Loading...
PC 04-26-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014· 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES April 26, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Taghi Saadati Commissioners absent: Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 12, Planning Commission meeting: Com. Saadati requested the following change: · Page 13. last line of Com. Saadati's statement; insert "time" after the word "long" Chair Wong requested the following change: · Page 29, line 2 of Chair Wong's first statement; change "2,000 square feet" to read "50,000 square feet". Motion: Moved by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the April 12, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Giefer abstain; Com. Chen absent) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: · Mr. Piasecki noted receipt of two news articles; one related to the General Plan and an article from the Business Journal related to the issue of development initiatives in the city. · Chair Wong noted receipt of information on Planning Commissioners' training for the League of California Cities Affordable Housing. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 26, 2005 POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 3. EXC-2005-08 Martin Bernstein 22362 Regnart Rd. Hillside exception for a new 6,500 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and an exception to the required second story offset. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request removal from calendar. Moved by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve removal Application No. EXC-2005-08 from the calendar. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) Motion: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. M-2005-01 Tom Sloan (Wolf CameraIWildflower Condominiums) 1375 DeAnza Blvd. Modification to delete a condition of approval that requires providing additional parking stalls on the adjacent property for use permit U-2OO3-03 (construction of six condominiums and the addition of 1,825 square feet to an existing retail building) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from April 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director presented the staff report: · Previously the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant and for the applicant to review staff's suggestion to modify the condition of either paving the additional stalls in the adjacent commercial property or paying the adjacent property owner the equivalent funds to improve the lot; or examine other alternatives. · The city attorney has identified some options outside of the city's purview; to settle the private matter of a private easement by going to the courts to adjudicate the matter; or as a side issue the attorney suggested that the applicant could obtain title insurance verifying that the property does not have a parking easement encumbrance, and if an insurance company is willing to provide that and name the city as beneficiary and provide that insurance. · Staff has not heard of any reconciliation between the applicant and the adjacent property owner; and feels the suggested condition rewording works either way and suggests that the Planning Commission simply take action on the rewording. · The applicant at the last meeting said the rewording was acceptable. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the condition as suggested. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Commented that because modification of the use pennit is a quasi-judicial act, any commissioners who have had contact with any of the applicants should disclose that now. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he was contacted by the applicant on several occasions regarding the application. Chair Wong: · Said he received an e-mail from Preston Oka regarding the application. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 26, 2005 Chris Bjorn, Attorney for Greg Bunker, Applicant: · Said Mr. Bunker's application meets the city's zoning requirements. · We do know that the only dispute involves private land owned by two private adjoining land owners. · Today, we are not going to resolve the dispute between these two private parties; that is in the purview of the courts. · The question is how will the city respond to this dispute between two pri vate parties. The procedurely correct way to do that would be to evaluate the application on its own; does it meet the zoning requirements; if it does, grant it and allow the private parties to move their own way. · Alternatively the city might also say that Mr. Bunker's application meets the zoning requirements. but the city would like to interject itself somewhat in that process, and that was that the original condition asked for. The original condition was to add 20 parking spaces to Mr. Bunker's neighbor's land. That is a condition he cannot meet because he can't go onto that property without their permission. · Likewise, the proposed modification to this condition would require Mr. Bunker to get the written consent of his neighbor to his project which already meets the zoning requirements; essentially both of those conditions would give the neighbor a veto power over Mr. Bunker's project. · One way that the Planning Commission could interject itself into this private dispute would be to have Mr. Bunker meet the stated concern; modify the condition so that Mr. Bunker must put up $30,000 which would be used to modify the parking on his neighbor's property if the neighbor wants to; if he doesn't want to, that is fine. That allows Mr. Bunker to meet your concerns, his neighbor's stated concerns, and allows the parties if they have any further disputes to take those private disputes to the Superior Court for adjudication of that issue. Mr. Bunker, Applicant: · Asked the Planning Commission for their support to make the motion to have Mr. Bunker put up $30,000 in a cashier's check to hold and make payable to the City of Cupertino or to the Trust that would allow for the installation of the 20 spaces. · The project had all of its own parking; all the easement agreements are reciprocal and should not have an impact on either property; they balance each other. · When 1 got approval from the city, I worked hard; hired civil and structural engineers, architects, and completed all the working drawings, and have placed them with the city. The only thing remaining is to finish the plan check review and the only condition that would be in question to meet now is to have the Trust allow me to come and stripe the spaces; I am prepared to do that; if I put up the money in good faith, that would be a good resolution. Vice Chair Miller: · There is some question to whether the easement applies to one parcel or both parcels. Is that something that has been clarified at this point? Mr. Bunker: · Said he presented his existing title policy to the city attorney. · Summarized the contents of the 1985 Stewart Title document. Ms. Murray: · Said the document grant deed was beside the point; what Mr. Bunker brought along with the document was a 1985 Stewart Title insurance policy; it did not meet the criteria that the city Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 26, 2005 attorney set out, it is made out to Mr. Bunker as beneficiary, not the city; there is no title guarantee that there are no easements. · The document spells out an easement in the title; so I don't think we can interpret either document here, they are both beside the point of this; there still exists an easement that is open to question that may impact parking and if it impacts parking it impacts the project, and I don't think we can make a detennination tonight. