Loading...
PC -04-28-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 28, 2003 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 6:45 p.m. following the study session held. Commissioners present: Corr, Miller, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney SALUTE TO THE FLAG APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 14, 2003 regular Planning Commission meeting: Com. Wong suggested the following changes: Page 2 last line, change "open to it and pointed out in the staff report the alternative footing as well. "to read: "open to it. He pointed out his concern in the staff report the alternative footing." Last sentence page 2: change "questioned if the benefit wouM outweigh the six inches. He said the applicant chose not to do it." to read: "questioned if the benefit would outweigh the cost of lowering it to six inches. He said the applicant has a right to chose not to do it. Page 3, second last paragraph, line 1: change "and mass" to read "as well as mass ". Page 6: 3rd paragraph, second sentence, change "he let him know" to read "he let Gary Chao know that" Page 12:2nd paragraph: change first sentence to read: "Com. Miller suggested, and Com. Wong concurred, that a study session be held regarding large projects in general." Com. Corr suggested the following changes: Page 2: Application location: change "Marin" to read "Mann ". Page 6, 4th paragraph, line 10: Change "what is the compatibility ' ~" issue, to read "what is compatibility?" Com. Saadati suggested the following changes: Page 5, last paragraph, second line: insert "are" after "there" Planning Commission M~nutes '~ Apr{I ~fi, ~00~ Page 5, last line, change to read: "said he was not certain if the house approval would set a precedent in the future relative to the ordinance." Page 7: Paragraph 6: third line: delete "it was compatible" and replace with "the house is compatible with the neighborhood". Last line, insert the word "impact" after "future." MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the April 14, 2003 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Chen noted receipt of an e-mail from staff member Aarti Shrivastava forwarding an e-mail from Mr. Hackford regarding the Town Center project. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-03 Cupertino De Oro Club 20441 Homestead Road Director's minor modification to remove four trees in front of the De Oro Club (previously considered on January 13, 2003), removal of a Cedrus Deodara tree and review of a landscape plan for the front of the property. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reviewed the application for a tree removal permit to allow removal and replacement of five specimen trees and review ora landscape plan for the front of the property. The application is a follow up application to a tree removal and replacement request submitted by the club in January 2003. He reviewed the previous tree removal application and landscape plan and showed photos of the damages caused by the trees. Staff suggested an alternative for the applicant that would retain the four trees while minimizing future damage; however, the applicant still favors the tree removal and replacement option. The alternatives were outlined on Page 2-3 of the staff report. Staff recommends denial of the request to remove the five trees. In response to Com. Saadati's question about the impact of removal of the second driveway, Mr. Jung said staff was suggesting the opening of a new driveway on the other side if one was closed. He said moving the driveway would not have an affect on the circulation. Relative to watering the trees, Mr. Jung said that many were mature trees and did not need hand watering, and there was an irrigation system in place. He said the only change in the health of the trees since January was to a tan bark oak tree which had declined in health further and the arborist said it was a loss; and staff authorized the applicant to remove the tan bark oak. The other trees listed in the application are in good health. Planning Comm~sslon M~nutes Com. Wong questioned why the applicant was not in favor of the alternative plan recommended by staff. Mr. Jung said the applicant for the longer term saw the smaller trees as being less costly for them to maintain their property improvements. He said it would not be practical to keep the rest of the landscaping plan in the illustrated area if the four trees remained in the front. If the driveway was moved, it would make it difficult to do the type of landscaping suggested in the illustrated area, and illustrated the area not affected by any proposed improvements where they could plant trees. Com. Wong questioned if the Deodora cedar tree could be relocated. Mr. Jung said it was a fast growing tree but he was not certain what it would take to relocate the species or the success record of replanting it. Ms. Patricia Cooper, De Oro Club, said that it was the opinion of the landscape designer hired that they not use tree barriers or reposition the driveway. She said other arborists said tree barriers last only 2 to 4 years. She said their main concern was for the safety of their members, public safety and people coming on their property and also those using the sidewalk. She illustrated the areas where the sidewalk was raised and the asphalt was cracked. She pointed out that they originally had more land, and the trees were planted long ago when there was more land, not knowing that the streets would be changed and widened. She said that they had concerns about the tree roots, damage to the trees, resurfacing the parking lot, sewer damage and resurfacing the driveway. Ms. Cooper said another issue was the Deodora tree which is a foot or foot and a half from the edge of the driveway; a volunteer tree which grows to a spread of 40 feet and 80 feet high. She said it was a fast growing tree, and they would lose 8 to 10 parking spaces eventually. It also would be spreading over the back of the area coming around the driveway behind the property and the house. It has been mentioned that they could cut it if they are going to have specimen trees, but they do not want to have to cut them because they are unattractive when cut. It will save parking spaces but will not enhance the property. Relative to moving the tree, Ms. Cooper said the arborists feel the tree is too large and the roots too deep to move. They could not guarantee that the tree would survive. She said they were willing to plant a 36 inch box tree if required to do that. The water gum trees in the middle grow as high as 80 feet, so there would be very large trees there and they have rapid growth. Relative to the re-positioning of the driveway, she noted that the driveway will have to be positioned between two obstacles, a telephone pole and a light pole. She said there was also a 100 year old oak tree in front of the driveway, and the driveway would impact the oak tree and its roots. She said the driveway was heavily used and the parking lot was used by truckers who would