the outside and replace the existing cobrahead lights with one of the pedestrian scaled and two on the other side. The City Council will make the decision whether or not they want to allocate the funds; the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to that effect. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 June 26, 2007 Com. Wong: · Asked if Commissioners would support a double row of Ash trees on Stelling Road. Vice Chair Chien: · Suggested that the streetscape on Stelling Road be referred to the DRC for review. · Said they should give the applicant an opportunity to design their own streetscape. Chair Giefer: . . Suggested the use of large native trees as opposed to Ash, because of disease problems with the Ash currently on Wolfe Road. Com. Kaneda: · Said if the numbers don't pencil out in 10 years, to release the applicant from the condition. Relative to language for the model resolution on Exhibit A, he suggested a photovoltaic system sized to carry 100% of the electrical load for the common area building, clubhouse, fitness center, theater, leasing center; with the proviso that the cost of the system is paid back from the energy savings and tax credit; state renewable energy incentive, federal tax credit and the federal accelerated depreciation. Steve Piasecki: · Said if the condition is referred back to DRC to evaluate, it would be another way of scrutinizing it one last time with specifics instead of generalities. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve EA-2007-02, TR-2007-02 and V-2007-02. (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve ASA-2007-03 with the following conditions: o Stelling Road will have a double row of large canopy trees to be reviewed at DRC; o There will be a widening of the radius on Homestead Road where the park is going to be; o Franco Court shall remain at 40 feet; there will be no parking on Franco Court; the driveway on Franco Court will be removed; o No restroom is required; The city and the applicant will share 50/50 for the Stelling Road Bridge; the park maintenance will also be 50/50 between the applicant and the city; o Exhibit A, Page 2-25 and 2-26, strike No.1 since it implies it is a public pool; it is not necessary. o No. 22: Add Energy Star washers and dryers. o No. 29: Chair Giefer deferred to what Com. Kaneda previously said. Vice Chair Chien: . With regards to Condition 1 made by the motioner, the wording was that a double row of large canopy trees be requested and reviewed at the DRC; DRC would review Stelling Road and Homestead Road in terms of the streetscape, not just the double row of trees. (amendment to motion accepted by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller) Friendly amendment to motion by Com. Kaneda, accepted by Com. Miller to add Energy Star Apartments. Cupertino Planning Commission 26 June 26, 2007 John Moss: . Relative to the rating system on the units, he reiterated that they were not familiar with what 15% or 25% above the Title 24 requirements were in terms of their obligation. He said he felt they would be agreeing to something without any knowledge of any of the impacts and was not clear if the city is knowledgeable about what those impacts are. He said he was not comfortable with having an undefined requirement with unknown consequences. · Said that relative to the TOC, it was understood they could relocate any existing equipment on the site; however, the requirement of building new storage buildings which could cost several hundred thousand dollars, was not equitable. He said they were willing to relocate to their site which would meet the intent of the requirement. Steve Piasecki: · Said the applicant will as part of the building permit process have to comply with Title 24; they have not done it yet. Chair Giefer: · Said she understood the possible trepidation on the applicant's part relative to updating the property to the new Title 24 requirements as there was opportunity for energy savings in the update. She suggested saying that the applicant will attempt to achieve Energy Star rating which would give them the opportunity to learn more about it, see what their Title 24 ratings are and move forward. Com. Miller: · Said that the word "attempt" was saying they don't have to do it, and he felt they should study it or get someone else; before it is imposed on applicants it should be fully understood by the Commission. He said he did not feel it was reasonable at this point. Com. Kaneda: · Said that he would rescind his requirement as he did not want the application continued again. Friendly Amendment to Motion: · Com. Miller suggested a friendly amendment to change the wording with respect to the cargo container that the applicant and staff will work out some different wording that might be more amenable to both the city and the applicant. Com. Wong accepted amendment. Vice Chair Chien: . Said it was critically important that this facility, if the city is going to ask it to be replaced, it not only be replaced, but replaced and working in better condition, since it is a critical city facility that operates the stop lights. It is not acceptable to say only that they will work something out; and it is supported by the fact that the Director of Public Works took the time to write a memo stating clearly that this facility needs to be replaced in whole fully funded. He said he would support that. Com. Miller: . Said Vice Chair Chien's comments were consistent with his friendly amendment. