Loading...
PC 05-27-2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED/AMENDEL> MINUTES 6:45 P.M. MAY 27, 2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Wi.nnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao Associate Planner: George Schroeder Assistant Planner: Gian Paolo Martire Assistant Planner: Kaitie Groeneweg Ast. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 22,2014 Planning Conmission ineeting: • Page 10, Com. Gong noted a change of wording; Delete"creating a challenging piece of property"and substitute with "creating a solution to a challenging situation" • Page 12: the last motion at bottom of page, the vote taken was not unanimous; delete"4-0-1, Vice Chair voted No." and substitute wording: "4-1-0, Vice Chair Lee voted No." MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,to approve the April 22,2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: • It was noted that an email had been received regarding Item 2. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 27, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING 2. DIR-2014-08 Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification Cynthia Cheung(Lim residence) to allow the addition of a 130 square foot living room area to Appellant: Xin Wang single story residence in a Planned Residential Zoning 11813 Trinity Spring Ct. District.Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gian Paolo Martire,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the appeal of the Community Development Director's Minor Modifications (DIR-2014-08) for 130 square feet single story addition to the existing two-story residence at 11813 Trinity Spring Court, as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the Power Point presentation as outlined in the staff report, including the history of the item, from February 2, 2014 when application was received, March 7, 2014 approval, and the appeal by neighbor Xin Wang on March 1, 2014. He reviewed the four reasons for the appeal, namely negative impacts to appellant on architectural design, views, sound and sight buffers, and water and drainage; dissatisfaction with the Seven Springs HOA review and approval process; and statement that it will negatively impact the library and dining rooms due to blockage of light, views and privacy concerns; and added first floor windows will provide views over the fence. Staff's response to the four reasons for appeal are contained in the staff report. • Staff recommends denial of the appeal, and to uphold approval of Director's Minor Modification DIR- 2014-08 to allow the addition of a 130 square foot living room area to a single story residence located in a Planned Residential Zoning District. Staff answered Commissioners' questions. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to Planning standards; there are specific standards that the resolution has the findings and that is what is used; in addition the HOA letter is required to make sure they have their requirements. City Attorney: • Generally speaking the city doesn't enforce HOA's CC&Rs; sometimes in a CC&R document it says that the city has a right but not obligation to enforce, in this particular case the HOA has approved the recommendation. Relative to the extent it has to do with HOA authority and the homeowner's privacy, it is something that the Commission should not be venturing into. To the extent that the project violates any other provision of the Municipal Code and the development standards, that is what the Commission is to determine; if it is determined there has been a violation or there is a setback or other conditions that need to be enforced,they can then do that. Com. Sun: • The Planning Commission has the final say on the project; if the appellant is not satisfied with the outcome tonight, what is his option? City Attorney: • Said the Planning Commission is the final review body for the city; the Planning Commission issues a decision; they ean file a writ of administrative mandamus to the Superio-r- CouFt, they purs their remedies in eourt and then the court would deter-mine whether-or not the C- . . a has abused its discretion.- appealed e the City Council first. appellant may appeal the Planning Commission decision to City Council. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 27, 2014 Xin Wong,Appellant: • Said the application should not have been approved in the first place because he assumed that his neighbor would apply for the architectural change or home extension, it goes through the HOA to get their approval first. He was not involved until he received the city's final notice of approval. He said he was surprised that no one listened to any input before they made a decision about HOA approval. Said he attempted to communicate to the board members about the situation and they responded that they were going through the correct process. They now know there is negative impact but said because they went through the correct process they stand behind their position of approval and cannot change that. Said there was an official document E.bout the HOA architectural design guidelines, with a formal process. They have to make sure that the home extension has to fit in with the architectural design of existing community; they have to consider neighbors negative impact in terms of views, sound and light, buffers, etc. In terms of the process in this document there is a clarity process; they need to get architectural design review to make sure that the change fits in with the community architectural design. • It is stated that a General Membership Review Report shall be generated by the management office and should include evidence that notice of proposed category review modification has been given to the association members for at least 60 days and that a hearing open to all homeowners has to be conducted by HOA to determine whether or not any home has been adversely affected by the proposed modification. They can then go ahead and decide approval or not. Said his neighbor did not go through the application of general member review; the office indicated they did not do that; the CC&Rs state that if that type of review is done, neighbors' views on the impacts need to be considered. Said