break for lunch there. She also said the driveway was used by the residents of the Carmel Apartments, many of whom had two cars. Ms. Cooper said she felt it was not safe to move the driveway closer to a traffic pattern such as that; and if they moved the driveway, it would go into the oak tree and again many parking spaces would be lost. She said the Torrey pines are estimated by the arborist to be between 50 and 70 years old, their life span is 70 to 80 years old; and that if the drivoway was repositioned, they would be really helping only tree No. I which is a Torrey pine and tree No. 3 which is the California live oak. She said the Torrey pine was damaged some years ago by PG&E, and they have been informed that its life expectancy would be under ten years. She said to do all that for two trees and still have the same safety problems did not make sense to her, and she felt it was not the wisest move. Com. Miller asked if the arborist concurred that moving the driveway would impact the oak tree. Ms. Cooper said her arborist and another said it would impact the oak tree, because there would be more traffic circling that tree than normal just from the parking spaces, and there were only a few parking spaces at the sides. In response to Com. Saadati's question if it was a verbal or written report, Ms. Cooper said she was informed verbally that it would impact the tree. Planning Commission Minutes 4 April :28, 2003 Mr. Piasecki said that he and Mr. Jung went to the site, and the amount of asphalt area near the oak tree would not change with the driveway relocation, hence the supposed compaction problem that may occur would be over existing asphalt in areas where cars can currently drive over. He said he was uncertain why the frequency of cars would impact it, but their arborist may explain why. The second issue relative to the sidewalk along Homestead Road, is two different types of sidewalks there; one with a five foot parkway strip and a 10 foot monolithic sidewalk, resulting in ten feet of space behind the curb either with a parkway and a sidewalk or a continuous sidewalk for 10 feet in width. He said staff discussed the possibility of around the trees, moving the sidewalk out to the curb and provide more root growth area for those trees. The philosophy advocated is one of man needs to get out of the way of nature in this case instead of the reverse; it is always easier to do the reverse, to cut the trees down, and in this case those trees are so spectacular that staff felt it was important for man to get out of the way of the trees for whatever their life span is. He s.aid if the pine trees die in 10 or 20 years, the oak trees would have more room to fill out the same space. He said that relocating driveways and sidewalks was costly, but is warranted in this case. Ms. Cooper said the driveway was starting to show damage by the California live oak No. 4, beginning with its roots. She said there are also hairline cracks in the front of the clubhouse, which is the walkway. Ms. Cooper noted that the Torrey pines were the only trees that were planted; the California live oaks came up as seedlings and were allowed to grow. She thanked the Planning Commission and staff; and noted that when they were asked to come back to landscape 88 feet, they decided to landscape the entire 300 feet, which is what the landscape design illustrates. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Corr said he was not pleased with the new driveway but was sympathetic to the notion of getting man out of the way. He said he could not support moving the four trees and the Deodora in the back; nor was he ready to start removing trees and would rather see sidewalks moved and restructure the area rather than take out trees. Com. Wong said the De Oro Club has a lot of history in Cupertino; as do the four trees in front of the club. He said he understood the concerns, but at this point, concurred with Com. Corr, and said he did not support removing the trees at this time. He said he appreciated that the applicant returned within three months in good faith and submitted a landscape plan; and although he liked the trees proposed, he felt there were two large parking lots with a sea of asphalt which can be incorporated in the outer areas. He said there is no way around as staff suggested moving the sidewalks and moving the driveways, but he did see the concerns as well. He said he was not opposed to the cedar tree being either relocated or removed and plant another specimen tree in another location, and would leave that option open. He reiterated that at this time he was in favor of the four trees remaining. Com. Saadati said he concurred with the other commissioners. Relative to the condition of the asphalt, he said he has seen hairline cracks and large cracks in asphalt pavement that have no trees near them, which is the nature of asphalt which does react with time. He said he was in favor of keeping the trees and trying to make the driveways narrower to move the pavement away from the trees so there is more area. He said perhaps some pruning of the Deodora cedar tree would help to allow some cars to park and also to keep the cars further away from the trunk of the trees so the tree can survive. Com. Miller said he concurred with Com. Wong that the Deodora could be removed, particularly since the arborist concurred with that suggestion. It is a relatively young tree and was planted too Planning Commission Minutes 5 April close to the parking lot and it is clear it would create an additional maintenance problem as it grows. Relative to the four trees in front, he said he felt the trees were so beautiful and spectacular that it is difficult to remove them without first trying some measures to save them. He said it appeared that some of the asphalt could be moved or removed from the edge of the trees to make the problem less severe. Chair Chen said that trees take many years to grow and efforts should be made to save as many as possible especially in this particular case. She said she concurred with fellow commissioners to save the trees where possible. