Loading...
PC 09-22-2015CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AMENDED/ APPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 The regular Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2015, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Staff Present: Asst. City Manager: Senior Planner: Asst. City Attorney: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 22, 2015 Agenda: Winnie Lee Alan Takahashi Geoff Paulsen Margaret Gong (Arrived after roll call) Don Sun Aarti Shrivastava Piu Ghosh Colleen Winchester The agenda lists August 28 minutes, it should read ''August 25, 2015" Minutes of the August 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting: Page 3, second bullet from bottom of page: Com. Gong: Delete "most current eucalyptus is far superior for camouflaging over the pine" and insert: ''pine is superior to the eucalyptus and is a personal preference" Page 12, August 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting: Delete "Steve Chao" and insert "Gary Chao" MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the August 25, 2015 Planning Commission minutes as amended and approve the change to September 22 agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Materials related to Item 2. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. GPA-2015-01, Z-2015-01, EA-2013-03 City of Cupertino 10950 No. Blaney Ave. Citywide Location Citywide Amendments to Community Vision 2040 (General Plan). General Plan Amendments to make edits to policy, text and figures and the re-zoning of one parcel. Tentative City Council Date: October 20, 2015 Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: September 22, 2015 • On May 19 the Council reviewed the fmal 2014-2020 Housing Element and General Plan for potential changes to allocations for commercial office and hotel uses, building heights and building planes and also went over the proposed policy for establishing procedures for processing General Plan Amendment (GPA) applications at that time. Council directed staff to prepare some comparison tables to make sure that there is a mapping of the 2005 General Plan policies to what is in the 2040 community vision because there were concerns that there were edits to the language. The scope of work that Council authorized was incorporation of text from the 2005 General Plan to ensure consistency with the goals, policies, strategies in the community vision 2040 adopted ill December; however the scope of work did not include revisions to specific policies already contemplated and adopted as part of the Community Vision 2040 such as policies relating to the housing element and the Vallco shopping district including height, densities and land use designations except for the Mirapath properties. • It also did not include any revisions inconsistent with the policies and strategies in the 2005 General Plan or the additions of new policies and strategies that were not part of the 2005 General Plan. The comparison tables were available June 9, 2015 and online comments were collected through July 31, 2015 and after. Interested individuals and groups were contacted to arrange meetings for discussion. Several meetings were held through July, August and September 2015. • After additional public input recommendations were made for language corrections and insertions based on input received from the meetings and online comments and staff review. Recommendations do not include additions of new policy and strategies or amendments to heights, densities or other development regulations except for Maripath. The recommendations to the text part of the document can be categorized into 5 categories, including the insertion of 2005 General Plan text policies and/or strategies, reorganization of the document where one policy or strategy seemed to fit better under another goal policy or strategy, corrections that were found that needed to be made to make the document eternally consistent as well or just general corrections, and clarifications for internal consistencies. She continued to explain the changes and edits recommended for adoptions which were detailed on the presentation. With regard to the reinsertion of 2005 General Plan text includes revision of the name of the document to Cupertino General Plan, community vision from 2015 to 2040. In the introduction chapter there are some edits to the guiding principles; their inclusion of some text from the 2005 General Plan and the land use and community design chapter; the edits in a few policies include hillside views, provision of outdoor areas, collaboration with the business community and reinsertion of a few policies and strategies surrounding multiple story buildings and land use district, jobs housing balance and library services as it relates to the Parks and Rec chapter. • In the mobility chapter the edits proposed to regional transportational planning, transport impact analysis specifically related to LOS standards, multi model improvements protected intersections, adjacent land use and others and the reinsertions there are some strategies that are being proposed to be reinserted such as suburban road improvement standards and traffic calming. Under environmental resources there edits to minor text edits to a goal there is reinsertion of one strategy surrounding Cupertino Planning Commission 3 September 22, 2015 community gardens under infrastructure there are edits to one