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 June 26,2007 Vice Chair Chien: . Said he supported the current wording, but did not support the friendly amendment. The applicant has a different expectation than what is written and it is very clear on what needs to be fully funded. Com. Wong: . Said he agreed with Com. Miller that it was the best compromise. Steve Piasecki : . The commission could take that issue up separately, and then take the broader motion. Vice Chair Chien: . Said he supported taking on the issue separately. Chair Giefer: . Suggested that the Commission reconsider the access onto Franco Court. She said she felt that having people feed out into a signalized intersection was much safer than pulling across two to three lanes of traffic plus the center lane on Homestead or Stelling, which is the amount of traffic they have to feed past today. . She said there are hundreds of residents on Celeste Court, and thousands of residents who are accessing Homestead and Stelling, and although she agreed there will be congestion points in the morning during the high commute periods, she felt it was a safer way to go overall. The real issue is the truck traffic; the residents are always going to be there, and it is safer to go out to the signalized approach to a major intersection than to dash across two lanes of traffic, a turning lane and whatever additional lanes you need to be in for your turn. Com. Wong: . Said that after two hours of testimony heard tonight, the residents have to take into consideration they have to live next to Villa Serra that will have an addition of 116 rental units, which is prescriptive. He said that one of the reasons of a democracy is having a public hearing, listening to the residents tonight and giving feedback and suggesting mitigating measures. This is only a recommendation; the residents have to come back to the City Council and make sure that the City Council hears the concerns, the Planning Commission has to come back to the City Council to make sure that their suggestions about Franco Court stay in place. . (Vote: 5-0-0) Vote was taken on large trees, framing, Stelling Road will be referred to the DRC; keeping Franco wide and the opening needs to be improved for large trucks moving in and out of there; Franco Court will remain 40 feet; there will be no parking on Franco Road; driveway will be removed; no restroom in the park; the cost for maintaining the park will be 50/50; cost of improvements to Stelling Road Bridge will be 50/50; improvements to Exhibit A, proposed green building policy be reviewed Chair Giefer: . Said if it goes forward to City Council that she would like them to keep Franco Road drive open. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Chair Giefer, to approve EXC-2007-06 (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Wong voted No) Cupertino Planning Commission 28 June 26,2007 Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to change the wording with respect to the cargo container that the city and the applicant work out appropriate language that is equitable to both sides. Friendly amendment by Chair Giefer: To address Vice Chair Chien's concern, add language "which will make the city whole on the move." Vice Chair Chien: · Said that wording that leaves it up to staff and the applicant to discuss, is really not doing their job, which is to make clear recommendations on what is expected of them. He said it was a city owned facility, and as the Public Works Director stated, is a critical city facility, and if it is going to be moved, they should make them whole, if not better. He said he would support language outlined in 22A, which is not what the motioner suggested. (Vote: Motion failed 2-3-0; Chair Giefer, Vice Chair Chien, Com. Kaneda voted No; Corns. Miller and Wong voted Yes. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the condition relative to the TOC as worded in 22A of staff's conditions. Friendly amendment: Chair Giefer recommended it be more clear in good faith with the applicant that every attempt will be made to successfully move the existing storage container so there is no additional expense incurred; if it is listed and moved and falls apart, some repair or replacement would need to occur. She said she felt it just indicated they would get a new storage building. Glen Goepfert: · Clarified that he was concerned with the existing shed itself, relative to its remaining intact and being moved. The storage container may not be a legitimate use and may have to be replaced. It is a non-conforming use and it is not known whether it is legal or not. · He suggested adding language that they will work it out, keeping in mind that they are trying to achieve the goal of keeping themselves whole. Vice Chair Chien: · Suggest that it be amended to state the applicant shall fully fund relocation and be certain that the center continues to operate as it did before. Com. Wong: · Expressed concern that if the suggestion was made, it may result in losing 116 rental units. . Asked John Moss how concerned he was regarding the issue. John Moss: . In terms of the relocation, we are fine with going ahead and relocating everything on the