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Wong moved to concur with staff recommendation to deny the application TR-2003-03 with exception to relocate the Deodora cedar tree Com. Miller Discussion followed. Com. Corr said he was concerned with the suggestion to relocate the Deodora cedar, which he was not certain could be accomplished in terms of what would happen to the tree. Since the tree is big enough and the roots are deep, he said relocating it would likely kill the tree. Com. Corr said he would accept removal of the tree and planting another tree per their plan, but would not want to limit it to just relocating it. Com. Miller said he agreed with Com. Corr's comment. Com. Wong said he was willing to amend the motion to remove it. Com. Saadati agreed that removing the tree would not be easy and the damage to the tree may hinder its survival. Com. Miller said he would accept an amendment to remove it. Mr. Piasecki said that coast redwoods were a good choice since they can be planted in tight spots and they don't tend to disrupt adjacent asphalt; let the applicant chose whether it be a 48 inch box tree or two 24 inch box trees. Com. Wong said he liked the redwood trees also; and requested feedback from the remaining commissioners. Com. Corr suggested two trees be planted, especially since two are being removed; and said that what he would like to see happen is to work with the arborist to plant two coast redwoods, but to make sure that the trees being planted have been well thought out in terms of where they are going, what their life span is, and how they are going to grow, to prevent a repeat down the line of the tree being too big for the space and having to remove it. Com. Wong said he would amend the motion to include two 24 inch coast redwoods. Ms. Cooper said that she felt they showed good faith in their plan and in what they planned to do, and hoped that the Planning Commission could understand their safety concerns. She said she was willing to work with the committee and staff as to what is planted; there is redwood on the property and they would like to put some beautiful specimen trees in the back. She said they do not have Toyons; but was mentioned. If that is possible, they would replace the Deodora; and plant whatever size is required, but would like a say in it if possible. Chair Chen said if they agreed to remove the tree, they would like to specify what kind and size of tree has to go in there as replacement. Ms. Cooper said they requested a Toyon since it is a native tree and there are none on the property, but redwoods are over on the other side. Mr. Piasecki said that another option is to continue the application for two weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to suggest alternate trees that they would like to save and then take action in two weeks. The applicant indicated that a two week period was appropriate. Plannlng (~ommlsslon Minutes 6 Aprll ~fl, ~66~ MOTION: SECOND: Com. Wong moved to remove the previous motion from the floor Com. Miller The original motion was withdrawn. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to deny application TR-2003-03 to remove the four trees; relative to the Deodora cedar, the application will return in two weeks with recommendation from staff as well as the applicant what to plant in that corner Com. Miller Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2002-09, TM-2002-02, U-2002-06, Z-2002-02, EA-2002-14 Dennis Meidinger/Bill Hagman 10320-10440 So. DeAnza Boulevard; 20360-20440 Town Center Lane Amendment to Heart of the City Specific Plan to exceed allowed building height from 45 to 56 ft. Tentative map to subdivide four existing parcels ranging from approximately 1.9 acres to seven "building" parcels and one common lot ranging from approximately 0.1 acres to 3.7 acres. Use permit to demolish 16 existing office buildings totaling 123,695 square feet and construct 181,000 square feet of retail-commercial space 237 residential units and a .5 acre linear park. Rezone 12.3 acres fro P to P (Planned Commercial, Office, Residential). Tentative City Council date: May 19, 2003 Com. Wong recused himself from discussion of the application since his family owns property within 500 feet of the property. Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, noted two corrections to the plan sets; sheet L-0 to be removed and R2-4 to be removed from the plan set since there is not a fourth story on Building R2. Ms. Shrivastava reviewed the application summary for rezoning, use permit and tentative map for the mixed use development on the Town Center site, as outlined in the staff report. She reviewed the original master plan, revision 1 from March 2003, and the present revision 2, and explained the comparisons between revisions as illustrated in the staff report. She noted that the General Plan allows heights to 45 feet; therefore the project will not require any General Plan amendments. Ms. Shrivastava then reviewed the traffic impact analysis and noted that the applicant would be required to build in traffic calming on Rodriguez Avenue. Parking, school impacts, landscaping changes, and project schedule were reviewed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the mitigated negative declaration, the use permit application, Heart of the City Specific Plan exception, rezoning and tentative map. Com. Corr referred to the calming concept on Rodriguez Avenue and questioned the reason for suggesting a mid-block crossing at the curve. He said he felt drivers are not looking for mid-block crossings and especially if someone is coming around a curve, may not see somebody who is in the process of crossing. Ms. Shrivastava said that it would likely be studied further. Planning Commlssion Minutes ? April Mr. Piasecki said the concept of traffic calming on Rodriquez is to create side friction; no side friction exists now, and without it, drivers tend to go much faster than they otherwise would; therefore part of this plan is suggesting parking on one side of the street that would provide some of that side friction. The other concept shown is possibly a raised platform pedestrian crossing. He clarified that what was being approved was that the applicant will contribute toward traffic calming on Rodriguez. He said he felt it was important from their standpoint, which was made clear recently when a man was killed on Rodriguez, that they have conditions where drivers are driving faster and people are crossing the street, albeit mid-block, and the amount of reaction time is less when there are speeds on the frictionless streets that function like expressways. Mr. Piasecki said it was important to try to create some traffic calming to slow speeds and provide more warning to people, inasmuch as it provides additional parking for the adjacent uses, in this case the townhomes to the north. The idea also is to try to move the travel lanes; and in one case they may be siding on the south side of the street and the other they may swing over to the north side of the street to help slow traffic through the area. He said they were not approving the specific design as they do not know what it will end up being, whether it includes those elements OF not. Com. Corr said he was comforted knowing that they were approving that particular application or that particular calming method. He said he did not have a problem with the calming, but has had some negative experiences with mid-block crosswalks. In response to Com. Miller's request to review the design changes, Ms. Shrivastava explained that the plans and drawings were reviewed by the architectural consultant Larry Cannon, and many of the suggestions were his. The plans are fairly small scale, but if magnified to actual size, many issues come into play where you have a blank wall on one section, or the entries are not detailed enough, and most of these comments relate to buildings or to an R1; therefore staff has