the process is flawed, they did not follow the correct process which is the reason he was not involved in it. • Said it should go back to the first stage, and start from the beginning and go through the correct process; now the board members know and actually have an official appraisal from a professional to state the view and light impact of this home extension and home devaluation. Said it was his first claim that the process is flawed; his rights were violated and the whole thing was the first appeal from HOA and was invalid. • Relative to the change it is only 130 square feet,but the homes are crowded in that small space; the L -shape is put in front of his two major windows, and one of the windows got moved in front of his bedroom. He felt if they conducted the general membership report before, it would not have been an issue because they would have fixed it right away, but because they didn't go through the correct process, the design got approved. Regarding the height, it is a single family two story house, and he said he attempted to solve it personally with his neighbor by compromising, but the HOA didn't follow the correct process and it was approved, and it is difficult for them to go back and look at the situation. Said he is seeking a compromise with his neighbor, perhaps reducing the added square footage, and to ensure that they go through the correct process. He said he was also looking to the city to see if things can be addressed correctly. Chair Brophy: • Said that the heart of the appellant's argument was that he felt the HOA did not go through the proper process in approving the applicant's house design. The Planning Commission and staff job is to apply the City's laws, not to apply the homeowner's rules and to the extent that the HOA has issued a statement to the city that they have approved the applicant's proposed design, he said he was not sure how they as a body could help in terms of overturning what the HOA has decided. The Planning Commission has been tasked with the responsibility of applying the city's municipal code to applications and they are not in a position to judge: whether the HOA did the right thing or not; they have to judge by what the City requires. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 27, 2014 Xin Wang,Appellant: • Said he had no previous experience with the issue and could present an official document of the process and has proved their thinking in going through the process. Lik Seng Lim,Applicant: • Said he felt they followed the process appropriately and did not violate any city codes; the change made mainly affected the neighbor's bedroom view; window is only one foot above fence, does not really affect Mr. Wang's living room; after the project is finished they can plant a tree to block the view. He said they tried to work with Mr. Wang on a solution and will also pay for a new fence. He has already absorbed costs for an independent architect's opinion about the design and was willing to work with Mr. Wang. A discussion ensued about the possibility of the applicant and appellant reaching a compromise. Xin Wang: • Said his neighbor offered to move the window; what he is seeking is not moving the window, and reducing the back part of the 45 square feet; if they can agree on not pushing it back, he felt it was something they could work out. As there was no one present who wished to speak, Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Gong: • Said that taking direction from staff it did not feel that it is within their jurisdiction to force the HOA to review it again if they followed their process. She noted the application was on October 7, 2013 and the approval was January 28, 2014, and unless there is a way of negating the fact that they did provide a 60 day notification which is within their CC&Rs or disprove that they did, she was unsure there is any standing for them to negate the process or negate that they said they followed the process. Chair Brophy: • Said it was a fair comment that it is not their position to judge whether they have or not; they were told they have approved the applicant's request and followed it up with a second letter saying they have reviewed their process and it is not for the Commission to analyze whether it is correct or not. Vice Chair Lee: • Said they as the City and the Planning Commission don't feel it is appropriate to interpret the HOA's process and laws. She felt that the appellant can seek relief dealing with the HOA directly and she felt that staff applied their municipal codes to the correct extent. Com. Takahashi: • Said he concurred with statements made and stated the project itself does appear to follow all code elements and that the appellant's issue appeared to be with the HOA which is something the Commission can't get in the middle of. Neighbor disputes can be very disruptive to a neighborhood, the appellant feels slighted and feels an injustice has taken place. Said he felt the neighbors followed all the processes and rules and the HOA has confirmed that with them; he said he hoped they would not hold the decision against their neighbor as much as the HOA and try to resolve it that way. Com. Sun: • Said it appeared they all reached similar conclusions; unless the city attorney gives a strong opinion they have to take the case; otherwise they do not want to get in the middle of the private party's dispute about the issue. He said he felt the two parties could work on a compromise proposal. Said he appreciated that the appellant proposed the window first and the trees second. If the two can work out this one the Commission won't need to go through all the procedures. Cupertino Planning,Commission 5 May 27, 2014 Chair Brophy: • Said he concurred with the Commissioners. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to uphold the Director's decision by upholding DIR-2014-08, and move to deny the appeal regarding the Director's decision. 