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. John Golden, Attorney for Yamagami Trust: · Pointed out that the title report distributed to Mr. Bunker from 1985 specifically notes that it is subject to an eaSement on his property in favor of the Yamagami Trust and confirms the position taken all along. · Since the last meeting I had advised the Planning Commission that we had in our opinion worked out an agreement with Mr. Bunker; he had taken issue with minor changes. The day following the last Planning Commission meeting, we received a demand from Mr. Bunker to pay him $67,000 or be faced with a lawsuit based on a reimbursement right arising out of the 1986 original development that had nothing to do with what we are doing and had no basis in fact. · I am bringing this up because of the charges of bad faith and extortion leveled against us last time and the allegations that we were not negotiating in good faith with Mr. Bunker. · We have an agreement approved by Mr. Bunker's attorney and signed by our people, and we are waiting for Mr. Bunker to decide; and tonight he is here rolling the dice with the Planning Commission to see whether he can get away with a different agreement. · The essential terms of that agreement will solve his issues; they will also put an end to this easement litigation and that is the true point of this; the reason that this condition to require the parking stalls was put on in the first place was that the city would not be in the position of taking sides and by requiring that issue to be addressed and met independent of the city's action, the Planning Commission, the staff said Mr. Bunker if you want to proceed with your project, you need to work out things, because we see there is a problem here. · For the last two years the city has taken the position that this is a pri vate matter; now Mr. Bunker who has agreed but not agreed with us to resolve this matter, wants you to take sides with him and eliminate the condition. If you Were to eliminate the condition, that would be tantamount to tossing away two years worth of work by all parties concerned and sending us to the courts. · We have an agreement that we feel is fair to all concerned; most of the financial provisions were suggested and dictated by Mr. Bunker himself, and for that reason We believe that this matter is resolved unless Mr. Bunker's application is granted; in which case it is back to square one. · We believe the appropriate thing for the Planning Commission to do is to continue the position it has had all along, that this is a pri vate matter and Mr. Bunker can work things out. We believe that either the original condition or the modification proposed by staff is appropriate. Lawrence Russell, Borel Private Bank, Trustee: · On March 27, 2005 I left the country for three weeks anticipating that upon my return the agreement would be signed, sealed and deli vered. · When I returned on April l5'h I discovered Mr. Bunker had scheduled a meeting before the Planning Commission; we had not received notice of the hearing before I left the country, so I could not modify my plans and I am sorry I was not here to speak before you at that meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 26, 2005 · When we met almost two years ago, we objected to Mr. Bunker's project only from the position that we felt that it would interfere with our parking rights on the parcel he wanted to develop. I have had multiple attorneys affirm our position and we still are concerned about that. · It was my understanding that the reason for the condition that the Planning Commission placed, was so that Mr. Bunker could meet the minimum parking requirements for this development. We were willing to go along with the conditions that you imposed and work with Mr. Bunker. · It is not simply a matter of Mr. Bunker providing $30,000 to restripe the parking lot; restriping only touches part of the problem. · When considering development, parking spaces are like gold; they are critical to this process and some day I expect that either the bank as trustee or our beneficiary will want to do something with our property and we will need those parking spaces that Mr. Bunker wants. Again, we thought we had an agreement for working this out. In order to provide the additional parking spaces; we cannot just restripe; one of our tenants will have to give up property space they have leased; forgo the use of that property, to allow it to be converted to parking space. We feel this is a compensable item; parking spaces are valuable and there should be some consideration involved. · We also insisted from the beginning with Mr. Bunker that we wanted the easement agreement which is the subject of so much discussion, confusion, and admittedly ambiguous, and we would want it reworked in the future. · The dollar amount we had come to and have in our existing agreement with Mr. Bunker was a result of items he had requested; he asked if we could repaint our building and I am willing to pay for that; he would like enclosed fencing for the trash enclosures, and I am willing to pay for that; so the dollar amount consists of items that are going to directly benefit Mr. Bunker with one exception; We asked him to compensate us for the attorney's fees we have paid. · The claim we acted in bad faith is ludicrous and frustrating; we have worked very hard over the last two years to come to an agreement; we have an agreement everyone has signed except Mr. Bunker, and I would ask the Planning Commission to reaffirm its earlier finding and allow us to go forward. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Ms. Murray: · Said she was provided the agreement last week and it appeared that both the attorney for Mr. Bunker and the attorney for Yamagami had worked on that agreement, so it was drafted jointly. · Our office read the agreement and found it to be a very good agreement and sent notices to both attorneys that we approved the agreement and would recommend that the Planning Commission move forward if that was the final agreement. Since then, the agreement is now under question. · She reiterated that she thought it was a very good agreement and it does settle a lot of the issues that have continuously come up and will again in the future. Chair Wong: · Said that according to the city attorney, if the applicant was willing to sign the agreement they could move forward on the issue. Mr. Bunker: · Said he appreciated the comment and noted they were still in negotiations; but some items came up that are difficult for me to understand that they would take one sentence and have Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 26, 2005 such latitude and power, and on the same token the last item was that they would like to have commercial vehicles come across my property and I wonder how they can so quickly dismiss items in there in my favor and then use so successfully an item in that grant deed to their favor. · I appreciate the city attorney's comment that should I choose to sign the document, that would resolve all those issues. Com. Giefer: · Asked if anything had changed in the parking ordinance since the project was approved. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the parking ordinance had been amended; however, the amendments affect the issues relative to this application. Com. Giefer: · Listening to both parties tonight and having reviewed the previous hearings, it occurs to me that if both parties have been unable to work out the terms for the past two years, that by making the modification requested this evening, it is not going to make things any better for them. · There is no benefit in resolving this by granting the change required to the amendment. Vice Chair Miller: · It is unfortunate that there are two commercial property owners who are feuding like this; we all wish this wouldn't happen and we hope that it can be resolved ASAP because in the last analysis, it is to the disadvantage of both from a customer's standpoint and if it goes on too long, I think that they both may end up losing customers. · In looking over the information we have, I sympathize with Mr. Bunker's position and I feel that he has made good arguments. However, I am also sensitive to the comments of the city attorney, in that there is a potential issue of liability for the city. · From that standpoint I cannot vote for Mr. Bunker on this particular occasion, because I feel I have to support the city attorney's position. Com. Saadati: · I wish this issue could be resolved; the suggestion by Mr. Bunker to put up the money to restripe would have been a good solution; but it seems with the dispute that has existed for more than two years, it is not going to go anywhere. · I concur with the city attorney's position to prevent any potential issues with the city; although I would like the project to go forward and add the additional parking to benefit the businesses. · I hope the parties will work together to bring this to an end and move forward. · I will support the city attorney's recommendation. Chair Wong: · I agree with my colleagues and also sympathize with Mr. Bunker regarding the situation. · Mr. Bunker, the city attorney was correct that the issue cannot be resolved by both parties and we don't want to be in the middle of this as the city attorney has advised us. · I would also follow the city attorney's advice and also staff's recommendation that there has to be an agreement by both parties that both sides have to resolve it and you have to provide something; the other party has to provide a statement that it has been resolved. Another option is to go to court and have it resolved, or as suggested in the title report, the applicant could ask the title company to insure the subject property has no parking easement encumbered on it as well as insuring the city remain as a benefactor. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 26, 2005 · It is regrettable that both parties could not resolve it, but the Planning Commission will follow the city attorney's advice. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to deny Application M-2005-01. Following discussion, Com. Giefer withdrew the motion, Com. Saadati withdrew the second. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application M-2005-01, per the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent). Mr. Piasecki: · Noted it was a final decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council within 14 days. 2. ASA-2005-04 John Tang (San Jose Water Co.) Regnart Road. Architectural and site approval for a security fence for an existing water tank. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Com. Giefer: · Recused herself from discussion of the application as her home is located adjacent to the site. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for architectural and site approval for a security fence for an existing water tank, including the fence location and design; and concerns of the neighbors about the visibility and aesthetics of the fence. · Staff recommendation is assuming that alternative one for the northeast comer represents the needs of the neighbors in that area; that alternative one would be approved that the fence on the east elevation could be lowered further, so that it is not as visually intrusive and that the replacement fence would be dark vinyl. John Tang, San Jose Water Company: · San Jose Water Company erected a fence in November 2004 and it was in response to a Vulnerability Assessment conducted. The assessment was required by the Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002 and required all water utilities to reasseSS their security measures and where necessary, improve or enhance them to meet potential new threats as a result of 9/11. · There is concern about staff's recommendation for the east side of the fence. Both the security professionals and the San Jose Water security team believe that the best location for the fence, in order to meet the water company's stated objectives, is its present location or at the top of the berm. · Because of the concerns from the neighbors, and the fact there is a very active neighborhood watch program at this particular facility, We felt that we could move the fence somewhat down the slope and still achieve our security objectives. · We feel that the fence alignment at the bottom of the slope as suggested by the Planning Department is not going to be as effective as it would be if it was where we have proposed it or where it currently is. The reason is that it is easy for somebody to breach both fences with a ladder in a single action and therefore would have no deterrents or delayed effect for us. A major reason we moved the fence down the slope was because of the neighborhood watch Cupertino Planning Commission 8 April 26, 2005 program; the lower the fence is down the slope, the less likely or the more out of view it is going to be for the residents and the neighborhood watch program. · As staff mentioned, there is a lateral clearance issue with the PG&E power line. PG&E's position on lateral clearances is that they don't want any trees within 10 feet on either side of their power lines or power poles. This is an issue I will continue to follow and hopefully get SOme resolution on in the near future. · For the reasons above, we respectfully disagree with the staff's recommendation for the east side. We realize the fence changed the aesthetics of the site, but We are also concerned that aesthetics and not security has become the overriding goal. · The San Jose Water Co. has a responsibility to protect the drinking water supply and we strongly believe that we put forth a proposal that allows us to meet our security objectives, yet balances the needs of our neighbors. We hope to resolve this issue tonight, and will respect, accept and abide by the Planning Commission's decision. Com. Saadati: · What would be the clearance from the top of the fence to the PG&E line? · The PG&E 10 foot clearance is related to any activities that occur near the power line. I doubt if that applies to the fence. Mr. Tang: · It is not clear for a fence, but for trees underneath the power line, it is 15 or 18 feet. · Said he would have to find out the answer for the fence. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Robert Ziegler, Monterey Court: · Opposed to the application. · Resides on the north side of the facility at the west end; the fence is close to the back of our house, with about 20 feet between the back of our house and the exterior fence. · Expressed concern that the staff has been given a plan based on the idea that the property owners on the north side agree that the current fence location is acceptable. · Five of the eight property owners feel that the current fence location is objectionable and not acceptable to them. · The water company is doing its best to come up with some sort of a balancing act, but they have a financial incentive to keep the current fence where it is; they don't want to spend the funds to move it. · I do not believe the proposal should be accepted without further discussion about the current location of the fence. · Said he would like the fence to be moved down to the bottom of the berm. A second fence with a motion detection system would be a reasonable compromise. · In response to Com. Saadati's suggestion for ivy growing on the fence at the top of the bank, he said he would prefer to have the fence lower down because of the view. Christopher Johnson, Monterey Court: · Opposed to the application. · Represents his parents who are living in the home. · The fencing with wiring was objectionable. · The proposed fence would provide security with also removing some of the blocked view. · There is an existing fence underneath the PG&E line already which is the San J oSe Water Co. fence; so there should not be a problem with moving down the hill. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 26, 2005 · The electronic security measures would be more substantial than another fence. · Having the fence 4 or 5 feet from the bottom of the hill, covered with ivy would be more acceptable. · We were not notified of any meetings with the San Jose Water Co. and did not have a chance to voice our opinion in that regard. Lisa Giefer, Regnart Road: · Opposed to the application unless modified. · Noted for the record that she is a Planning Commissioner but has recused herself from discussion of the application. · Resides on the east side of the water tank; resides in the problematic area with the most space between our property line and the berm of the water tank. · Presented illustrations of the proposed fencing in relation to the proximity of her home. · As a resident I can erect only a 6 foot fence; by them adding one foot to my fence I am going to be looking at 7 feet of fencing; their desire to have that fence offset over my fence by one feet is so that I can see people climb over it; no one from the street can see this, only my family. If they must have their second fence which is the chain link fence, they install it at the base of the tank which would allow a vehicle to drive down the road; it makes it easier for maintenance; it provides adequate separation between the fences and will help them meet their security needs. · It is very unlikely that someone is going to walk through my yard to jump the