recommended these buildings come back to the Design Review for study in more detail. Com. Miller asked for an explanation of how the sum for the in-lieu fee was derived. Ms. Shrivastava said it was used from a recent application where they looked at what was put into effect for the Kimpton Hotel. Com. Miller asked if the approach had been considered of the difference in the cost of building a BMR unit; the difference between market rate and the BMR rate, and multiplying it by the number of BMR units. Ms. Shrivastava said the fee was put in to ensure that the residential buildout would be completed before the office, and the intent was not to intensify the office to housing ratio any more than is already done. Ms. Shrivastava said that rather than allow the in-lieu fee, it could be required that the housing units be constructed before or concurrent with the last phase. Com. Miller questioned is the schools took into account the Verona Apartments and the numbers they are giving the city. Ms. Shrivastava said that the high school district included the numbers and they did not expect to see a significant change, and said that because these were multi-family units, there would be less of an impact. In response to Com. Miller's question about tree size, Ms. Shrivastava explained that the average tree size is 36 inch box; wherever they are over a parking garage they are 24 inch box because the arborists state that the smaller trees do better for planting on the top ora parking garage. The 48s are used where it is needed to really create an impact, where the trees really need to grow faster. She noted that they were all put into the plan based on the landscape plan given by the landscape architect who also has an arborist. Ms. Shrivastava said that moving the park closer to the residential building was not something put forward by the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes t4 April 28, 2003 Mr. Piasecki said that staff liked the original concept of a linear park, symmetrical, lined up with the plaza at City Hall with the ability to drive around it making it more interesting. He said there was not a lot to be gained from pushing the open space right up to the units; in fact it would result in a two lane on the other side to maintain all the circulation. Chair Chen requested that the traffic study be reviewed. Ms. Shrivastava explained that they look at existing traffic volumes, add approved projects which form the background and then add the project itself. They then look at what the project buildout is, by the time the project is built out, what the~traffic would be and every year add about 1.2 percent to the traffic. If you were to look at when the project was built out, at the time it was about 2007, it was expected to be built out, if you did not put a red signal in and left the DeAnza/McClellan intersection the way it was and left Rodriguez the way it was, the second bullet where it says the intersection of DeAnza/Rodriguez and DeAnza/McClellan would operate acceptably with or without the new traffic signal; they would operate acceptably even with the project going in. However, if you project the volumes after 2010 you begin seeing impacts to the DeAnza/McClellan intersection which means that needs to be changed and once that is changed then you need to add the new signal in, in order to maintain the traffic progression along DeAnza Boulevard. One goes in only if the other does. Mr. Glen Goepfert, Public Works, said it may simplify it to separate the background conditions without the project and the conditions with the project. Configuration of the intersection at McClellan/Pacifica/DeAnza is such that even without the project, after a certain period of time by 2010 the performance of the intersection is going to degrade to such a point where it will affect progression on Deanza, so that has to be reconfigured. The project will accelerate that by the impact of its trips; and the nature of the improvements at McClellan/Pacifica/DeAnza are such where the left turns from Pacifica onto DeAnza would be removed in order to make it perform better. If that is done, another signal would need to be added in order to get those left turns in and out back, and because of that and one reason the city has the progressivity study added to the study, was the neighbors indicated this, but staff is concerned what the ultimate effect would be if the signal was not added at the project. The progressivity on DeAnza would be acceptable if the intersection at McClellan/DeAnza/Pacifica was changed to take the left turn zone. Even with the new signal with the project, the signals can be coordinated so the progressivity of the lights for the movement of traffic between Bollinger and Stevens Creek will still be acceptable, with just a small increase in the time southbound; so the progressivity with the project will be improved with the traffic signal. However, the signal at McClellan/DeAnza/Pacifica needs to be changed with or without the signal. Mr. Piasecki said that the simple explanation is that it is a monster intersection that is not going to work well in the long-term future. He said it may need to be simplified to allow it to work more efficiently and it is only a concept. Ms. Shrivastava clarified that the DeAnzaYMcClellan intersection is expected to have impacts at 2010 without the project. This project will contribute .3% towards the traffic and they will have to make a contribution toward that signal; therefore even if the project did not exist, there would still be changes needed to that signal. She said that the 2010 impacts are not evaluated by CEQA; you only go up to project buildout, so this analysis goes beyond what CEQA requires. Mr. Deke Hunter, co-applicant, said that taking into consideration the input from the community and the Planning Commission at the meeting a month ago, they attempted to address the issues raised. He said he felt the plan had improved, and noted that in addressing the height issue, he lost 17 residential units after removing three feet from the R2 building height. On the other hand, Planning Commission Minufes when maintaining conformance with the total height of the project, it made all the commercial buildings two story in nature which was something the community called for three years ago. He said that after listening to the process and listening to input from everyone, he felt the plan provides the scale, scope and a concept in which everyone wins. He said he would of course benefit more with bigger office buildings, but was not concerned about the office space at this point as the office buildings are the last phase. Mr. Hunter addressed the phasing, stating that the phasing hinges on this project with Building G, the medical building. It was approved as a two story building, and the square footage has been reduced. A floor has been deleted from Building F. He said that when Building G is completed, he will start the R1 project. He explained the progression of Phases 1, 2 and 3. He said there