site; I am still at a loss as to why it would be just carte blanche; I assumed we would have to rebuild a structure. If there is anything that is non-conforming, it is non-conforming on the existing site, it would be non-conforming 180 feet down the road. I think we are mincing words in terms of looking for a developer to go ahead and fund a new structure to be constructed on our property. If it is operable and functional and reasonably accepted the way it is now, we can agree to go ahead and move all the equipment, buildings, onto this property. If they fall apart, there is no question we will repair them and bring them back up to their existing condition, but Cupertino Planning Commission 29 June 26, 2007 to carte blanche require replacement without even knowing whether or not you need to replace something doesn't seem consistent with what the intent of the condition. Vice Chair Chien: · Said the reason for the condition is that it states "replace" with a new storage building since the city is no longer going to continue the practice of having cargo containers and has come up with the alternative which is the building. John Moss: . Said they assumed they could relocate the structure without any cost other than the moving cost; if there is damage, they would repair the damage. Said they were confident it would be a small cost of relocation and would deal with it. Steve Piasecki: · Said Com. Wong's suggestion of leaving the TOC where it is and have the park north on both ends of it, was not feasible, as they do not build disjointed parks; they need to be co-terminus and attractive. Vote: Motion failed; Corns. Kameda and Chien voted Yes; Chair Giefer abstained; Corns. Miller and Wong voted No. (2-2-1) Chair Giefer declared a recess. 3. U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22, TM-2007-02, Z-2006-05 (EA-2006-18) Lawrence Guy, 10955 No. Stelling Rd. Use Permit and an Architectural Site Review to construct 13 attached and 8 detached single-family residential units on a 1. I-acre site (northwest comer of Stelling Road and 1-280) Tentative Map to subdivide a 1. I-acre parcel into 21 parcels and one common parcel. Rezoning of a 1. I-acre parcel from BQ (Quasi-Public) to P-Res (Planned Residential) Postponed from May 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: July 17, 2007. Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for rezoning to change the existing of the property from (Quasi- Public) BQ to P-Residential (Planned Residential), tentative map to subdivide the existing 1.1 acre parcel into 21 lots as outlined in the staff report. . The proposed project consists of 20 single-family residential units (10 detached small lot single family and 10 attached town homes) ranging from 1300 to 1800 square feet. . He noted that currently there is a home on the property builUn the 1800s or early 1900s by Enoch Perrish, an early designer and builder. The home is in failing condition and both the applicant's architect and the City's consulting architect confirmed that there is not any significant architectural value that warrants its preservation or relocation. The proposed project will mimic some of the architectural style of the existing residence to honor Enoch Perrish, the builder of the home. Staff suggested that a memorial plaque be erected in the common plaza area, as well as use elements from the existing home to construct a trellis or gazebo structure at the common plaza area, and the applicant will be required to work with a professional building salvage company to salvage and reuse as much of the existing home as possible. Cupertino Planning Commission 30 June 26, 2007 . Staff recommends that the final building colors and materials be reviewed and approved by the DRC, that additional screen trees along the southerly property be considered and introduced to buffer the units from Highway 280; that pedestrian connection be provided between the project to the church property adjacent; and introduce trellis and arbor features to decorate and emphasize common pedestrian areas; use of pedestrian scale lighting; add bio swales to maximum extent possible; plant vines on an through the sound wall to prevent graffiti from happening and to enhance the look of the sound walls; conserve specimen trees on the site, the applicant shall preserve and that we should take a preservation bond of $10,000 apiece for the trees; realign the curb along North Stelling to provide a detached sidewalk and additional landscaping opportunities. . He reviewed the parking requirements, traffic and circulation, noise consultant's comments, student generation, environmental review, green building design, affordable housing, and tree removal as outlined in the staff report. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the zoning, tentative map, use permit, architectural site approval subject to the staff recommended changes in the model resolutions. . He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project. Larry Guy, applicant: . Provided a brief history of his association with the City of Cupertino, including working in the Public Works Department and prior building projects in Cupertino, as well as other cities in Santa Clara County. . Reviewed the 20 unit project, of which 3 units will be BMR units; said he was agreeable to the terms staff has suggested. He expressed concern about the $50K fee for the Stelling Bridge since their project was much smaller than the project across the street, and suggested they be given some consideration on a pro rata basis. . He said it was unfortunate that the Perrish house on the property was not salvageable, but he was willing to reuse some of the materials on the project. . He said it was possible to have two more parking spaces which would be taken from open space, they have .8 parking stalls, there are 17 guest parking spaces; they aren't additional parking for residents; they will be restricted in the CC&Rs that you have to move within 24 hours or be towed away. He said he felt there would be plenty of guest parking. Glen Simmons, Dahlen Group: . Reviewed previous projects by the applicant and the Dahlen Group. . Outlined the project including the proposed tree removal and replanting; and architectural style of the residences. . Answered Commissioners' questions relating to the project. Com. Miller: . Expressed concern about the proportion of the buildings, and suggested shifting four of the units down a couple of feet and widen the space between the six here and get a better proportionality between height and separation between the units. Glen Simmons: . Said they had shifted four of the units more towards 1-280 because of the Oak trees they were trying to preserve at the end. Cupertino Planning Commission 31 June 26, 2007 Com. Miller: · Said that because of the height of the buildings and the width of the separation on the side yards, it appeared to be tight. He referred to the Murano project and commented that visually it was unattractive because the buildings were too close together. Com. Wong: · Concurred with Com. Miller, that because of the height, it creates a tunnel vision. He asked what outreach was done to the church, and their opinion on the project. Applicant: · Said that members of the Valley Church were supportive of the project, and were permitting openings in their property. He said that the openings satisfy Council Member Sandoval's requirement; as people can go back and forth from the units to the church. Chair Giefer opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Said she misunderstood that Cupertino had a historic house ordinance, and was shocked that a 115 year-old house would be demolished without opposition from anyone in the city. · Said she had contacted the Cupertino Historical Society about prior unsuccessful attempts to have the house considered a historical landmark, and the home will not be preserved because Cupertino does not have a historic house ordinance. · She recommended leaving the property as a historic site or having the owner donate it to the city. She commented that if Cupertino cannot preserve a 1892 Victorian, they should not preserve the Stocklemeier property. Darrel Lurn, Cupertino resident: · Acknowledged that Mr. Guy has been forthcoming about communicating the project to the neighbors. Said that his previous comments regarding the streetscape on Stelling also applied to this project, and he hoped that the DRC is a part of that process. · Said he was opposed to parking on Stelling. · Said he had concerns about the Las Palmas Development; one being the loss of usable public zoned land. He said that recent studies reported that children who live near freeways tend to have more health problems. Com. Wong: · Asked staff how feasible it was to move the house to McClellan Ranch or the Stocklemeier property? Gary Chao: · Said the applicant's architect inspected the home and could provide comment. He described the house as being in failing condition and not movable; a large part of the house does not sit on any foundation and is not structurally sound. Com. Wong: . Recalled discussions on the Stocklemeir house and other historical buildings that city staff said were not salvageable, and said ity Council directed staff to address ways of salvaging them. Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 26, 2007 Steve Piasecki: . Said it would normally be done for a structure that had not only architectural history, but also some cultural history although it is extremely difficult and expensive to do. He said that even with a historical ordinance that the house would be extremely difficult to relocate. Architect: · Explained that the front porch was roped off because it was unsafe to go through the front door; the back porch was dilapidated and provided the only other entry into the house. There were also many sagging walls. He said that in all likelihood, the house would break up if attempts were made to move it. · Said he understood that the building was cut into two and moved to its present location; the back was actually added on and all the architectural detail is on the front side of the house. He said it was merely half a building and very degraded. Gary Chao: . Said that the city's architect noted there were a lot of architectural features, but not a coherent flow of architecture that would be true to that time period. He determined there was not architectural value to warrant preservation or the house. Com. Kaneda: · Asked staff to clarify the reason for the memorial plaque and the measures that the city was taking. Gary Chao: . Explained that when staff contacted the Historical Society they felt there was historical significance because