policy; under recreation there are edits to two policies and a reinsertion of one policy related to libraries services. This was mentioned in the staff report but did show up in the tables as an attachment to the staff report. As far as reorganization goes there were some strategies in infrastructure that were proposed to be relocated because they fit better under different policies and under health and safety there is relocation of some narrative text from a strategy into the background text for that chapter. Under corrections in the land use and communities design chapter, there is a correction to the Oaks gateway node; the General Plan text inadvertently allowed the words "and office uses" being allowed; however, the land use map or the BIR for the GPAs that were considered in December did not include that so this is also an internal consistency correction. As far as the South DeAnza area conceptual plan, there was an incorrect reference to the Homestead Rd special area; under rule improvements standards and hillside areas there was an incomplete sentence that was completed; community benefits program, since the Council did not adopt a program were recommending a placeholder text that was there be removed; and the associated policies with that be removed. As far as mobility goes under reduced travel demand there is some corrected text that needed to be added; under the clarifications under land use a community design there were some policies and strategies that needed correction specifically street interface; mobility and its two connecting special areas in community impacts. As you can tell there are a number of minor edits for clarification in land use mobility, environmental resources, health and safety and infrastructure. As far as internal consistency goes, because the community benefits program is being recommended be struck, there is some language surrounding that in various policies and strategies; in the Land Use chapter we recommend that those be removed and in Appendix A there is a new land use category related to Mirapath and an existing land use category that exists on the General Plan map be added. There is some figure edits as part of this recommendation under the community form diagram there is boundary correction related to the Monta Vista special area; we wanted to clarify the densities specifically with regard to the Stelling gateway east; there was an addition of a neighborhood's box because it didn't specify what the density was for neighborhoods or neighborhood commercial centers within neighborhoods; this is all information taken from the 2005 General Plan; with regard to some mechanical equipment and rooftop equipment there is a re- insertion of language from the 2005 General Plan; on the circulation network there was a minor update necessary to the legend; on wastewater service there was a policy on the 2005 General Plan that talked about developments that may not connect to the Cupertino Sanitary District and it was intended to be shown on this map, but was not shown so we clarified the boundaries, so that is being recommended at this time. With regard to new figures, staff recommends that neighborhood and special area figures be adopted for aesthetic purposes within the planning area chapters. As far as the General Plan goes the only figures that is needed in the General Plan is the land use map and these are identical to what the General Plan land use map shows; with regard to Mirapath we had a request from the property owner when we first started the GP A process to revise the land use designation from industrial/residential to industrial/commercial /residential; it would allow the site to be used for commercial office and continued light manufacturing uses; it is adjacent to existing commercial land use and therefore it is compatible; it was recommended by the Planning Commission on Oct. 2014; it was considered in Dec. 2014 by the City Council but the decision was held; and on May 19, 2015 the City Council directed staff to present the proposed changes at a future meeting and we thought this was a good time to present it again. With the Mirapath the recommendation is that on the General Plan land use map there is an existing category that says industrial residential commercial; we are recommending that be re-categorized to industrial commercial residential; however, in the General Plan land use definitions chapter there is no land use category that reflects that land use designation on the General Plan map and we are recommending that a new land use category be added within Appendix A and it would allow industrial uses of the primary use commercial as secondary with some supporting residential uses or in some compatible combination. With regard to environmental impact the BIR prepared in accordance with CBQA covered a majority of the changes being proposed tonight and since the proposed changes meet the threshold for preparation of an addendum, and Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 22, 2015 addendum is proposed to be adopted. The analysis indicated that the proposed changes either fall within the scope of the EIR or will not create any new or substantially severe significant effects on the environment. A supplemental memo was prepared by the consultant which addressed two maps that the addendum did not cover; however staff's recommendation did cover adoption of these two maps so it is part of the resolution that you will be adopting. Inclusion of these maps do not alter the meaning of the General Plan policy or zoning ordinances and are for reference only. The draft addendum will be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee tentatively on Oct. 1st prior to the city Council's final decision on the project, tentative Oct. 20th. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution to make the amendments listed and an ordinance to rezone property located at 10950 No. Blaney from industrial/residential to industrial/commercial/residential. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Cathy Thaler, Cupertino resident: • Provided background on items; said last year at this time she along with other community members attended open meetings about the Housing Element and General Plan. They were told that the General Plan was to be amended not rewritten; with corrections, clarifications and the addition of some state required policies. In December Community Vision 2040 was adopted by City Council; they were told very little had changed, mostly grammatical changes and some state added things. Attempting to compare the two General Plans was extremely difficult; the order of policies and strategies changed, the chapters changed and the entire layout was different but more importantly the tone changed. It went from a community centered document to an impersonal one, almost like the citizens were no longer a key component of the plan. Upon hearing their concerns and viewing their attempts to map old to new policies, the City Council asked staff in May to prepare a redline and work with the community on a comparison. The goal was to identify significant 2005 items that were missing from the new General Plan. In the last three months, she, along with Peggy Griffin and others have met with the Planning Department more than 6 extensive working sessions to identify the missing elements and correct items missing from the old plan. She said the meetings were extremely productive and she thanked staff for their time and extensive work on the project. They were at all times professional and courteous and open to listening and she felt they all learned from each other and came out with an appreciation of both the department and the community viewpoints. The General Plan is really all about words; descriptive, measuring guiding and planning words; it sets the tone and temperament of the cities and it is ultimately a community's vision for the future. Said it was important to her that the pieces of the old General Plan that embrace the whole community that supported the community's views were carried through in the new one; because Cupertino is a community of residents first. They have shoppers, workers and commuters in and through the city on a daily basis, but they also live there and their voices should be heard. In working with the Planning Dept. and spending many of their own hours reading and preparing the plans line by line, she said she felt they have come up with additions and corrections to make this again a community based living document. She urged the Commission to adopt the GP A. Peggy Griffin, Randy Lane, Cupertino: • Said what happened in December 2014 with the GPA was wrong in many ways. They received the comparison tables listing corresponding policies and strategies between the two versions of the General Plans in June and the changes between those two documents were extensive. Several of them met with the City staff to review every line in the comparison tables; consisting of 8 meetings each averaging 3 hours each; it was tedious work and they worked to reach an agreement on the issues presented. She thanked Piu Ghosh for posting the information in advance of the three day requirement so that people had more time to review the material. She said they hoped it would become a city policy to help both the public, commissioners and the City Council members be better prepared. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 22, 2015 • Attachment 1 of the agenda packet entitled Draft GPA Resolution, the staff has provided an actual redline, (although not red, but black) version of the portions of the new General Plan that are being changed. It is much more transparent to see the red-lined version when reviewing changes. I would like to thank the staff for providing this and hope that this will also become a City policy for better transparency and clarity. One request we would like is to change on Table LUl says "buildout totals of office and residential allocutions within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon specific plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a specific plan is not adopted by that date, city will .. and it reads "consider the removal of the office and residential allocations for Vallco." We would like it to say "will remove" because that is the residents' understanding of what was said. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said the tremendous amount of work between the staff and residents is reaching a good conclusion of a blended GPA; and she was pleased that people were able to work together. Said she was alarmed in the last 6 months over what is happening to the height in the city; there were many proposals for 8 stories all over the city; she fears that Cupertino will wind up becoming a very densely packed city of 8 stories everywhere and would like to see something done to bring those down. Why does every building plan have to be 8 stories? There are heights known in parts of the city but yet proposals that are going way over those heights. There were some very tall building projects coming in; said she did not want that for the future of Cupertino. • Another project on Hamilton next to San Tomas Aquino is a 6 story building; Del Taco was there and there is nothing else in the area that is so tall. How do they handle heights? Why is it becoming so capricious; Vallco looks like it is 8 stories; why do they have to go down that road? • Said she was confused about why they don't have a Specific Plan for Vallco; how is this Specific Plan working in the GP A; that was supposed to be something that was worked on by the public but there is no Specific Plan for Vallco at this time. How large is the Mirapath property? What are they planning on doing with it and what is the height proposed for that area? Lisa Warren, Cupertino resident: • Referred to October/November when the majority of the Commission believed and voted that there should be no allocation of office space at Vallco or housing. Said it was discouraging that the Council did not listen to Commission recommendations or to the residents at that time; and that those 2 million square feet aren't allocated. Many of them consider that an opening of the floodgates; if it was never allocated it is harder for any developer who owns the property now or in the future to be turned down for getting the rezoning to do it. Said she felt it was a mistake and it is widely believed by the residents and some City Council members in discussions that have happened since that wasn't what they thought they were voting on. Said she felt the discussion opens up the ability to say they are talking about the GPA and part of the GPA was to allocate not rezone what they didn't want and the majority of residents don't want. Said it was appropriate for the Commission to recommend to City Council that they take it up. She said she doesn't know if it would do any good, but it would echo what the residents want; it will echo the fact that they don't want height to be increased. You can't build that massive amount of square footage or undefined square footage of housing units because it is just numbers; you are not even given how many square feet that is; you cannot build that without increasing the heights way beyond what any of the residents, perhaps 2% of the residents who answered that survey want. Said it was illogical to her, and she thanked the Commission for their recommendation and said she wished that former Commissioner Paul Brophy's final words to the Council had been listened to; unfortunately they weren't, nor were the residents. She said she hoped they could reinforce their beliefs about what they wanted back then because she felt they had not changed, but hoped they got stronger. The whole allocation vs. rezoning which keeps getting set; they are not entitled; it is not rezoned but the allocation is nerve wracking because people don't understand; there is continuing discussion; what does it really mean? It needs to be clear; take it out. She echoed the thanks to staff for working with some of the residents and getting some of those Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September '.22, 2015 things put back in. Said she felt it was to soften the blow of other things, but she felt it needs to be dropped. Doris Yeh, Cupertino resident; (owner ofMirapath): • Said she was the property owner and owner of Mirapath. She explained the history of the property, beginning in 2008. The building is a two-story building which she purchased in 2008, at which time they planned to occupy it and lease part of it out. There were about 20 applicants for the property, including architects, loan agency and financial loan officers. They were not able to rent out to any other company and got a special exception from the city to lease out part of the building to a loan company. When the rezoning came up, they were approached to see if they would be interested in being a part of the rezoning process because their property was a small property next to a huge PG&E office and the Oakmont Center. They were interested because they wanted to be able to rent the building out to more people, She said at this time they plan to stay in the building but want to be able to rent it out to more tenants. She emphasized that they were not a developer. Liang Chao, Cupertino resident: • Thanked the Commission for their recommendation for zero office space for Vallco and zero housing and not putting Vallco on the Housing Element; it shows respect for the residents. Said it began in August 2012 with the developers' request and then the Council spent one year reaching out to the developers in order to finalize the region. The study sessions and workshops focused on study areas, the residents were not asked what to do about Cupertino for the next 25 years; they were never considered. The process only brings them back to the same level as the General Plan approved in 2005 to 2020. Said she hoped that they would do the right thing and not stop there. This shouldn't be developers' rating; it should be the community's vision. She urged the Commission to fix it; make it the real 2040 plan that takes the residents into account. On the resolution there is a land use map; the land use for Vallco is not contingent upon