Loading...
PC 02-13-07CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 13, 2007 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Vice Chairperson: Cary Chien Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Commissioner Absent: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Staff present: City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: It was noted that the spelling of the new Planning Commissioner's surname is "Kaneda". The minutes will be reflected to show the correction on Page 2. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Miller, to approve the January 23, 2007 minutes as amended. (Vote 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: City Planner Ciddy Wordell noted the information item for the Planning Commission as a follow up to the question whether a tree had been removed at Blackberry Farm. Staff reported that no tree had been removed or had been slated for removal. An e-mail relative to an agenda item was also received. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: 1. U-2006-14, ASA-2006-OS Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new Terry Brown mixed-use development; 2,500 square feet commercial 10056 Orange Avenue and three residential units. Planning Commission final unless appealed. Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20072 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the rationale for postponing the item: • Staff is recommending postponement of Item 1 since information from the arborist on the protected Maple tree on the side of the property was just received yesterday. The recommendation was that there would be significant loss to the Maple tree if the building stayed where it is. Staff feels postponement is necessary in order to allow time to assess what changes would need to be made, whether the building needed to be moved or redesigned. • Applicant Terry Brown, spoke with staff and said he would consider moving the tree and relocating it on the site, not moving the building which does not necessarily involve a re- design. Terry Brown, Applicant: • Said he was concerned that if the application is postponed once again, they would not be on the agenda until March. The project has been in the works with the staff since August of last year, and as many as five revisions have been made to the plans, all of which were in response to staff's concerns about design, traffic and parking. He said he was eager to present the outstanding project which is in keeping with the Monta Vista guidelines and the other developments there. • When the arborist's report was received, he said they met with staff at the site to point out that they felt they could meet the arborist concerns with the tree where it is. It would require some modifications to the plans but they would be somewhat minor. • He asked that they be permitted to present the project, and said they would be satisfied to have it conditioned on their ability to meet the requirements of the new city arborist, with the idea that they would relocate the Maple tree. If the arborist says that the tree cannot be moved, the alternative would be a re-design of the project. • He said he felt there was an ideal place on the site where the Maple tree would be much more of an asset to the property than where it is now located. The proposal would be to locate it more central to the project as opposed to the back end. Ciddy Wordell: • Said the arborist was late in getting the report to staff. Barry Coates is no longer the City's consulting arborist, therefore if an arborist report is needed, the report will have to be from a different arborist. Vice Chair Chien: • Said he sympathized with the applicant, and said it was not in the interest of the City or the applicants when an application is delayed. The Commission tries to efficiently move all applications through the process. However, it is a difficult task advising the City Council and it is the Commission's responsibility to take in as much data as possible. • He said without that data, he had reservations about moving forward. Com. Kaneda: • Had no comments. Com. Miller: • Said he felt the application should be heard this evening as it was not the fault of the applicant that the information was not available. • He said the applicant is proposing some alternative solutions and it seems reasonable under the circumstances the project could be approved subject to conditions; and it was incumbent upon them to move applications forward as quickly as possible. Cupertino Planning Commission Chair Giefer: February 13, 20073 Said she supported continuing the application as the application was presently incomplete. She said she would like to have the arborist report stating if the tree is movable or not. As found with other applications such as the Marketplace, the reason they have not replaced the palm trees in that facility is because the arborist report and the nursery specifically states that there is a higher incident of disease if the tree is moved at specific times of the year. She said she would like to have the additional information to ensure that the best possible decision is made as the recommendations are forwarded to City Council as well. Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Chien, to continue Application U-2006-14 to the February 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Miller No; Com. Wong absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None The agenda was moved to Item 3. 3. Report on Peet's Coffee/Panera Breads parking and signage at Stevens Creek Office Center. Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report: • Provided an update on the parking and signage issues of the Peet's Coffee/Panera Breads and Stevens Creek Office Center locations as requested by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting. • The issue related to confusion about where the Panera/Peet's Coffee customers could park. The City has been working with the property owner for months trying to make it clear that there is additional parking in the rest of the center. A Planning Commissioner raised the issue that they have some reserved parking therefore it does not make all the parking available to customers of the retail use. • She illustrated on the aerial some of the parking signage locations going into the driveway of the Peet's Coffee/Panera buildings and noted some reserve parking by the office buildings. It is staff's understanding that this was in place prior to this requirement for reciprocal parking in the center and they feel it is locked in and cannot be unlocked for general parking. • There is a sign directing parking for additional parking; the regular parking for the building is adjacent to the Peet's Coffee/Panera building, with a small parking area behind that. They are taking several other steps to try to free up some parking on the site. She illustrated where there was some one hour parking; the additional parking behind the site in question is also marked one hour. They have tried to take a number of steps to ensure there is parking close by for the retail use. • One of the issues is the sign wording of the sign at the back of the parking next to Peet's/Panera building, which states "additional Peet's Coffee and Panera parking." Staff's recommendation is that the sign have some arrows pointing not only to the parking area to the right, but to the back to clarify that it was not just this area that parking was available but you could continue to go back. • She illustrated the one hour parking along the left side of the aerial, which extends several dozen spaces back toward the rear of the property. The other issue related to this project was that there was a recorded easement requiring shared parking between the parcel that Peet's/Panera is on and the rest of the office center. However, the covenant that was recorded actually was just for the immediate parking right behind Peet's/Panera parking and the retail Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20074 area not the whole center. The City Council direction said "Stevens Creek Office Center, Peet's/Panera shared parking". It is staff's understanding that the intent was and still is that it be between the entire shopping center and Peet's/Panera retail building. Staff's recommendation is that the document be re-recorded. Staff recommends that the directional signs be included to show that you can park not only to the right but also to the back. Melanie Roberts, Stevens Creek Office Center Associates: • What we have attempted to do in the retail center parking was at the request of Peet's and Panera's to put some 15 minute parking up close so people who were coming just to get coffee have some time. • Said the reserved spaces for Net Manage is a contractual obligation; a lease entered into prior to the execution of the first amendments; hence they have contractual obligations to keep those spaces reserved for Net Manage. It was the ownership's intent when this development came into being that we knew we had a center at that time that had 40% vacancy, so parking was not an issue. • We also knew that that occupancy was going to increase rapidly and we have an obligation to the tenants of our office park that we have sufficient parking for that office; presently at 4 per 1,000. • It was the intent of the ownership group and the document that was drafted with the City staff on specific language in the document because they wanted to make parking available; however, not throughout the entire office park since they could see what was going to happen once that filled up. • In order not to alienate our office tenants we have made parking for the retail center specifically for the retail center and we have a sign that indicates no office parking. In the reciprocal easement parking lot, immediately behind the retail center we have added approximately 10 one hour parking only. Down the main center driveway of the office park we have a number of visitor parking because we do have some of our tenants, orthopedic and some services that do need to have some one hour because that is what their clients come in for and can not walk to far. What we have done with about 90% of the rest of the spaces is marked them one hour only. We removed the visitor indication because we did not want the retailer customers to think that visitor only, while I am a customer not a visitor. If there was any ambiguity there we wanted to make sure we resolved that. • Relative to signage shown by staff earlier, previously there was a sign up with a directional arrow specifically to the reciprocal parking; and at staffls request a new sign with no restriction was put up. There is no perception of the parking being limited. What we did not want to do to protect our office tenants was to make it very obvious that retail could go anywhere thus restricting the amount of office parking. • It is apparent that the specific language in the amendment designating a certain parcel was not the intent of the City at the time, it was the intent of the ownership, and the ownership believed that was the intent of the City. Our concern is that the specific language in the document was drafted with the City and if that did not accurately convey the intent, we are trying to solve it without getting into a protracted disagreement over either intent or the way the document was drafted. Steve Piasecki: • Said that the document says it is moot if there is a parking problem. The Planning Commission may re-open the use permit, hence it should be decided whether it is a parking problem. • Having worked with Mr. Chuck Marsh at the time, it was clear that staff's intent was for the retail customers to have the ability to utilize the parking lot. Now that they are at or close to Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20075 100% occupancy, it is not as under- utilized as it was before. At the same time, staff feels that most of the retail customers are going to want to be in that adjacent lot that has been designated. Occasionally there will be overflow and there are available spaces in the back lots and they should have the ability to go back there and use them. The fortunate thing about retail