3. DP-2014-01,ASA-2014-01, Development Permit to allow the demolition and reconstruction TR-2014-18,Mike Ducote of a clubhouse and seven new apartment units at an existing (Biltmore Apartments) apartment complex; Architectural and Site approval for the 10159 Blaney Ave. construction of a clubhouse, seven apartment units including parking lot, landscaping and other site modifications at an existing apartment complex; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 45' trees to facilitate the construction of an existing apartment complex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Kaitie Groeneweg,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application to allow demolition and reconstruction and architectural and site approval of a clubhouse, 7 new apartment units at the existing Biltmore Apartment complex, landscaping and other site modifications at an existing apartment complex, and tree removal and replacement of 45 trees, as outlined in the attached staff report. She reviewed the video presentation which was detailed in the staff report, including the application request, site and surroundings, project data, development allocation, proposed first and second floor plans, architectural review, parking/traffic, site improvements, tree removals and replacements, environmental assessment, existing and proposed site plans, and recommendations. • Staff recommends the development application per the draft resolution given that it is consistent with the General Plan and ordinance and is a design to respect the surrounding land uses and does not anticipate having detrimental affects to the surrounding neighborhood or the public health and welfare. Staff answered Commissioners' questions, including notifications sent regarding the application. Signs at the proposed property location are also posted 14 days before the meeting. John Moss,Prometheus Development,Applicant: • Discussed zoning and variances; said the zoiaing supports every aspect of their proposed development; they are not asking for any variances tonight. The Heart of the City Plan (HOC) also supports every aspect of the design shared, and the General Plan for the city also supports all of the elements in the design. In terms of the number of units and density, they are proposing fewer units than what the density allows; proposing only 7 apartments,totaling 192 units, and asking for 28 fewer units than what the maximum-density allows. As noted by staff they are providing more parking than the 2 parking stalls per unit that is required by -the city, regardless of the unit size as well as 4 additional stalls. • Relative to the amenities available for residents, they are proposing to replace an outdated and small recreational and leasing facility with a state of the art leasing center and recreational clubhouse for residents. A large fitness studio will be provided as well as a spacious community room for the residents. The pool area is being renovated, an outdoor kitchen and firepit are being added as well as outdoor dining area. Chuck Tang, Studio T Square, architecture firm: • Thanked staff for their support; and said that the project was an extension of a Phase 2 project that is T Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 27, 2014 under construction along Stevens Creek. They have the opportunity not.only to create a better clubhouse and a couple of units, but also create a much better connection to the Phase I project. There was an existing plan, an existing playground which is being relocated to create better connectivity to the new development as well as allowing for better open space and common amenity uses within the clubhouse area. • The context of the existing project is a cottage low slung style with the addition of the new units on Stevens Creek; there is a more contemporary trend in terms of the project and this is the master plan so along with the development, not only of the clubhouse and the new entry drive area, as part of this relocation of the playground area, they have created a much better connectivity of the project that is under construction to the heart of this project. They also wanted to create much more of a spa-like environment for the heart of this community by creating a parking court with a plaza-like condition with specialty paving and allowing the parking to be more in-road by deleting two cars. The landscaping on the site is rich and attractive and they don't want to interrupt that by relocating a lot of the existing trees on site as well as planting 43 new ones. They also want to maintain the waterscape around the site creating a project that becomes the new heart of the community and creating much better indoor/outdoor access in the common area. • He said they have been working with staff in creating the building setbacks from the adjacent buildings so there is an apparent diminishing of the massing that is important to staff and them as well. He provided an overview of the project; since they have new projects being built, architectural style is more contemporary; they want the new icon to relate to the newer portion of the project but also create an icon for the rest of the existing project. He discussed the hardscape and paving materials to be used. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Phyllis Dickstein, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said it was at least the third or fourth time the residents of Blaney Avenue had to watch their backs and appear at City Hall to defend themselves. She addressed the issue of noticing, stating that it was the entire street being affected, and noticing should have covered more than 300 feet away from the proposed project and should have received 10 days notice; if not through the postal mail, but at least email to those on the email list. The rules for sending out agendas are different than sending out notices for high density housing. • Secondly, when the City Council reduced the number of units in Biltmore 2 by 10 units, it was not because of density within the site but rather because of the traffic impact on Blaney Avenue, a narrow two lane street. Placing additional units in Biltmore 1 is a way of negating that decision by a slight of hand; it's Biltmore 1, not Biltmore 2. Said they would want to know where the figures of only 4 or 5 cars come from; 7 units means a minimum of 7 cars and because of the cost of rents in Cupertino, some of the occupants of a studio apartment may be a working couple. They won't know what the traffic impact of the additional 80 