was a remote chance that the R2 structure would be started this year. Mr. Hunter said that they could live with the conditions relating to the office buildings following or posting the bonds. He said the office buildings are demand-based products; three existing office buildings are leased and will remain there; when the economy improves, they will move in that direction and finish that portion of the site. He said it was important to have the understanding that he needs the flexibility in the phasing. He said that the traffic light is optional; DeAnza/McClellan will get improved and at that time the decision can be made relating to the light. He said the traffic intersection is a plus with regard to keeping traffic specific to the site. Mr. Hunter said that his goal was twofold; to get more constructive input if in fact there are more ideas that have not been included; and to come away with a recommendation, hopefully in favor given his effort and diligence so they can move forward to the City Council. In response to Com. Miller's request for information on the condominium units, Mr. Hunter said that the R2 building would be devoted to 72+ for sale condominium units; sale price and homeowners' fees to be determined at competitive rates. Mr. Hunter said that the amhitectural development will be presented later through the Design Review Committee. He said that the key issues with the R2 building are that they are working within the General Plan height element of 45 feet, and to be successful in retail the storefronts cannot be demeaned. He pointed out that when the height was decreased, it was at the expense of his retail storefronts. He reviewed the height changes, including the removal of the tower elements. Mr. Hunter said that in many instances in residential, the tower elements are quasi-functional because they become elevator towers with elevator equipment; and by bringing the building heights down they have been able to relocate some of the equipment rooms within the interior roof well and once again the towers fit within the 45 feet. He clarified that the building is still three stories as you look at it from the outside, it is kept within 45 feet, and able to keep the fourth level of residential on the interior hut within the height. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, commended Mr. Hunter for reducing the office space substantially because of the need for jobs/housing ratio, which shows they are working in the right direction. He said it was a big project affecting the area and he requested that the environmental impact report be a proper one for the following reasons: It is addressing additional traffic on DeAnza Boulevard as well as the traffic not seen now because of the down economy. When DeAnza College gets their increase, when people start working and driving up from southern San Jose, taking 85 and down DeAnza, there will be more traffic than there is today. Mr. Whitaker said he disagreed with the school numbers. Relative to the calming of Rodriquez and Pacifica, he said that he felt an environmental impact study was needed because retail and residential are being Plannlng Comm]sslon M[nutes 10 Apr'il added, and a huge impact to a small area is being added, as well as taller buildings than what now exist. Because of the addition of a new community center, state of the art library, apartments, condos, residential and possibly more retail which has not been there before, he said they should be careful of what they are doing. He reiterated that there was a concerned group of citizens called the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino. Mr. Whitaker said they appreciated the 45 foot height; and wanted to be sure everyone was in agreement with definition of 45 feet, from the ground level at the base at Deanza Boulevard going to the very top of the tallest building, the peak of the roof. He said they wanted three stories, not 3.25, 3.5 or 3.75, but 3 stories. He said that in 2001, they talked about 194 units, then it went up to 237, then to 207; now it is at 217; the difference between 217 units and 194 originally are 23 units, equaling 46 more cars in that project. Relative to the proposed stoplight, he said that the intersection will be worsened, inviting another accident to happen. He said he was opposed to a street light at Rodriguez and McClellan. He said he felt the numbers were not accurate relative to the number of children coming into the area. He questioned whether it was an exception or an amendment that they were trying to get added. Ms. Shrivastava explained that the General Plan allows buildings up to 45 feet; the Heart of the City Plan is more specific and states that buildings are to be 36 feet but they may go up to what the General Plan allows if they incorporate certain features such as underground parking and sloping roofs, and in that case the building may go up to 45 feet. In order to go from 36 to 45 feet an exception would be granted; the exception is for the Heart of the City plan, not the General Plan. Mr. John Erickson, Cold Harbor Avenue, said he would address the assumption of the impact to the schools referred to in the data distributed. He said taking into consideration how many people are in Cupertino, from the 2000 census, 50,000 residents; the number of students in the Cupertino Union School District plus the Fremont Union High School District is 24,947. Not all of those students live in Cupertino since it serves some other districts; so the best number available is from the website, and the percentage of those students who are Cupertino residents is 60%. If you multiply 60% times 24,947, it equals approximately 15,000 students living in Cupertino. The population of Cupertino of 50,000, which implies that 30% of the total population is Cupertino is attending Cupertino schools. If applying that type of logic to how many people are going to be living in 237 units, assuming in a 2 bedroom unit them is going to be anywhere from 2 to 2.5 people, there will be from 474 to 593 additional people due to the residences. Therefore, the expected increase if it was at the same percentage as it is of students in the Cupertino population would be 141 to 176 students; all of these students would go to either Eaton, Hyde Jr. High or Cupertino High. Based on the numbers from the initial study, approximately 58% of the students that they project would be going to grades K through 6, which means the impact on Eaton which would be the most affected, and would be an additional 82 to 102 students. Eaton currently has an enrollment of 453 students; therefore it is increasing the enrollment of Eaton from 19% to 22%. He said the conclusion drawn would be that the Town Center would have a major impact on Eaton school by itself. Next there was an element in the initial study relative to mandatory findings of significance and in there the principal was (quoted from the General Plan) "the project has impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable", meaning incremental