fence. · Additionally, along Regnart Road toward Lindy Lane, the separation between the common neighbor fence and their proposed fence varies, to as close as 4 to 6 feet away or as much as 15 feet away. · Personally, I don't believe they need a second fence; there is one chain link fence with barbed wire, the second proposed fence is also a chain link fence. · On January 25'h the Planning Commission heard from the California Water Service that they have no plans to do any fortification of any of their water storage or pump units within their service district in residential areas. The water company feels no need to fortify the water tank on Regnart Canyon where no one resides near it. · If you do allow them to erect the fence, please stipulate on the east side of the tank in your findings, that the fence be moved down to where the ice plant meets the concrete. Jim Davis, resident: · Resides on the north side. · Complimented San Jose Water Co. staff on their efforts in meeting with the various neighbors about their various concerns, in trying to reach a reasonable solution. · Said he would prefer no fence on the top. · The most appropriate location would be at the bottom aligned with the existing fence so that there is no additional obstruction; however, the water company feels that it does not provide the security they need. · Given no alternative, I would leave it there as opposed to moving it down the berm because it looks worse from my vantage point. If it must remain, I prefer it where it is as opposed to half- way down. Mark Lee, Regnart Road: · Resides on the eastern side of the tank. · Complimented San Jose Water Co. staff for their collaborative approach once the issue was raised. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 26, 2005 · The current proposed location for us on the eastern side still does have a visual impact for us even if we do some semi-camouflage of that fence, and that goes to the heart of our property values. Minimizing the visual impact is important to the home owners. · The main objective as San Jose Water Co. has stated is to deter and detect; bringing the fence down the hill on the eastern side as previously suggested to the bottom of the berm and presumably this will not be an impact from a PG&E clearance perspective, would have the same impact as its current proposed position in the middle of the berm; yet it would minimize and reduce any visual impact that would have property value concerns. · There are really no clear standards that I have been able to detect, and also in conversations with San Jose Water Co. on this concept of how much distance needs to be from one fence to another, there is clearly no specific standard in that there is inconsistency as you go all the way around the water tank with the proposed fence line as well. · There has been inconsistency in the way proposals have been put together; the analysis has been incomplete; We have not been able to determine what any clear standards are. · There is an opportunity for those of us on the eastern side to minimize the impact and still accomplish the objective of the detection and deterrence with all the other things that have been going on. · In our particular situation, we have the risk of mudslides; bringing the fence down to the bottom of the berm would make it easier to maintain and it would greatly reduce the impact of having a mudslide come into our back yard and will still accomplish the objectives of safety, detection and deterrence, with a lot of enthusiastic neighborhood watch groups. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mark Formena, San Jose Water Co.: · The purpose of the secondary fence is to deter, delay, detect and give time for response. · The deterrent factor on the fence is self explanatory; the delay factor would be the cutting of the fence; the detecting portion which has not been discussed, would be a sensor within the fence, if it is cut we will know that and by the time it takes the perpetrator to cut the fence, enough of a delay has occurred that security can respond. The signal is seen through the microwave system within 60 seconds. · Discussed the security systems in place. · On the northern side, three staff members proposed to move the fence down on the Davis' side; move the fence down to mid-slope; but after meeting with the residents in March, the consensus for a resolution was to leave the fence where it was, until I received Mr. Ziegler's e- mail. Vice Chair Miller: · It appeared from the speakers that there was a general feeling that if it was moved down to the bottom of the berm, it would be an acceptable solution. Is that acceptable from the Water Company standpoint? Mr. Formena: · If We are talking about the north edge fence, there is already a perimeter fence down around the bottom of the berm. The bottom of the berm is the property line, very small distance between the bottom of where the berm meets the property. · The reason for locating the fence up the hill is for visual detection. · The reason we conceded to moving the fence down the hill was in combination with the neighborhood watch we had; we realized the best place for the fence is its present location Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 26, 2005 from a security standpoint, with sensors. It would provide the best visibility, the best for the neighborhood to see it; through our three neighborhood meetings we came to a majority vote that the placement of the fence where the story poles are now would be the best compromise. Vice Chair Miller: · From a logical standpoint, it Seems that if you have electronic gear that is going to detect what is going on, it is better; you are not going to get someone looking at all areas of that fence 24/7 and the likelihood of a visual detection is far less than an electronic detection. Chair Wong: · I understand that on the northern side you need some distance, but on the eastern side, if you don't conflict with the easement, I can't see having two parallel fences if it is about 10 feet away; how could that be a security risk. Andrew Gere, Director of Operations, San Jose Water Co.: · I think we would agree on the eastern side, it is not as difficult physically to move the fence further down the slope. Again, the point has been made by several, that you are not necessarily going to be able to see someone going over the fence at just the time someone tries to do it; although that is our preference. · Originally to provide the most security and from a security standpoint, not a visual one, the most secure secondary fence is right next to the reservoir. The reservoir itself is just a sheet metal roof and is very easy to get into. · It is splitting hairs, will we lose some significant measurable amount of security by moving it a few feet down, there would be different opinions on either side. It would be difficult to quantify. Chair Wong: · On the northern boundary I can understand that you can't have it that close, but how far away down the berm can you have it that you feel comfortable for a security point. Mr. Gere: · After we erected the fence, our proposal to the residents was to move it sioúlar to what you see on the south side, half way down the berm. Weare limited by the fact that it is a wedge- shaped lot and we will have to live with the fact that in some areas it is going to be closer than others. Weare bounded by the topographic features of the site on that particular side and on the south side. We are not bounded by that same challenge on the east side. Chair Wong: · It is not really clear where the existing fence is and where the proposed secondary fence is; I want to ask my colleagues if they feel comfortable continuing this item so that we can see where the fences are, see if they can compromise with the neighbors and move it closer to the berm and present it one more time to the residents for consensus. Ms. Wordell: · I think that would be fine; I think they could explore lowering the fence and if they could show on the site plan the actual boundaries of the rear fences, that would be helpful. Com. Saadati: · That would be one option; the other option would be to approve the item based on the notion that they work with the neighbors and lower the fence; I think with the electronic monitoring the fence can be very close, at some point it is almost going to be almost touching, but there is Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 26, 2005 a way to somehow modify the fence so it will have some horizontal element on the top to make it difficult for somebody to go over two fences. · It needs to be studied by the water company. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he was amenable to either way; ask the applicant if he has a preference. Applicant: · We don't have a preference; although we would like to get this resolved SOOner rather than later, but would like to get some clarification from the planning department as to what exactly constitutes that one foot of clearance discussed in the staff report, because we can build a one foot clearance on our side of the property and have it from our vantage point. Obviously, the position and the alignment of the fence is going to be different if you were looking at it from the Lee's residence or from anyone else's residence for that matter, but we need to get some understanding and some uniformity around what exactly is meant by that one foot clearance, so that if the Planning Commission decides that this is the way they want to proceed, we have a clear understanding of how we are to proceed with the fence construction. Ms. Wordell: · If there is a variety of elevations as the fence is going along the parallel to other people's property, I would have thought it would be somewhat uniform so that you could maintain a certain elevation more or less the same as the properties next to it. If that doesn't work out, we will have to see or you could say more or less a foot, so that you are trying to keep enough of the fence above people's fence lines so there is some visibility. · It was a compromise to try to address their needs as well as the neighbors' needs and so it might be flexibility and minimizing as much as possible the amount that the fence is above neighbors' fences or to try to mirror their fences as much as possible by keeping it a foot over. Chair Wong: · The point of the one foot was to address each individual property owner because I think Mr. Tang has a good point that the elevation of each property owner would be different and one owner said he liked it at the top of the berm and the other said he liked the bottom of the berm; it will be difficult to satisfy everyone in this room. · I am open to both, we can work through staff or continue the item; I just want to make sure we satisfy everyone. · It Seems like the San Jose Water Co. wants to be a good neighbor. Vice Chair Miller: · Is there a pressing urgency to get this completed; is there a business purpose in getting this done as quickly as possible, or is it reasonable to postpone a decision for another meeting. Applicant: · Obviously, security is a pressing issue and we are trying to construct our security facilities as quickly as We can; a few weeks or a month probably won't make a difference. · There is no specific deadline. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 26, 2005 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to continue Application ASA-2005-04 to the May 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, with a view of allowing the applicant and the neighbors to work together to see if there is a way that they can reach a compromise rather than have the Planning Commission impose a solution that nobody may necessarily be happy with. Chair Wong: · Asked staff to ensure that the applicant shows the property line, the existing fence, and clearly show where the secondary fence is and also the electronic motion sensors. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Chen absent; Com. Giefer recused) Chair Wong declared a short recess. 4. GPA-2004-01, EA02004-17 City of Cupertino Citywide Location General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan Subject: Land Use Wrap-up Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Ms. Wordell presented the staff report: · She indicated that Com. Giefer would submit her input on the matrix relative to heights, densities, number of housing units, etc. The staff report included some of the broader discussions the Planning Commission had previously about the possible conversion of industrial/office lands to residential and some of the criteria as to when that might occur. Com. Giefer: · Relative to maximum building heights, across the board I want to go on record saying that I would consider giving both height and density bonuses if it is an affordable housing project. · Clarified that in the Vallco south park with a 60 foot height, and in the City Center with a 45+ height, she would only be willing to do that if it was a project that incorporated some llÚxed use. · The same stipulation applied to Vallco Park North with the height; I would want to see some mixed use in that as well. Chair Wong: · When you are saying that you are giving a bonus for height and density, could you clarify how much more height and density bonus you would give. Com. Giefer: · It would depend on the merit of the project and how well it was designed; I wouldn't want to say that I would go to X, Y, or Z without knowing the known project, but I think it is important for us to keep in mind that housing is important in our community and if we can provide affordable housing or if we can have affordable housing projects within our community, we should look at trying to help them maximize the space they have. · That is a very important principle for us. · Relative to diversity of land use, special centers and the density per acre; I have a problem with the way We currently allocate units in special centers. I feel as though it is very constricting and I would rather have a citywide bank of units that we allocate based on the project and the project type. If it is a meritorious project that is very well designed and provides ample amenities to our community, I think we should look at what units will it Cupertino Planning Commission 14 April 26, 2005 require to make that profitable and livable within our community. As we build out, we do move units from one area to another if we are out of housing allocation; therefore I have difficulty staying within the parameters by the specific buckets that we are trying to put all the units in. I personally would rather have a bank account of units where if we are going to build 2400 units or 3000 units, let's just have a bank of that and as projects come to us, if it is a really well built project, let's try to allocate enough units to it. · I think it is really a quality perspective that I have that what we are doing is arbitrarily assigning units that may inflate or deflate land values and if we just have one bank of them, it seems it is much more even playing field; and I am hoping that we can reward good developers with more units when they bring projects to us. · I know that is a different concept; but I will answer the question by the specific areas but I am very resistant to it and I am very uncomfortable with the process we have here. · Monta Vista ~ units per acre; 71 units allocated. · Valleo Park South - 30 units per acre and a total units between 500 and 700. · Heart of the City - 35 acres per unit; specifically if it is a mixed use project with 620 units allocated there. · Homestead - 35 per acre; 493 · City Center - 35 per acre, 494 a unit. · North DeAnza - 25; 200 units. · Valleo Park North - zero · Bubb Road - zero · In both zeros, if it is an affordable housing project, I would support it, even though I would allocate no units there. · That brings us using the low allocated number for; the low number I uSe of 500 for Valleo Park South rather than the high number, brings me for a total of 2378; with my upside being 2578. Again, I would rather use a round number in a pool of units that we could then decrement that pool as a reward for developers who bring us well designed and developed projects. · Split up the 200 units undesignated and use the 2378; no per acre. · Commercial FAR - I am comfortable with what is recommended in the task force document. · Commercial FAR - Agree that a I: I ratio for projects that are mixed use or business and residence on top; I would agree with that high number, but only if those projects are in the Heart of the City or the City Center. I understand that may not be practical for large projects. · Agreeable to 20% which was in the task force document, and