customers is that they are in and out, and not there for the long term like the office tenants are. Staff hopes that would be a last resort; which would allow the shopping center and the office center to function at their greatest efficiency. It is possible that an office tenant or retail customer may be pushed out into parking on the street. We want the ability to have them have the flexibility to park either within the shopping center or the office center. Com. Miller: • Recalled that there previously was difficulty in approving the application and the property owner stood at the podium and said if there was a parking issue, he would make good on it, which implied if he needs to make more spaces available in the office parking for this center, he would do so and he was very emphatic about it. Vice Chair Chien: Asked staff if there were any parking easements recorded prior to the issuance of the permit, as the condition says that a parking easement should be recorded prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Ciddy Wordell: • Stated yes, the one that created reciprocal parking with the small area of office parking directly behind the Peet's/Panera parking, which is the one staff wanted corrected. Vice Chair Chien: • Asked the applicant if she had any misunderstanding about the contents of the June 10, 2004 letter. Melanie Roberts: Said she was not the recipient of the letter at that time as Mr. Marsh was handling it at that time; she began with the project in September or October. She said it was her understanding that parking was going to be made available. She said they have not towed anyone, and have no intention of towing anyone; and people are able to park anywhere. Said their concern was overly advertising that retail can park anywhere in the office when the office is restricted to where they can park. Said they added spaces for everyone to park. Since we basically own the whole thing making sure that retail customers as well as the office visitor and tenants co-exist, that is our bottom line responsibility in making sure that everybody does. She said although they have an office on-site, they never get the parking complaints. Vice Chair Chien: • Asked what the existing parking situation was. Melanie Roberts: Said they were completely full; at least each Monday and Wednesday between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. there are between 10 and 15 cars coming to park from the YMCA in the office lot or daycare dropping kids off. Because of the parking challenge, she said they have asked their tenants and employees of the tenants to park in the furthest back area of the parking lbt. When there are 15 to 20 people who are YMCA customers parking there, they are losing parking spaces; it is a domino effect. The Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20076 top or north area on the map is where we try and direct our office tenants to park, those that work there in the offices. She clarified they had three 2-story buildings, one in the front that Net Manage occupies, the one on the parcel with the reciprocal parking and the one in the rear across from YMCA. Those all have underground parking for specific use to the tenants in those buildings. The remainder of the parking is open, available first-come, first-served to everyone. The goal has always been to leave that center aisle open for visitors, customers, to all of the businesses in terms of the office tenants as well as the retail parking. Vice Chair Chien: • Asked what course of action could be taken if an applicant is unable at a later date to fulfill the obligation conditioned by the city. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: • Explained that the applicant would return to the Planning Commission or other body that issued the permit and amend their use permit. She indicated that the provisions for parking were included as a condition. The city can also initiate the amendment if the applicant does not go to the Planning Commission. Chair Giefer: • Said the applicant currently has changed the notification on 19 compact spaces to one hour parking; there are 6 full size parking spaces. How many more spaces will be designated as one hour parking along the main drive? Melanie Roberts: • Said there were 25 with plans to add another five to seven; both full size and compact spaces. • There is a total of 25 one hour only parking spaces, which is a combination of 10 that are designated one hour parking in the reciprocal parking lot and another 15 down the aisle that are a combination of compact and will ultimately be a combination of compact and full size. Chair Giefer: • Suggested in the one hour parking to have an equal amount if they are not uni-size parking spaces which is in the current parking ordinance; at least 50% be full size parking spaces not just compact spaces. • Said that she was one of the Planning Commissioners that approved this and recalled discussing in depth that the Panera/Peet's Coffee site would be n~ler•-far-l~he under- parked. The decision was specifically made on accessing those parking spaces to the Panera Bread/Peet's customer base. She said also that the applicant was to do whatever it took to make it work. • Said she would be more comfortable with equal amounts; if 25 spaces, err on the size of the larger spaces. Melanie Roberts: • Said they could do up to 30 spaces, 15 full size and 15 compact. Steve Piasecki: • He said there appears to be uncertainty or concern about opening up the rest of the center. He suggested they monitor it for a few months and assess what is going on. Attach Velcro arrows on it to show additional parking and remove the Velcro because my sense is that it is going to be parking of last resort for the retail. Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20077 The concept when the center went in was that there is a synergy between retail and office and you can overlap some of the parking demand and it may work better than they think; they may be able to open it up permanently. Staff will report back in a couple of months. Said when they discussed the Crossroads Plan, they talked about the desire to have on-street parking keeping the number of lanes as they are because the problem is that they do not utilize the public street along Stevens Creek Boulevard as effectively as they could. Chair Giefer: • Recalled that she supported having street parking in front of Panera's and Peet's at the time the permits were issued; and said she was not opposed to opening it up as well. Melanie Roberts: • Said she felt the only concern on that was how close it was to the nearest intersection and the traffic that is already generated at the u-turn. • Said they were looking forward to having Whole Foods next to them because they felt it would benefit the parking because of one stop shopping and the fact that there is street parking. She said they were willing to try the arrows. Com. Miller: • Said he was opposed to the on-street parking because he felt it was dangerous and it is a safety issue. It was voted down when it first came up because of that reason. The traffic moves very quickly on Stevens Creek Boulevard; it is not feasible for on-street parking. Steve Piasecki: • Assured the Planning Commission that they would not put in unsafe parking spaces. • He encouraged the Planning Commission not to make any pre judgments at this point, as they would go through a process and demonstrate to the Commission to the Council's satisfaction at an appropriate time when it can be done safely. • Said they did not keep the street parking for Whole Foods; it was removed by the City Council for the same concern that Com. Miller raised. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed about slowing the traffic down but not by putting parking on the street there. People are going to be opening their car doors in the middle of fast moving traffic; it also presents further issues for bikers. • Said it would be inappropriate to make a decision on going ahead with on-street parking in front Panera's and Peet's without further study. Steve Piasecki: • Said there was an appeal from a Council member for the extension of hours for Peet's to try and implement the connection between the office center and Whole Foods which would facilitate what Ms. Roberts said indicates his desire to get that movement going. Com. Miller: • Said he supported staff's recommendation to move forward and try opening the entire office park. Com. Kaneda: • Supports staff s recommendation. Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20078 Vice Chair Chien: • Said he agreed there was a problem, which has come about as a result of the success of the property and the applicant said that they would work toward it. • He said the issue was a matter of the city enforcing its conditions that it imposes on applicants, and until that is changed, he saw no reason not to enforce the agreement that there be a reciprocal parking easement between the parcels. • Said the solution suggested by staff is creative and they should try it. Chair Giefer: • Said she agreed that the marked one hour spaces be equal, compact and standard size spaces and she supported staff's recommendation in terms of having it be all spaces available for some period of time as well. Steve Piasecki: • Summarized that the Commission encouraged the applicant to immediately implement a trial period and begin working on a broader reciprocal parking easement covering the remainder of the office complex, and work with staff on that. • He acknowledged a concern raised earlier that if an easement was recorded over the entire office complex, it might preclude the ability for the office complex to modify itself in the future, and said that language could be added into the reciprocal parking that states the owners reserve the right to modify the office complex; and in the event that they do, they will identify other locations for the reciprocal parking. They have the ability and will not be constrained because there is an easement. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Kaneda, to support staff s recommendation to require the property owner to fully comply with the City Council requirement to record joint parking easements throughout the Stevens Creek office center and also urge the applicant to begin a trial period to allow parking on all parcels of the property. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent). The agenda was moved back to Ite~ 2. Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10) City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara. Located easterly of Saratoga Creek to the Centerline of Lawrence Expressway from Hwy 280 to Chelmsford Dr/Bollinger Road n 2. City-initiated pre-zoning of a total of 13.5 acres: 7.7 acres to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and 5.8 acres to Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District) Tentative City Council date: March 6, 2007. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application to pre-zone 13.5 acres to Pre-PR and Pre-T, properties owned by Santa Clara County, as outlined in the staff report. • Referred to the zoning map and illustrated the areas in question. The land includes properties owned by Santa Clara County, two county owned lots on the west side of Lawrence Expressway and a half street of Lawrence Expressway between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road. The General Plan land use for these properties is public parks open space, and also applies to this parcel which forms a connection with Barnhart Avenue. • There are two county owned lots which likely were residual land left over from the construction of Lawrence Expressway; both lots are currently within the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. The city several years ago adopted a county prepared trail plan for the San Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20079 Tomas Aqunio/Saratoga Creek Trail and since that time, the city has been attempting to implement the trail segment; one lot and a portion of the other lot was leased to the city by Santa Clara County for trail purposes. The remainder parcel to the north is still used by the County roads