of the builder of the home, and a memorial plaque would honor the builder. He acknowledged that the home was in failing condition. Com. Miller: · Expressed concern with the side setbacks between the six buildings he pointed out. If it is a choice between saving an Oak tree and making those wider, he would favor the Oak tree. There might be a possibility for the middle units to widen the set between those; not much can be done with the front two. He said aside from those comments, he supported the project. Com. Wong: . Said he still had concerns regarding the zoning, and felt they had to preserve the zoning ordinance for quasi-public areas. He said if it went through, he would like to make some suggestions, such as making Stelling smaller and moving the two parking spaces inside. the project. Vice Chair Chien: . Said he supports the project. He suggested a cost-sharing agreement for the costs associated with improving the Stelling bridge. Perhaps that money could be pulled with the money from Villa Serra to have a overall remodeling of Stelling bridge. Com. Kaneda: . Concurred with Vice Chair Chien's comments about the cost-sharing agreement for the bridge, and said he liked what the architect did with the landscaping. . He asked staff if there was a mechanism in place so they can be proactive on the issue of preservation of old buildings, rather than waiting until someone is ready demolish the building. Cupertino Planning Commission 33 June 26, 2007 . Said he did not feel the need for a memorial plaque for a building that was built by a builder and then relocated to another site. If there were historical pieces of the building, he supported trying to save them. Steve Piasecki: . Said a historical preservation ordinance IS on the work program for preservation of old buildings. Chair Giefer: . Supports the project in general because she feels it is smarter to do a more dense in fill project. . She agreed that the side setback specifically with the front two buildings are concerns. She directed staff to work with applicant to join the two front buildings. . Supports having the two parking spaces on the street, and does not have a problem with that as long as they are inset and it does not compete with the bicycle pathway. Com. Kaneda: . He suggested that they come in at 80% minimum efficiency on furnaces. Com. Wong: . Agreed that they should join the two buildings in the front, which would create two parking spaces on the side. Chair Giefer: . Suggested moving the building away from the freeway and not closer to it. . Also suggested benchmarking the heaters at 80% efficiency. Larry Guy: . Asked if he could separate the two buildings by two more feet of separation. . Said he would agree to join the two buildings. Commissioners discussed the two parking stalls on Stelling. Vice Chair Chien: . Supports the onsite parking. . Said that since a parking variance was given to Villa Serra, the project should be given a parking variance. Com. Miller: . Said that he felt the 8 feet was acceptable, but they would not get the on site parking. . Supports a parking variance. Chair Giefer: . Said she preferred the street parking so they could have more open space within the development and better drainage within the proposed development. . Said they should re-advertise. Vice Chair Chien: . Supports parking on Stelling. Cupertino Planning Commission 34 June 26, 2007 Com. Kaneda: . Said he was still undecided. . Asked if there was air conditioning in the building or just heating. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve Applications U-2006-13, TM-2007-02, and Z-2006-05. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Wong voted No due to the zoning). Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve ASA-2006-22, not including the parking and with the two buildings currently on Stelling that are separate units to become townhouses attached; and use the same formula of SO/50 for Stelling bridge. Vice Chair Chien: . Suggested an amendment that the streetscape on Stelling be referred to the DRC for review. Chair Giefer suggested two amendments to the motion: . A tree bond for $10,000 per tree, totaling $30,000 for the Oaks. . That the applicant be required to use formaldehyde-free insulation which has no cost difference; 80% or equivalent on the furnace requirement. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Wong voted No.) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 5. Consideration of canceling a summer Planning Commission meeting, e.g., August 24, 2007. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to cancel the last Planning Commission meeting in July. (Vote: 5-0-0) REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Giefer reporteds that the last item discussed in the ERC was heard. Housinl! Commission: Com. Kaneda reported there was a discussion on mitigation fees. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioner: Com. Kaneda said he would provide a report at the next Planning Commission meeting. Economic Development Meetinl!: Report will be given at the next meeting. Report of the Communi tv Development Director: Steve Piasecki reported the tree ordinance was finalized. He also reported that Gary Chao was promoted to Senior Planner and will be assisting the Economic Development efforts of the new Economic Development Director.