would go higher for well designed, mixed use projects. · Economic Development Plan - agree that big boxes need to be complementary and compatible with our community and We should have a 5 year economic plan. Some property owners said they would like to convert commercial to residential and I am concerned about depleting potential tax revenue dollars for the city. Unless I start hearing that we are also investigating things like looking at a payroll tax or something that is a long term long lasting tax relief for the city, I am not in favor of those ideas. · Relative to One Percent for Art Ordinance - I agree that 50,000 square feet should be the trigger point; I also agree that we should have no in-lieu fees specifically in the City Center and Heart of the City because I think those are areas that we are specifically trying to develop as pedestrian friendly and commercially viable centers of our community. · I agree that if it is on a publicly viewed road or a major thoroughfare, there should be no in- lieu fee accepted. That is the purpose of art in a community. Cupertino Planning Commission ]5 April 26, 2005 Chair Wong: · The topic of setbacks was added that the Planning Commission did not address; and that is before the economic development plan. The task force draft, 35 feet setback for the Heart of the City, I: I setback ratio except for Valleo specified in the General Plan; the draft for the Crossroad plans calls for a 20 foot setback. Do you have any comments regarding setbacks? Com. Giefer: · In general, I support the Heart of the City Specific Plan; I do like the 35 foot setbacks; we may want to deviate from that; my vision of the Heart of the City is as the plan stipulates, to be very pedestrian friendly, a live portion of our city, that people would want to congregate in. · The 1:1 setback ratio except Val leo, I need to think that through a little more. I would like to read the text again of the General Plan. · Crossroads Plan - Discussed some good examples of where 30 feet setbacks or less works well, and 35 doesn't; I would not want to dismiss 20 feet; it goes to how well it is design and what the quality of it is; if you have a patio that is 20 feet away from the row and a double tree planting, I think that is fine if that is where we are going to start counting. If it's the building there and there is no foliage between the tree and the building, that might present a problem, and it also might be very much out of line. We want to break that up if we have a row of buildings we don't want all of the facades to be at exactly the same plane. I would think we would want to break that up by having some of them closer to the street and some of them set back further. Com. Saadati: · Relative to setbacks, I support the task force draft, but we have to provide some flexibility and look at the design and how well it fits in with the area. · I also think we should encourage commercial and support higher commercial with the mixed use encouragement and higher FAR. Vice Chair Miller: · Will defer comments on setbacks to the next meeting. · I did some rethinking about the numbers that we are looking at here; on what we are proposing for increases in commercial square feet; office square feet residential and so forth, and still thinking about the importance of balance and in the community. · It is worthwhile that we go through the exercise of we all know that we have an imbalance of more jobs and housing in the community, and I think it is important that we not exacerbate that and it is a fairly straight forward exercise to just go through the numbers and we are proposing a certain amount of additional housing units, the task force proposed 2300; that is not necessarily a bad number and in fact is supported by the ABAG numbers. · Are the number of square feet of office and industrial and commercial space we are proposing, going to make the numbers worse, and if it is, then perhaps we should either be increasing the housing units or reducing the number of square feet that we are proposing for further growth in the city. · The reasoning behind this is I believe that if a community creates a job, I think it has a responsibility to put a housing unit in place for the worker that fills that job; it is in my view responsible government not to push that responsibility on to our neighbors in Sunnyvale, or Mountain View or Tracy or wherever the workers have to go in order to live. It is not acceptable to say you can work here, spend your money here, but when it comes to living here, go somewhere else. · Conversely it is not fair of Sunnyvale and Mountain View and San Jose to do the same to us; and it is important that we start looking at this in a more rigorous way and try to solve the problem together instead of pushing it off to our neighbors. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 26, 2005 Com. Miller: · It makes sense to look at the numbers from the standpoint of not getting any further out of balance than we already are, and adjusting either the industrial or commercial space down or the housing numbers up to at least be in balance moving forward. · There is a substantial difference in terms of what the task force proposed in terms of additional commercial and industrial space vs. the number of housing units; it doesn't seem consistent; and makes our problem here from a housing standpoint worse in creating additional issues for us. Mr. Piasecki: · If you were strategic about the space you have on the ground, if you allowed .5 million square feet functionally obsolete space to be removed, you could backfill that with .5 million square feet of truly sales tax high revenue producing, even higher property tax generating uses. · Cupertino should be selfish about getting some new stuff on the ground that is viably economical, that can be supported in the community, that contributes to the community in sales and property tax and low demand for our services, to try and get a better balance. · We are economically out of balance, and there is an opportunity with some of the proposals that people are bringing forward; they need to prove to you that these things are functionally obsolete as well; they need to demonstrate that whatever they bring in along the lines of what Com. Giefer was raising, they would demonstrate that with a school impact study it can be a positive contribution to our school situation as well as the community situation. There are some interesting opportunities you have before you with the changing market. Chair Wong: · If some of the buildings are obsolete, if we don't have some kind of mechanism to encourage them to remodel to Class A, to tear them down to invest in the future for Cupertino, then We won't have a future space when the economy picks up. Vice Chair Miller: · I agree that things have to pay for themselves, whether it is a mixed uSe project and we assume there is some residential as part of that, then the commercial part will hopefully cover the expenses of the residential part. · Alternatively, we should be looking at developer fees or special assessment districts or as staff said, perhaps there are ways to coax some of the employers here to ensure that the sales dollars they do generate, generate tax dollars for us in the community. The larger employers have the ability to shift tax dollars from one community to another if they so chose. Com. Giefer: · Out of the 2.1 million square feet of commercial, how much is already locked in an allocation for Hewlett Packard or Apple? Ms. Wordell: · I don't believe Apple has any; they are at their floor area max; Hewlett Packard has a development agreement with a couple hundred thousand square feet still available to them. They are also talking about taking down a building of about 100,000 square feet which would be replaceable square footage. Vice Chair Miller: · Relative to Com. Giefer's comment about conversion in industrial zones; if there is a facility that hasn't been producing for a long time and is not benefiting anyone, we need to think of Cupertino Planning Commission 17 April 26, 2005 what other uses could go there, and it could be a prime target for redevelopment and change of use. · Staff mentioned there were some buildings in the north Vallco area next to Santa Clara that are vacant now and not being used, and there in particular those buildings would