impacts of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with affects of past projects, affects of current projects and affects of probably future projects. He said he felt that the project should not move forward without quantifying the affects in an environmental impact report and establishing proper mitigation. Plann[ng (~omm~ss[on M~nutes 11 Apr'd ~.fl, ~60~ Ms. Shrivastava said that the 2000 census reported there are 10,537 children, ages 5 through 18 in Cupertino; and 18,682 housing units in Cupertino, averaging .564 children per housing unit. The number the school district provides also includes Sunnyvale and they have different characteristics, but the projections provided by the school district as weld as what the census shows are very close. She said the school district does not rely entirely on projections; it does a survey each year of where every student comes from. The fall 2002 numbers are included in the staff report and shows numbers from Aviare which is a fairly recent development, and numbers from the Cupertino Parks Center which shows every students that comes from that particular apartment. In the interest of encouraging all input, Chair Chen asked the audience to hold their applause for the speakers. She asked if they agreed with the project, to either complete a speaker card to talk, or let the Planning Commission know through e-mail that they agree with the speakers' points. Ms. Sally Larson, said that concerns she had from the last meeting had been addressed. She thanked Hunter/Storm for the elimination of the towers since they increase the perception of the height, density, over-development and view obstruction. She said she was concerned with what was termed side friction, which she said meant a drastically lower quality of life for her. She said that her only outdoor access was the deck facing Rodriguez and if there were speed bumps added and parking allowed, it would negatively impact her privacy. She said she was saddened to learn of the death of a pedestrian, and noted that there is a huge element of risk for pedestrians, and they should be aware of risks in crossing the street where there is limited visibility. She said she felt one incident in 15 years did not warrant a complete change in the quality of life. She reiterated that it would be intrusive in her daily life with the parked cars and the sound of people getting in and out of their cars. She asked that the residents be contacted before a decision was made so that they could provide input. She also asked for clarification on where the parking was planned. Ms. Shrivastava said the plan was to have parking on Rodriguez; and illustrated that after the curve it would go on the side by the Biltmore apartments because that is where people park now. Ms. Larson said that she appreciated that owner-occupied condominiums would be available as it would enhance the quality of life in the area. She encouraged staff and the Planning Commission to contact the residents to work with them in terms of traffic calming. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the design was only a concept; there will be a process and adjacent neighbors would be notified with any specifics and their input gathered. He said the concept of onstreet parking might actually slow down vehicles resulting in the drivers actually abiding by the speed limit. Mr. Bob Hendrickson, 10535 Mira Vista Avenue, referred to the slide of the traffic changes, and addressed the Planning Commission relative to the information from the school districts, and the impact of the project on the schools. Ms. Shrivastava clarified that Page 3-223 in the staff report illustrated the letter she sent; and indicated that questions were asked about the number of elementary and middle school students expected from the development, the facilities that the students would be going to, and the impact on the facilities. She said the elementary students would be going to Eaton elementary and Hyde middle school. Ms. Joann Tong, Cupertino resident, said she understood as Ms. Shrivastava mentioned if there was underground parking, the buildings could be 45 feet high. She reminded the Planning Commission that the residents of Cupertino sent in, and continue to send in petitions, urging the Planning Commlss~on Minutes 12 April Planning Commission to keep the building heights to 36 feet in the Heart of the City plan as well as in the future General Plan and not allow any height amendments. She said there was mention Of onstreet parking slowing down the traffic on Rodriguez; and questioned if it was ever considered to lower the speed limit to 25 mph? Mr. Norm Hackford, Tunita Way, said he agreed with much of the work being done to improve the project and had other areas to identify. He said that Rodriguez Avenue has always been a bike route and at one time there was a bike path. The bike path has a potential in the plan to connect all the way from the east side of Cupertino to the west side. With the new library, city hall, and many of the other roads becoming too congested, that road needs to still be considered a bike route and improved back to what it used to be, an actual bike path by putting paths on that road. He said the students need a safe way to get to the schools, and recommended putting in bike paths rather than parking lots. He said they need to look at and address the traffic planning; and questioned how the number of 1900 average daily trips was derived, from a parking lot with almost 1400 or 1500 potential cars with a variety of businesses, homes, and shops. Chair Chen closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Piasecki said Mr. Hackford's suggestion of a bike path was an appropriate suggestion and could be added to the possible redesign of Rodriguez. Ms. Shrivastava said the concept plan shows putting in an actual bike lane. Com. Miller asked staff to address Mr. Hackford's comment about the 1400 parking vs. the 1981 trips. Ms. Shrivastava said the project will require 1248 parking spaces; the average daily trips expected for this project are 1981, based on the ITE standards that determine how many trips are expected for a development based on the use of the particular development. She said they have used similar standards in developments; used for planning the streets, planning the intersections, and much of the roadway facilities. Mr. Goepfert said it was developed as Ms. Shrivastava said from standards that have been used. He noted there are problems of which the neighbors speak in the neighborhood; even without the project there is already a problem on Rodriguez and Pacifica, which is something staff is struggling with. He said the type of traffic calming had not yet been decided, but there is sufficient care taken to show that there is an increment added by this project; however, the problem with traffic in the neighborhood exists with or without the project. Mr. Piasecki said that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the number of parking spaces