and airports division as a storage yard. The City Council has proposed reusing this remaining property for trail and park uses, primarily to serve the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood. Other actions that need to be taken, but not by the Planning Commission at this point; this is not a done deal; there are a lot of things that need to go on and it is not going to happen quickly; we are still working with the San Jose City Council to obtain their consent for the boundary alignment. We still need to go to LAFCO for the approval of the boundary change; we still need to annex the properties and work with the County to relocate their existing operations and plan for eventual park and trail development at that site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the negative declaration for the project and approve the prezoning of Pre-PR and Pre-T per the model resolution. Vice Chair Chien: • Asked what the argument was for the city being able to zone land not under its jurisdiction. Colin Jung: • Said they had the ability to zone or prezone land that they feel bears upon their planning area. He said they have indicated that this area is one of those areas that they should be looking at. They also need to prezone it in order to annex the property; and LAFCO and the City of San Jose is going to want to understand what is the city's intention with the property before they make a decision to change the boundary between the adjacent cities. Steve Piasecki: • Clarified if you don't prezone and you process a realignment of boundaries as is the case here, the property could come into the city without any zoning designation. Part of the prezoning action is to make sure that in the event we are successful in changing the boundaries, that it is clear of the city's intent and what the rules are applicable to the development or redevelopment of the property. Colin Jung: • Said the property was not in the Urban Service Area; it is in San Jose's USA. The future action would be changing the boundaries so it becomes part of ours. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was not in the sphere of influence. Those are the actions that LAFCO will take when and if they approve the realignment of boundaries, they will adjust the urban service area and sphere of influence; take it out of San Jose and put it in ours. Com. Miller: • Normally LAFCO says if it is in the USA or in your sphere of influence, you can do anything you want with prezoning; but if it is not, they might have an issue. Steve Piasecki: • This is an anomaly to that, normal to that rule; those are cases when you are simply doing an annexation. In this case, it is a realignment of boundaries with another jurisdiction. They have to get out, in terms of zoning we have to get in. Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 2007P0 Colin Jung: • Clarified that a prezoning is really a place marker; it has no legal effect until the city can annex the property; and it won't be able to do so until we can get permission from LAFCO. • The property is owned by San Jose Water Company; they obtained a parcel split some time ago, and as part of that parcel split, they required to put in a trail connection between that and the creekside lands. It is still owned by the Water Company; however, it was designated it on our General Plan as a parks spot, and the idea is that we create a mini park, more elaborate trail head to the creekside lands. The water district knows of the city's interest in acquiring the parcel; I am assuming at some point we will get the money to buy it. • Said the city would not pick up the cost of maintaining a portion of Lawrence Expressway; all the expressways are county facilities, and they are responsible for the traffic lights and for the maintenance of those County honed roads. However, the city assumes responsibility from a police and fire standpoint. Chair Giefer: • Relative to the composition of the construction waste, she asked if the city would have a toxic cleanup issue on their hands once it is removed. Colin Jung: • Said he recommended that before they acquire the land, either through lease or ownership, that they do those types of assessments to make sure there is nothing different other than construction wise. Chair Giefer: • That would be something that would happen prior to the boundary alignment if we move forward on that. Colin Jung: • Said it is still county owned property at some point, we would need to conduct studies to make sure the area is clean before we assume ownership or use of the property. It is still is a county owned responsibility regardless if it is in San Jose's or Cupertino's jurisdiction. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Leon Liebster, Ashborne Court: • Asked if it was a full size park, and would the trail continue all the way to Highway 280. Colin Jung: • The intention is to eventually have a trail connection that goes not only through Cupertino but also through the abutting City of Santa Clara lands as well. The concept of how to implement that has not been completely well formed at this point. The County looked at it when they developed their County Master Plan, but at this point we are not sure how that is going to happen; there are many jurisdiction issues. Leon Liebster: • The original master plan for Ridge 5 stopped at Barnhart and residents were assured it would be a trail from Barnhart to Bollinger. He said he could not park in front of his own home, but other cars constantly park in front of his house. The Sheriff cannot issue a citation, they Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 2001 cannot tow it because those streets are private. Cars are parked there all the time going out all hours of the evening even though the sign says it is only opened dawn to dusk. He expressed concern about where the people would park and how would the parking situation be mitigated. He said the Sheriff's Department has no jurisdiction on private streets in Barrington Ridge. The San Jose Water Company has their pump house right at Barnhart. The land was split and they were going to sell half of it off where the entrance presently is. They decided not to sell that; will there be a parking lot there? Steve Piasecki: Said staff would pass on the questions to the Parks and Recreation Director so when the park design is developed they will take into consideration where people will park. He said they would prefer that people park on public streets. Said there is a process where their Homeowners Association can make their streets enforceable under the municipal code in terms of parking. Public Works and the City Attorney's office can be consulted to see what the process would be. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was pleased to see the materialization of the park along Lawrence Expressway; as the east end of Cupertino is deficient in park land and it would be an excellent area for recreation for the residents. • With this acquisition by Cupertino there are a number of issues including security. There is a long strip of land abutting Lawrence Expressway, and she hoped that there would be funds set aside for patrolling of this land, security and graffiti. When Rancho Rinconada was annexed into Cupertino there was funding for a new Officer for Cupertino. • She expressed concern that the piles of debris on the linear park will be cleaned up. • Relative to the Highway 280 and Lawrence intersection, if the property is brought in, she said she hoped that Cupertino would have positive influence in resolving issues there as there is a great deal of backup on that intersection. Lisa Warren, resident: • Said the trail is not adequately maintained; trees died, trees fell, some were cut and benches were sinking. Said she feared it would be forgotten because it cannot be seen. • Agreed with Jennifer Griffin that security was a valid concern. How do you patrol a park when the expressway is on one side and houses on the creek on the other and there is only one entrance? • There is also the issue of the homeless people that are currently kitty corner to that area. I am not against the park I just think it has to be really well thought out and there has to be a commitment to maintain it and patrol it. • Said she feared that getting the acreage would be an excuse not to put parks elsewhere, as development continues to be pushed for housing and we are supposed to be given more parks when there is more housing. If it is not a safe, useable park it does not do anybody any good. Com. Kaneda: Security is an important issue; the park exists with many connections to it. If Cupertino takes it over, chances are there will be an improvement, it will not get worse. Having the city take this land over is good all around; the city gets more park land. When residential projects are done, typically they are looking into adding additional park land. He said he felt it was appropriate to move forward on it. Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 2002 Vice Chair Chien: • He said having a park on the eastern side of the city has been a goal of the City Council. The General Plan has two policies; one that there should be a neighborhood park within half a mile of every neighborhood; and another policy is that for every thousand residents, there should be at least three acres of park land. • He said he supported taking the steps to make it happen. He asked who was in charge of maintaining the park as it exists today? Steve Piasecki: Said the Public Works Department maintains the park, and staff will communicate the concerns raised and follow up to ensure that they are addressed. Vice Chair Chien: • Said he was pleased that they were taking steps to see the project move forward as it has been on the agenda of the Parks and Rec Commission since he began serving in 2003. Com. Miller: Said it was just an application to prezone and further hearings will be held if and when it is prezoned, on what uses and how those uses will take place. Said he did not have any concerns about moving forward with the prezoning application. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve Z-2006-04 and EA-2006-10 per the model resolution. (Vote 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Environmental Review Committee: • Meeting has been canceled and will not meet until February 28"'. Housing Commission: • No meeting since Com. Kaneda has been appointed. Mayors Monthly Meeting: • Meeting is scheduled for Wed. February 14"'. Economic Develoument Committee: • No meeting held. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Ciddy Wordell provided an update on the sustainability policies of the General Plan as it is on the City's work program for 2006-07. • Met with potential consultant who is capable of carrying out many aspects of the program. Working on Phase 1 aspect which would be to do an analysis of what our existing policies and requirements are and where we are in fulfilling those. Then to identify where the gaps are and to make some recommendations on how to fill those gaps. • The policies are rather broad; including resource recovery, resource preservation, and an emphasis on green buildings. There is a discussion on having a task force to oversee this and Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 2001'3 annual review on how we are doing. It could be a fairly comprehensive program and we are just getting a start on it by doing this analysis on what is in place and where we should be going. Once we have that then we can look at where we should be putting our emphasis and prioritizing and actually implementing what comes out of that. The Green building standards are the emphasis for most of your jurisdictions. We will do our analysis first, probably can be done in a couple of months and then we can report back on the findings. Steve Piaseclu: • Thanked former Planning Commissioner Taghi Saadati for his years of service on the Planning Commission. • Welcomed new Commissioner David Kaneda to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the February 27, 2007 Planning C m~ sion meeting at 6:45 .m. SUBMITTED BY: ~ Elizabet Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: February 27, 2007