have the least impact on the city because they are at the edge of the city, at the edge of the development area, and the school district is Santa Clara, which wouldn't impact our schools. Chair Wong: · Relative to maximum bldg height, 24 to 30 feet, I will go to 30 feet if it has good design. The reason why I am sensitive about the Monta Vista neighborhood, is it is a low impact suburban neighborhood and I want to keep it that way; it is a historic neighborhood that I want to protect. · When you suggested a bucketlbank vs allocating for special centers, the only concern I have is that each neighborhood will have an expectation of how many units there are going to be; or how many per acre; and when you allow more, it is a loophole given to the neighborhood that there will be concern. · I would rather support an undesignated area rather than giving a bucket per se, and I don't mind increasing, if they have good design or mixed use, to give them more allocation coming out of undesignated; but we have to set a max. Com. Giefer: · Clarified that she was not saying she would not specify how many units per acre; but would be more comfortable with is not saying how many units per area. · In Vallco Park South my personal view is I would be comfortable building 30 units per acre in that area, and if you come in and present a project to me that meets that criteria and meets the height criteria for that specific area, whatever we have agreed, and Council has approved; then we would allocate the units to that project out of the bank. · If you need more units or less we are going to move them around anyway. I would still have a per acre density, because I think we have to give guidelines for developers for the type of project we are looking for in that area. We have to set some expectation so they are not coming in with a 60 foot building in Monta Vista. Com. Giefer: · It is the actual units; in reality if the project has merit, we are going to try to find the units and move them from one other area to that area. · I suggest that rather than milling out, if you keep them in a bank and when a project comeS in and meets the height and density and quality we are looking for in our community, then you fund it with the housing units. Chair Wong: · I respect your opinion, and it clarifies per acre. The only concern that I have is that, using Vallco Rosebowl as an example; they did a good job in the architectural design and development, but there was a councilmember's and community concern; how do we determine density on a mixed use project, together with a commercial. · That is another policy we have to look into as well for mixed use, and that is what is the right density of housing together with commercial, so that again there is some question about a shortage of allocation in Vallco Park South, in the 1993 plan. · That is why if there is a set number, we won't go over in the community, as long as We meet the ABAG numbers. I agree with what Com. Giefer said and reiterate that for the commercial FAR if We go I: I it has to go vertical mixed uSe and allow more density in height; it goes to location; location; location. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 April 26, 2005 · Relative to setbacks, Heart of the City, I support the 35 foot setback developed two decades ago and was a vision of the City Council. We need to give them time to implement that; it took 25 years to implement the Cyprus Hotel and Apartments. Chair Wong: · Even with the Crossroad streetscape plan, Mr. Piasecki said that it would take another 20 or 30 years to implement that plan also. Mr. Piasecki: · That is true with the long range plans you deal with; Monta Vista is another example, that has been developing over decades as has been the streetscape plan along Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. North DeAnza Boulevard actually was one of the plans that took only about a decade to implement. Chair Wong: · For the Heart of the City I support 35 feet; regarding the Crossroad plan, I will give flexibility between 30 to 35. · I support the I: I setback ratio except for Vallco; I need to read more about the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Homestead and Tantau area. · Com. Giefer and Vice Chair Miller had a good point regarding economic development, for converting a rezoning industrial area to housing. I know that Vice Chair Miller feels that there are areas on the edge of the city that should be converted; but I am leery about doing it; there is an impact on schools and there are various opinions regarding school impacts in Cupertino School District and Fremont Union H.S. District. I was not aware some of our children attend schools in Santa Clara as well. · Payroll taxes is something we should look into but I would like to see what the impacts are but I think that is a good idea. · I think that as we build more housing in Cupertino and take away from industrial we need to see what the impact is on Cupertino, and I would like to see a study before we further rezone our industrial and commercial area. I think the emphasis should be on retail now; it is market driven and I don't want to put the blame anywhere, but I feel that we need to do extra harder to concentrate on medium and big boxes. 1 am not saying we need a Costco or Walmart in town, but 1 think that we need an office retail or bookstore. · The emphasis on the General Plan should be more on supporting retail. · I do want to follow up with what Vice Chair Miller said regarding the housing imbalance that commercial vs. industrial vs. retail; I would like to discuss it at another meeting. · I would like to discuss the vision of Cupertino at another meeting; have more public input from the community or if they can give it to us tonight or at another meeting about the Crossroad streetscape plan; the visioning of Bubb Road and the vision of Valleo south, especially Valleo Park south. That is virgin territory, we are in the process of talking about the Hewlett Packard property, what we are going to do about it; it looks like there hasn't been too much movement now, but this will be a signal since there are major developments in the three areas mentioned that I would like to see some input since we are talking about visioning if the Planning Commission wants to do so. Vice Chair Miller: · Relative to Com. Giefer's comment about not putting units in specific areas; I would respectfully take the opposite approach. From a strategic standpoint we need to be identifying where we want the primary growth areas to move forward; and I think in this area and other areaS of the country, there is a general trend towards putting housing where the jobs are; putting them in the employment centers. It is interesting to note over the last 1-112 years that Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 26, 2005 in Santa Clara County, condos and townhouses have been more in demand than single family homes. I am not sure what the reasons are, but a large part of that has to be the lower price points. If you are a new engineer and are working in a valley firm, that is about what you can afford and having it close to where you work reduces the traffic issues; and if there is a mixed use project, it makes everything work better. · One of the things we had talked about in the past and we never got to is essentially that, assigning allocations to the different areas of town; and I would ask the Chair if this is the right time to do that. Chair Wong: · This is the appropriate time since we are talking about land use. · Since I didn't see Com. Giefer's comments and how she did, I may reconsider what I did. · I suggest that we review the numbers that Com. Giefer put in. Vice Chair Miller: · One of the things I asked for earlier is to try to balance the numbers; perhaps we should go through that exercise first so that we know the number we are dealing with and then try to allocate them to different areas of town based on what strategic directions we would like to see. Com. Giefer: · I would also like to add that I think your observation with regard to the commercial office space in the General Plan and that growth is very telling, and I think we should reevaluate that, and where do we want to see tþe growth in both housing and jobs and make sure we are marrying those things. · I know that the task force felt strongly