and the number of trips since what is not accounted for is the overlap of parking with office and residential. Various studies have shown you can overlap up to 40%, but the concept is the office is gone during the evenings when the residents are there; and the residents are gone during the day when the office is there. He said that it can be safely stated that it is over-building the parking, fairly significantly by not trying to even account for that. It provides a comfort level for people at the same time paving much more land area than is needed. People prefer to see more parking as opposed to less paving in this case. Ms. C. Choy, Fehr and Peers, traffic consultants, conducted the traffic analysis and said to keep in mind there are some existing buildings on the site that will remain and those trips are not included in the 1981 trips, they already exist and are included in the parking requirement but not in the trips shown. The trips are based on trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation based on surveys done at various office retail residential sites and are Planning Commlss[on M;nutes I~I Aprll ~, 0O0~ numbers typically used in all the studies. She said they have conducted surveys at various office sites and residential sites and the numbers typically match what is published in the ITE rates as well. Ms. Choy said they had not done before and after traffic management for a specific project, but if they had surveyed existing office buildings or existing residential buildings and compared those rates with what is published in ITE rates, then they are similar, regardless of what year. Mr. Goepfert said that the speed limits are set by Public Works, depending on the vehicle code and processes followed. He said some changes have to go through City Council if Public Works does not have the authority to make that particular change. Mr. Piasecki said that the speeds are based upon prevailing speeds; if people are going 50 or 35, it cannot be 25 and used it as a speed trap; the 85~h percentile or the prevailing speeds must be considered. The less side friction there is, the faster cars can go and go safely as a rule. He said it does not make for a desirable environment if we are striving to be a small town, suburban community, but want streets that are slower and want side friction. We want onstreet parking, and the so-called disturbances that come from that am part of the community; it is the children getting out to visit their friends, it is the neighbors, and it does not necessarily have to be viewed as negative. When building communities, the interaction with people is desired, the slower speeds and the small town feeling that go along with it. Mr. Goepfert said that if there is justification for lowering the speed, there is the problem with enforcement even with speeds like 25 mph. With traffic calming, physical barriers to speed are used; and in this particular situation the neighbors have complaints also about the volume of traffic in the area as well as the speed. It is a problem that will take further study. Mr. Piasecki said that traffic calming can also help deter commuters from using the specific neighborhood. It is part of a consistent philosophy aimed at lower speeds, lower volumes and the small town safe environment people are seeking. Cars parked on the street also provide protection for pedestrians with the weight of steel between pedestrians and the traveling car. He said it was a consistent concept that requires everyone's input to design it, and people's buyin to what that might entail. Com. Corr thanked Hunter/Storm for their work on the project, which differed from the project at the beginning more than three years ago. He said he was pleased that rather than try to go through all the exceptions and changes, the project was brought in under the existing rules and conditions. He said he preferred the towers on the buildings as they provided balance to the building, but since they exceed 45 feet, had to be removed, l;Ie said there was a lot of talk about the open space, the park and the street; and he felt it would not be the ideal place for children to play; but would be a suitable open area. Relative to traffic calming issues, he said it depends on where you live in town and who you are talking to whether people think those are a good idea, but has been said over and over again that the desire is to have the city feel slower and more like a small town than a big city. He said the project meets the General Plan, qualifies for the exception under the Heart of the City plan; and he was confident about the numbers from the school district. He said that he supported the project, and it was time to send the application on to the City Council. Com. Saadati said he liked the towers also, as architecturally they added some elements, and said one does not need to view the height for a specific small portion of the building as intrusive, but the final result is pleasing. He said he was surprised that Building G was not under construction. He concurred with Com. Corr that the project meets the guidelines of the General Plan, a lot of changes have taken place, there have been many community meetings and it has taken a long time. Planning (]omm'~ss[on M'~nutes 1~ April ]g, ]00~ He said overall he felt it would be a project that would enhance the community and will result in having a place for the community to gather, especially next to the city hall and library. Relative to the traffic calming, it will be worked on in the future; a lot of communities have issues with traffic calming, and that needs to be studied and looked at with input from the adjacent residents to make it work as effectively as possible. He said he supported the project and wanted it to move forward. Com. Miller that he felt it was a good project although some people were not completely satisfied with the end result. He said the process of community involvement and the applicant working with the community, has clearly resulted in a significantly different project closer to what a number of the community residents were hoping for. Relative to the specific project, he said he liked the site plan and that it had a good flow and was well laid out with the park in the center. He commented that it had a corridor that looked down to city hall and the library; and the circulation was done appropriately. He said the retail parking at grade would make it easy for people to come in off the street and do their shopping and then leave as opposed to having to go to an underground parking lot. He said the architecture was pleasing and he felt it would be a fine addition to the city. He said he understood the people's concerns about the traffic; and was pleased about the fact that when looking at why there is so much parking and very little trips, it is because there are a lot of trips going on now which are not being double counted. Com. Miller said that he was concerned about the impact on Eaton school and called the representatives from both