units will be until they are actually rented out. • There is already high density housing on the north side near Homestead and at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Blaney; said there was no reason to try to slip 7 units under the wire. She recommended a moratorium on new approvals of high density housing until the Plan amendment process is completed. She also suggested that the agenda items be postponed until there can be proper noticing of the community. Dr.Darrel Lum,representing Concerned Citizens of Cupertino:- • Said he met with John Moss and Mike Ducote although they would have preferred a meeting earlier in the process; it was difficult with the holiday weekend to get together to work on a response; and they would have also preferred that the current project be combined with the initial project in 2012 rather than be piecemeal. Some of the calculations were based on the gross lot area which is under Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 27, 2014 consideration by the General Plan amendment. • Even though this project is going to be under 200 using the gross lot area gives 220. As far as this project is concerned including the 2012 project and today's it is within the density and within the height and setbacks of the policies of the city of Cupertino; also the common area is almost twice as much as required; HOC requires 178 square feet per unit which would be about 28,000 and this particular project comes up with 61,000 which is more than double the common open area. • Some of the Council members previous in the 2004 housing element recommended that apartment complexes try to use their density more efficiently and he said he felt Biltmore has done so. They were trying to recommend that Glenview and the Villages do the same thing which would help the housing element as far as the regional requirements. It was mentioned that the 1999 renovations were disruptive to the residents at that time and they hoped the construction for the new projects would avoid that. They were given some assurance that they would try to minimize the disruption to the current residents. • Asked for clarification on Page 2 regarding the parking, wherein it states total per unit 1.8 both under existing and proposed. When Prometheus did th(-1 calculations they came out as 2.57, 2.52; why is there a major error relative to parking per unit, 1.8 and 2.5 is quite a significant number. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: • She commended the owners for trying to maintain the lush landscape and water features on the grounds that have made the Biltmore such an attractive complex over the years. Space in Cupertino is very expensive and what they have has to be used wisely. Said she was concerned that they were planning to remove 48 trees as they have had problems in the past with tree removals. Said it was important to keep as much green canopy as possible and she was pleased they were considering putting in 48 inch box trees as replacement. She expressed hope that some of the old trees on the site would be moved to other locations on the site and many that are removed be replaced. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Chair Brophy: • What is the policy about notification beyond the :300 foot requirement; what size projects do we do that for? Aarti Shrivastava: • For this project it would be 300 feet; agendas are si:rit out to those who requested; also a sign is put up at the location of the proposed project; that was reaffirmed the last time the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the procedures. Chair Brophy: • Dr. Lum raised the issue about the parking numbers; Chair Brophy asked for another review of them. Kaitie Groeneweg: • The parking ratio is based on the number of total proposed parking spaces divided by the number of units proposed of 192,that is where the 1.8 parking ratio comes from. Chair Brophy: • Is it correct that our parking ordinance does not separate between projects that have assigned spots and those that do not? Aarti Shrivastava: • No they do not; the applicant may be able to help check on the 2.57,but the staff does not come up with that number. . t Cupertino Planning Commission 8 May 27, 2014 Applicant: • Said the 2.57 is probably the number of spaces being added divided by the 7 units. Aarti Shrivastava: • That may be just for those; staff is looking at the entire project. Chair Brophy: • Are there any trees on the public right-of-way that will be removed in addition to the private trees? Kaitie Groeneweg: • No,the 48 trees are all private trees. Chair Brophy: • There are no trees on the strip between the sidewalk and the curb that will be going out. Kaitie Groeneweg: • They wouldn't be included as part of the tree removal permit. Chair Brophy: • Will they lose public trees that the city would need to replace? What is the access to the current leasing office? Aarti Shrivastava: • Recalled there was a driveway on the northern end of the project site along Blaney and as part of the new project that was closed off and a new driveway was created immediately north of that; it combined the driveways for the new project and the old one. That will stay the new one; there is one off Rodriguez and the third one just for this parking lot that is being created what will be part of the new project proposed today, south of the driveway to the townhouses across the street above Price. Com. Sun: • A speaker raised a question about Blaney traffic on the east side of Blaney; there is no parking on the Biltmore apartments site during the evening. In the future if the entire apartment complex is occupied and the traffic becomes very heavy, can the city have a new measurement about the parking restriction, such as not allowing any parking on Blaney at all to ease the traffic. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she did not feel the traffic requirements would impact the parking along Blaney,because the lane on Blaney is separated from the parking strip. The city traffic engineer as well as Hexagon did not raise any of those concerns;the additional 7 units should not create an issue. Com. Sun: • Relative to Phase 1 and 2, Prometheus has a long vision of 10 to 20 years; he asked why they separated the two projects. Aarti Shrivastava: • She recalled the property owner mentioning the possible future plan when he presented the clubhouse verbally at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, but they were not aware of what the actual plans were. She said it was two years into the project now and the applicant would likely be the best person to respond. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 27, 2014 Mr.Moss,Applicant: • Said the idea didn't come about until several months after the last project was approved; discussion took place in the leasing office about how they could better serve the current and prospective residents. A property manager suggested that it would be ideal to create some parking that would be off Blaney instead of directly on Blaney, such that the prospective residents could park there. That idea led to the concept of creating more parking,and they could also renovate the clubhouse and build a much larger, nicer amenity for the residents. At that time they found with the amount of parking they could create off Blaney with the new driveway, they could put some studio units above the clubhouse as well. Said the idea was not premeditated a year or two ago; it came up several months after the last approval. He noted that if it was premeditated it would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of the planning fees and incorporating it into one project. Com. Gong: • Said as a Commission they have spoken extensively about new housing being available for smaller units for singles coming in; the project fits well with what the Commission has been talking about and the fact it doesn't impact space beyond what is already in existence is a good solution. It appears with respect to Mrs. Dickstein's concern, the traffic impact could be up to 7 cars per peak hours or maybe 9 because the employees of the office would be coming in and going at the same time but for the total amount of traffic 7 or 9 additional cars, especially if they are not fighting for parking spaces on Blaney. If there are designated spaces it would mitigate some of that traffic. Overall it is a good solution for the owner as well as the community. Com. Takahashi: • Echoed Com. Gong's comments; project is self-contained inside the existing complex, not very visible from Blaney; it is surrounded by two story now; and will enhance the current residents experience on the site; the playground location is]')ositive because it is a nice space now and they are adding relocated trees. It is studio units so the typical concern with school impact is very minimal and the applicant has followed all elements of the zoning ordinance. He said he saw no reason to oppose the project. Vice Chair Lee: • Said she met with the applicants the previous week to review the project details. Relative to the development permit she said she supported the demolition of the existing leasing office and the construction of a new leasing office and 7 studio units. • The building design, paving and landscaping have been reviewed and she said she supports the architectural site approval as well as the tree removal permit; the project will provide a benefit to the residents it serves. It also provides a good benefit. to the residents in the surrounding area with the parking space constructed so that it gets cars off th(,street at Blaney. Com. Sun: • Said he felt it was piecemeal but if indeed it was not premeditated he did not object to the project because it is their own business, and not related to the public unless it is going to significantly affect the traffic along.Blaney. He concurred with Com. Gong that 7 or 10 cars are coming out every day and not just 2 or 3. Said the traffic report did not make sense, he felt it did not generate too much traffic there; it is a good, well planned project which.he supported. Chair Brophy: • Said he agreed with colleagues, and added when th(:y had the hearing on Phase 2 about two years ago, the most common concern expressed by residents, was the impact upon school enrollment. In this case they are adding 7 studio units; and because it is Cupertino where the schools are valued for their excellent education, there is a possibility that the new units may result in a gain of one or two Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 27, 2014 students. Compared to the 4 and 5 bedroom homes being built in town where there were formerly small houses,the impact is inconsequential. Said he supported the project. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve DP-2014-01,ASA-2014-01 and TR-2014-18 per the model resolutions. 4. CP-2014-01,EA-2014-05 Review of five year Capital Improvements Program City of Cupertino (FY 2014-2015 to 2018-2019) for conformity to the City's Citywide Location General Plan. Tentative City Council date: June 10, 2014 George Schroeder,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Explained that the application is for the Planning Commission's annual review of the city's 5 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 for conformity to the city's General Plan. Each year the Council adopts the five year spending plan for capital improvements throughout the city; funding is not fixed or committed during the five year term; funding may shift in the second to fifth years as priorities change and project schedules can either accelerate or decelerate depending on the lifetime of the project. State law and the City's Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission review the CIP for consistency with the General Plan and make a recommendation on the environmental assessments. Overall the first year funded projects and CIP are consistent with the General Plan. A full list of each project is contained in the staff report and the findings for consistency. • He referred to Attachment 7 for excerpts of pertinent General Plan policies and text and reviewed the General Plan consistency findings which were summarized on page 107-109 of the staff report. • Based on the findings of the Initial Environmental Study, the ERC on May 8, 2014 recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration for the entire CIP since no significant cumulative environmental impacts were found. Each project will have its own separate environmental assessment. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the CIP consistent with the General Plan; also recommend a Negative Declaration to be forwarded to the City Council at their June 10, 2014 budget adoption meeting. Com. Takahashi: • It is the Planning Commission's task to make sure they are consistent with the environmental as well as General Plan. Can more be done in terms of funding of the bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements given that is a key element in the General Plan as the city continues to grow. Implementing those types of plans become more challenging in the future than if we try to be more proactive and fund it at a higher level; now I think it is 265,000 vs. some of the other projects which are much bigger. • He recommended they look at whether or not they can fund some of the bicycle transportation plan implementation at a higher level such that it can ,get done sooner rather than later and then work around the transportation infrastructure vs. trying to squeeze the transportation infrastructure around existing development. What is the process by which the budget is allocated and how can they try to secure more funds for those elements? Aarti Shrivastava: • For the purposes of this item, the Commission purview would be finding whether it is consistent with the General Plan; however, they can forward Commissioners' comments to the Council for future budgets; the Planning Commission will be reviewing the General Plan Amendment and will be able to look at policies. Said that it would be appropriate for a Planning Commissioner, audience member or TV audience member, to make suggestions to the Council on how best to spend the capital improvement dollars by contacting their Council Members and/or appear at the June 10"' Council Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 27, 2014 meeting when it will be discussed. Com. Gong: • Said there were 5 Wilson Park type of projects including a master plan; asked f it would not be more prudent to do a master plan and incorporate the other 4 elements of the Wilson Park renovation/modification/improvement within the master plan, depending on the timing since the timing is to be within the next year or so. She said if the teen center were to be relocated she would suggest considering a parking study as well as one for the library expansion. They should also consider replacement of the Quinlan Center floor. Com. Sun: • Expressed concern about the limited amount of time the Commissioners have to review the agenda items for meetings. He said it was difficult to review every project and make intelligent decisions in such a short time period. He suggested receiving the materials earlier to allow for more time to conduct research to enable them to make good decisions. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the concern about when the packets are received, part of the schedule is driven by the budget schedule and the budget came out the first week of May and the Council had a study session the second week of May. Staff attempted to get the packet to the Commission as soon as they could get the ERC to meet, trying to fit between the study session and the ERC meeting and the budget session for the Council. The good news is while as private citizens Planning Commissioners are welcome to go through the packet to review the CIP for an actual project merits, at this level the only decision or recommendation the Commission has to make is whether it conforms to the General Plan. It wouldn't be the same level as you would if you were the Council for example. The second response, if a Commissioner has comments as a private citizen, he/she can represent themselves as a private citizen or residents, or send an email to the Council related to the budget. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident: • Thanked the Commission for trying to fix Perimeter Road at Stevens Creek Blvd. intersection; it creates confusion as to whether to turn left or right or move forward, and the drivers coming from Marketplace wait to see whether others are going. It would be helpful to have a left turn signal there and keep the traffic flowing and have controlled access. • Said she felt putting in a right turn lane for Perimeter Road would be an ideal situation, dividing the road, because Perimeter is the main access in and. out of the mall but it does provide access for the other shopping center where the mini restaurants are. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to recommend a Negative Declaration EA-2014-05 for the proposed 5 year Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2014-2015 to 2018-2019; and findings that the proposed CIP is consistent with the General Plan per the draft resolution CP-2014-01. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 27, 2014 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: • Met twice; once on the CIP issue and once on a hillside exception project. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting Economic Development Committee: Com. Gong reported: • New staff person is Angela Tsey; meetings will be scheduled quarterly. • Gary Chao reported at the meeting that they are working on the General Plan with revisions to a policy for high density for community benefit with the Council's direction. The EIR release is tentatively scheduled for June 11"' with the Planning Commission seeing the entire General Plan revision in September and Council in October. • The Economic Development Director is also engaging a consultant to create an Economic Development strategic plan and which will leverage a lot of the work being done for the GPA revisions and should be completed within 3 months. • The Director of Public Works stated that it would take 85 million dollars to bring Cupertino's roads to wellness. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted. Aarti Shrivastava added that the Council will be looking at a master plan for the Civic Center in July;Public Works is directing the process. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the June 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth 91A,Recording Secretary Approved as annended: .July 8, 2014