approval; it should be contingent upon approval otherwise it is going to be used as an excuse to rezone Vallco to show that it is consistent with the General Plan. Asked the Council to consider policies to make stronger requirements for air quality, traffic, noise around schools. Also there should be strong policies for mixed use property because mixed use is a novel concept in Cupertino, other cities have a lot of regulations on setback, height and density for mixed use. Xiaowen Wang, Cupertino resident: • Said she echoed many things already discussed; they need to learn from the process because they passed the Community Vision 2040 nine months ago, but came to this year realizing it is not an amendment but a new plan with a table to show the many changes. She thanked the Planning Dept. and staff for their efforts and spending so many hours to come up with what should be put back or changed. What can they learn from the process? Said it was frustrating that they spent two years and passed a General Plan only to find out everything they passed was wrong and had to rewrite it after 9 months. Hopefully next time they will be clearer that this is a new General Plan, not an amendment, and have a citizens' group involved from the start to study policies. She suggested they spend one- half hour on each policy. • Responded to Com. Sun's request for examples of important items that would substantially change the General Plan. Said one of the main insertions is the jobs housing balance; an important policy which is advocated by the Housing Element by the state. Last week at the Council meeting ABAG representative came to comment on the community benefit or whatever the GP A process; one thing she said is they need to focus on housing to provide enough housing to balance whatever the jobs here, also another trigger of the turmoil is that Lisa Warren discovered Apple sent a letter where they commented on the General Plan saying that it's not good, they don't have the view preservation policy removed; that then triggered trying to dig out where this view preservation policy was and to discover it is a complete rewrite, that's the trigger. Another policy is the financial one; said she did Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 22, 2015 not understand that currently it says it should be removed to be consistent with the law; not certain what law would prevent that; but in that policy it has a passage before saying that if we built the office we need to consider the tax revenue and we should be encouraged for the tenant to have the retail office here so that we can charge the retail tax on top of it. It said it has to be removed because it is to be consistent with the law but not sure if it can be reworded in some way to be consistent with the law but still preserve that kind of spirit. Said they are examples of what should be discussed. Govind Tatachari, Cupertino resident: • Concurred with previous speaker; and said he felt the entire GP A process was like putting the cart before the horse. Cupertino is a stable community and many of the residents have been there for a very long time; they should be respectful of the people who have been in Cupertino for a longer time and consider their input when trying to design something which is going to affect most of the people for the next 25 years. Said nobody is against development but the process is most critical; it happened because he insisted they have a red-lined copy to go through a process of reviewing the GPA and only because one of the Council members agreed with his request. He said he felt that it should not be the methodology of going about why this particular GPA needs to be carefully examined. At this stage there is the issue of two terminologies being used; one is the land use maps and the other is called the zoning map. Until there is legal clarification consider the resolution without the land use map because it will be misleading; and they would like to get a second opinion. Yan Yu, Cupertino resident: • Said she was not clear whether the residents of Cupertino have a say or a chance to vote on the plan, or does the Commission act as a bridge between the residents and the board, e.g., the City Council who has the power to say yes or no to the plan. Said she did not feel her voice was heard. Said she was also concerned whether the City Council acts on behalf of the residents or property owner; some property owners spoke in the hearing process and also some residents speak; sometimes they don't always agree, but who takes priority? Said she felt the city should serve the majority of the residents, not the property owner. As a resident she was also concerned about over crowded construction which might also might affect local traffic, noise, and pollution. Ansh Chewrasia, representing BSA Troop 493: • Asked what factors was the Commission considering to make the decision about the house on 10950 No. Blaney Ave; and in what timeframe would they make the decision and how will it affect the community? He also asked how the youth of the community could help out? Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Colleen Winchester, Asst. City Attorney: • Explained that the General Plan and land use map must be consistent; the zoning which is a separate legislative act implements the General Plan; the zoning map is a more detailed when you dig down into the details of a General Plan, you might see the zoning of a particular piece of property. Cupertino is smaller and so the General Plan is more detailed, but in larger cities the General Plan is much more general; they are two separate things. • With respect to a Specific Plan, a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan; the Specific Plan in order for it to be adopted has to go through the same procedures as a GP A; in order to adopt a Specific Plan, it needs to follow the General Plan rules. A Specific Plan implements the General Plan much like zoning implements the General Plan. The Specific Plan does not require a GP A; it is implementing a General Plan. A land use map is a required element of the General Plan and it has to be consistent with the General Plan. She said they call it land use map; in other communities it is called General Plan Land Use Map; and the change could be made; so that when someone is reading it, they know what it is. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 22, 2015 Chair Lee: • Said she agreed with Com. Paulsen; the industrial area by Imperial will be difficult to upkeep because the property values are going through the roof and for a car/auto mechanic shop it would seem like a good idea to preserve some pockets in the area. City Council is not supportive of seeing it as a commercial area; perhaps it would be advantageous to keep that area as industrial; it is not conducive to commercial and residents are sketchy on more housing. Com. Sun: • Said he was not opposed to rezoning the property and Chair Lee brought up Imperial. Said he felt that the land use for that particular parcel is going to be decided by the market, not by the private preference. Said he approved the rezoning. Chair Lee: • Said she respected his opinion, but it is not up to the Planning Commission; it is discretionary. but said it was up to the Planning Commission. Com. Gong: • Said for Maripath she supported changing the zoning because it is a very small parcel; it is commercial on the other side. If PG&E shared their vision, they could be asked to consider making it completely industrial. Even if it is completely industrial Maripath is not going to impact that large piece of land that is currently quasi-public. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said there has been a lot of heightened interest especially later in the process of the GP A; at first the major concern was over housing and its impact on schools; but then there is the RHNA requirement specifically setting allocations and the city complying with that and the ramifications associated with not complying. From that the Planning Commission and City Council came to an agreement with regard to sites and number of units that were deemed compliant and there is a housing plan; so that part is done. • Other concerns have been over impact, there is a lot of concern over how Vallco is redeveloped; he said he had and still supports that Vallco needs to be mixed use to be effective. However, the impact of the Apple campus has not been felt because it is under construction and is not occupied. Table LUl which is one of the few data tables in the General Plan showing the allocations, shows moving to a total buildout of 11,470,000 sq. ft. of office vs. the 8,900 as of December 10; the 8,900 includes the 3 million of Apple. If that is taken out it is at 5.9 million sq. ft. of office and they are proposing going to the 11.4 which means they are only 51 % built out of office as they go to the full build out. • Said he was bringing it up because he tried to look at what the general accepted ratio of square foot of office per employee is and it is somewhere between 150 and 170 square feet which means the next 5 million square feet of office is going to add up to about 31,000 employees which is a lot; and the discussion about balancing housing with office clearly is out of balance. Looking at the table more and the hotel, the hotel is significantly under served and his recommendation would be to take a lot of that office and turn it into a lot more hotel space to generate higher revenues for the city from the standpoint of occupancy taxes as well as relieve some of the large amount of office currently in the plan. Said he wanted to voice his opinion because he felt it is one where they are headed for a lot of office space in the future. They talked about the process and it's good in terms of how it worked out; ideally in the future when these things come up they will be more proactive in terms of initiating in that regard. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 22, 2015 Com. Gong: • Said she felt it was a long and wieldy document and process; one of many. Ultimately the process was collaborative and worked in the interest of the community vision; they aren't just residents in Cupertino; there are many elements in Cupertino, and the voices were balanced and it was reflective. Said she shared Vice Chair Takahashi's concern about the very heavily weighted amount of office space; and was not as concerned about hotel; it goes hand in hand with the increase in office space. Said they have to look at it holistically rather than one element at a time; after this process it is a well- balanced holistic plan. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said the ratio of hotels for 1,000 square feet of office in the plan is about .12 rooms per 1,000 sq. ft. of office; generally in urban areas it is more like 70; essentially they are fostering hotel visits to all neighboring cities because they don't have hotel space here. It seems like a huge opportunity and would be a better long term plan. He said there are numbers that establish that they are underserved. Com. Paulsen: • Said he agreed but it was not in the scope of this evening's meeting. Com. Sun: • Said he supports making a recommendation for approval as staff recommended. MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Applications GPA-2015-01, Z-2015-01 and EA-2013-03 by the City of Cupertino as applicants; (a) Adopt resolutions recommending that City Council adopt amendments to Community Vision 2040 of the General Plan as shown in the draft resolution; changes and corrections to the General Plan including appendices, goals, policies and strategies; (b) Changes and corrections to the General Plan figures in Chapter 2, Planning Areas, Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design; Chapter 5 Mobility and Chapter 8 Infrastructure and Inclusion of Neighborhood and Special Area Maps Area maps in Chapter 2, Planning Areas and the Noise Contours map in Appendix D; Community Noise Control Fundamentals and (c) Change to the General Plan Land Use Map; To change the land use designation of property located at 10950 No. Blaney Avenue from industrial/residential to industrial/commercial/residential; an Ordinance to rezone property located at 10950 No. Blaney Avenue from industrial/residential to industrial/commercial/residential per the draft resolution Attachment 2. Amended motion: Friendly amendment accepted by Com. Gong, second by Com. Paulsen to include Item la and lb; and discuss le and 2 separately. Vote: 5-0-0 Colleen Winchester: • Clarified that the motion is now the recommended action to the Community Vision 2040 General Plan as shown in the draft resolution, Item (a) and (b). Vote: 5-0-0 • She said there could be a new motion with respect to Item l(c) and Item No. 2, or take them separately. MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Paulsen to adopt for recommendation to City Council le; change the General Plan land use map to change to the land use designation, property located at 10950 No. Blaney Ave. from industrial/residential to industrial/commercial/residential and audienee in ordinance to resume property Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 22, 2015 located at 10950 No. Blaney Ave. from industrial/residential to industrial /commercial/residential for the draft resolution. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said since it is taken separately, the land use map will be corrected to say General Plan Land Use Map, and make the same correction to the resolution itself; call it the General Plan Land Use Map in the resolution. Vote: 4-1-0; Chair Lee voted No. Chair Lee: • Said she voted No, as previously stated because she wanted to keep that area as open for industrial in the future; she felt that area would be a little removed from other industrial areas in the city and just to have that in case the third area is not appropriate for commercial; should keep that open in the future as industrial. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: • Com. Paulsen reported on the August meeting; working on an Economic Development Strategic Plan; will include a climate impact report; reviewed matrix of projects: tracking Main St., 19800 Rose Bowl Cupertino Village AT&T Wireless for mono eucalyptus tree Verizon Wireless mono pine tree; Promethius mixed use Biltmore and the Safeway Station Bombay Oven development. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: • Com. Gong reported: that emerging and young artists awards were given; five young art utility box winners were awarded; they are reviewing public art submitted for Main Street. Several gate proposals for Main St. being received. Library Commission approved Jennifer Swenson Brown as poet laureate. Poet seminar on Oct. i\ 7:30 p.m. Bike and Ped Comm.: • Established a mission statement. New green bike lanes have been well received especially by people who have turned them into jogging lanes; there have been concerns raised by the cyclists about congestion with joggers. Bike rodeo Oct. 3rd morning only; bike lane consultant engaged soon to help come up with new bike lanes for long term citywide projects. TIC Comm.: • Planning a cyber security workshop in late Oct. date TBD; to highlight people, especially seniors to protect themselves; also contemplating creating a map of the mobile carrier coverage and strength. Public Safety: • Proposed that the Boltage program be transferred to Bike and Ped Comm. Will put RFID tags on Cupertino Planning Commission 11 September 22, 2015 backpacks and bikes. • Proposing an Adult Safety Academy in conjunction with Fire, Police, and Sheriff Parks and Rec.: • Reported that Grand Opening of McClellan Ranch and Blacksmith shop will be on Oct. 28. Lawrence Mitty Park space being negotiated; currently owned by Airport Authority Parks and Rec going on a sister city visit to Italy. Misc: • Mayor discussed new twice yearly process for receiving proposals from developers, how that will benefit developers and the city. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No written report. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the October 13, 2015 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Approved as amended: November 24, 2015