districts, and had discussions with them about whether this was an issue or not. He received feedback that it was not going to be an issue for Eaton, nor for the junior high or the high schools. He questioned whether they could go any further, since they had discussions about the methods used and the city has to accept that the school boards are content at this point. Com. Miller said he liked the idea of bike paths on Rodriguez; and said there were many good suggestions and he was pleased that the city and applicant will work with the residents on designing the type of traffic calming effects for Pacifica and Rodriguez. He said he felt drivers exceed the speed limit on Rodriguez and anything that can be done to slow traffic down would be a betterment. Relative to the applicant's request for recommendations on condo vs. apartments, Com. Miller said he favored condominiums and would like them at a price where teachers and other service people in the community could afford them. He illustrated photos of available real estate in the county with various price ranges and square footage, in the $300,000 to $400,000 price range to help the applicant decide what the price ranges should be for the condos when they are developed. Chair Chen thanked the community members and the speakers for their attendance which she said was indicative of their caring for the community. She emphasized that their continued input throughout the process helped make a difference. She expressed her appreciation to the applicants for their flexibility in addressing the concerns and input from the community and encouraged them to continue to seek and address input from the community. Chair Chen said the project was a well designed project in conformance with the General Plan and she concurred with fellow commissioners to support the project and forward it to the City Council level. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Corr moved to approve Application Z-2002-02, U-2002o06, EXC-2002-09, EA-2002-014 and TM-2002-02 Com. Saadati Com. Miller recommended adding a condition that at least one building be for sale condominium units. Com. Corr said that he assumed from the presentation that one building was to be condominiums, for sale units. Ms. Shrivastava said that the applicant indicated that he would Planning Commission Minutes 15 Apr'd 2§, 2063 welcome a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Com. Corr said he would include it in his motion; Com. Saadati accepted the change. Com. Miller said he felt there was no reason for an in-lieu fee as the applicant indicated his primary intent was to build the housing in the second phase. He suggested removing the in-lieu fee or tie it to the BMR units that are being lost. AMENDED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Applications Z-2002-02, U-2002-06, EXC-2002-09, EA-2002-014 and TM-2002-02, including conditions stating that the residential units will be built before the office space; Building G will be built in the first phase, and one building will be condominium, for sale units. Com. Saadati Com. Wong Passed 4-0-0 Com. Wong returned to the meeting. Mr. Piasecki indicated that the application would be forwarded to City Council on May 19, 2003. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Ms. Wordell reported that the hillside exception was approved; the Forum retirement center will be applying for an addition of an Alzheimers building and fitness center. Housing Commission: Com. Miller reported they had not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mayor's Monthly meeting: Com. Wong reported the following from the Mayor's monthly meeting: The Fine Arts Commission is currently seeking applications for proposals for art work due to new grants; Public Safety Commission is in the process of reinventing their goals since some of their duties were reassigned; Telecommunications Commission reviewed the wireless master plan and will be coming soon to the Planning Commission; Housing Commission - April 29, 12 noon will be the grand opening of CCS at Vista Village, 24 affordable housing units are available; Library Commission - the progress of the new library is moving forward on schedule and have suggested a joint session with the Teen Commission relative to the needs of the teens; the mayor suggested joint sessions with other commissions for sharing of ideas; and suggestion to have a joint session with the Housing Commission. Com. Wong reported that Vice Mayor James has been outreaching to the public schools as well as the Chinese and Persian language schools to do an work along the construction boards similar to the Verona apartments project. He said it was a good idea to get the Cupertino children involved and thanked Vice Mayor James for the suggestion. He reported that the Teen Commission reported on the mobile skate park, stationed at two locations; one on the weekends and one during the week. The next Cupertino Community Congress meeting will be held on April 30th at 4 p.m. and will focus on teen issues. He encouraged other Planning Commissioners to attend and participate. Planning Commiggion Minuteg 16 April REPORT OF TI-IE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Mr. Piasecki discussed the newspaper article in USA Today relative to makeover of malls. He said the concept of new suburban villages is a nationwide phenomenon and is applicable to not only Vallco Fashion Park potentially, but also the Hewlett Packard property. He said it also related to discussions about the Crossroads as a way to create a village walkable environment. He noted the second article written by architect Hess, relative to new Town Centers lacking soul. Mr. Piasecki clarified that they do not project that the city center would necessarily be the only center in the community; but that it works in conjunction with the Crossroads area and also Vallco will take on its own role. He said it was unreasonable to expect that one area would carry the burden with the limited amount of commercial that is actually occurring in those areas; and it was unfair that it characterizes what the intent was vs. what is really happening in that particular area. OTHER: The public participation process for the General Plan update was discussed. The introductory community meeting is scheduled for May 20th, from 7 to 9 p.m. Mr. Piasecki emphasized that it was an introductory discussion of the process, and not a debate. People will be able to apply for the positions on the General Plan Task Force; they will ultimately develop their recommendations for preferred alternative to the City Council and it will occur toward the end of the summer, perhaps September. Ms. Wordell said there were many avenues for applying, including ads in the Courier, notices in the Cupertino Scene, the website, and a large mailing that will be sent out. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, at 6:45 p.m. on May 12, 2003. Approved as presented: May 12, 2003 Respectfully Submitted,~ E lizab.,fft~ EIFts RecofdSng Secretary