that We needed to have strong economic viability for our community which is why they left the commercial largely untouched. To your point that we are out of balance and will continue to be out of balance, perhaps that should go down. · As part of this overall strategic discussion in terms of where the growth should be, we need to consider that as well. Com. Saadati: · About 10% of the people who work in Cupertino, live in Cupertino. If you increase that number it would help the economy; people shop in Cupertino, encourage them to shop, you will double that number and you need to know what the impact will be. I am sure it would be substantial. · Also, affordable housing is another aspect that we need to encourage; that is probably why not more than 10% are living here. · I believe that would be one part of the economic engine to increase the tax base and bring the money into the city. · Of course we are going to need to allocate units in specific areas øød of the city and it has to blend in, and be flexible to some extent; and allocate commercial units. My thoughts on that is mixed uSe would help in all areas. Vice Chair Miller: · My last suggestion was staff was going to come back to us with the numbers on how far out of balance or in balance We are relative to housing and jobs and commercial and industrial space; and we should take a look at that and decide and agree as a group as to what the number is moving forward for housing units and then proceed with an exercise to allocate them to different areas of town. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 April 26, 2005 · That would be in a separate meeting. · There was consensus to have a separate meeting to discuss the Crossroads, and discuss the visioning of what was wanted there. The areas would be Bubb Road, Val1co Park South, Monta Vista, and the Crossroads. · Com. Giefer suggested a miscellaneous wrap-up for minor items. Ms. Wordell: · Explained that staff was developing a matrix that will follow the General Plan as far as corrections to be made and suggestions made, to pull together what the majority have said want changed, shown page by page. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive: · Distributed a copy of her comments. · Staff has continually stated that the present Heart of the City Plan does not have room for any more housing units. · Stated for the record a request that the Heart of the City Plan not be changed to include any more housing units and that you not approve housing on the Hewlett Packard property. · We need major commercial development for the tax benefits; our city can be bankrupt if we are not diligent about encouraging major commercial development as you have stated. · The area near Wolfe and Stevens Creek is being built, and traffic pollution, city services and schools will pay the price. · Chris Wang in the previous City Council meeting stated that if everything requested is approved, the population of that comer area will be 5% of the total population of Cupertino. Over 2,000 people will be living on that corner. · Relative to the Marketplace Shopping Center, the residents nearby the center are concerned about the plans to remove the building along the back of the center and build mixed use with retail on the bottom and condos on top. This plan impacts the whole neighborhood in terms of traffic, pollution, and cooking odors; and there are already problems with cooking odors which they have promised to correct but have not done so yet. · The nuisance code states that citizens should retain their privacy and their property values. I see an allegiance to the building contractors, but I haven't seen allegiance or sympathy for long time residents who wish to enjoy their city. · Our elected officials should be protecting our rights. · Please slow down approving housing developments; give the present authorized developments the opportunity to have an impact on traffic and schools before you approve any more. · Bad planning cannot be corrected after it has been built and with the lack of revenue force our city into bankruptcy. · Asked that her comments be kept as a permanent record. Ned Britt, Pepper Tree Lane: · In looking over the task force draft General Plan documents which indicate proposed 2,337 additional housing units, if you assume that 15% of them are BMR, 351; other places in that same document are allocations of different classes of subsidized housing, some very low income, and some moderately low. · Is there a non-spoken agenda to build more units in order to reach the 15% requirement to generate 500 low unit housing as opposed to the 15% of 2,337 which is only 351. I don't know, I never heard anybody talk about that. It wouldn't be possible to maintain those two ratios consistently if my numbers are right. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 April 26, 2005 · Since residing in Cupertino, I have been involved in the founding of 5 different companies in 6 different locations; never once has there been a consideration of the people who did those foundings to try and live where the business was. They would like to live in places like Cupertino. It is not typical to do that, you are trying to change things now into a case where you think people would live upstairs and go downstairs and work in a store and come back; that is not the way the valley was built or the people who own houses and live here, want it to stay. Not to mention the fact that it is intractable from a financial standpoint to kill the jobs by de-allocating commercial planned space and try to build more housing;\ · As the previous speaker mentioned and SOme council members pointed out, the cost of infrastructure will far outstrip the gains in property taxes and the city will just go further into financial debt. · I support the idea of more commercial, less housing. · When you are illustrating these questions about how many units in different areas and how much setback, how much height, it seems you should be presenting for the community what the task force majority met and tried to come up with. I don't see that being discussed; only what the different commissioners want. David Greenstein, Byrne Avenue: · Recycling batteries is an excellent idea. · Relative to land use issues the city is headed in good directions and asked where all the housing should go in Crossroads, Bubb Road, Valleo. · This valley has an economic engine of jobs, business, housing and there are not too many people who talk about that; they talk about keeping people out because they don't want any more people. · I don't know too many people who moved here who didn't consider this place as a great growth place, and those jobs, business, housing go together; so to make Cupertino a great place, we have to have all those things. · I think you are headed in the right direction as far as area specific where We have to put our housing, Valleo seems to be the right place because of all the freeways and roads there. The Crossroads - anything on DeAnza or Stevens Creek Boulevard are the right places to put these because someone suggested that you don't put any housing there. Where do we put it; they are implying that we are going to put the housing all in the neighborhoods and I think that is the wrong place to put it. I think we should put it on our major corridors; those are the places where our growth is and that is also the place where we want to put our traffic. · It was noted by a speaker that nobody lives near their jobs; many are moving to areas such as Tracy and commuting to Cupertino, spending the day in their car, and not leaving their taxes and sales tax in Cupertino. It would be better if we had those people here instead of living all over the geography; and we need to balance that jobslhousing imbalance that Vice Chair Miller eluded to. · We have a crisis in that particular area and we also have a crisis in the city's financial area and we have to have the right buildings with retail and we have to have the mixed use. You are headed in the right direction and are to be commended for the way you are taking this discussion. Kathy Robinson, FaraIlone Drive: · Was a member of the General Plan Task Force and one of the minority members who signed the Minority Report. · My vision for the city is a strong economy so that we can provide the level of services that we all want for our citizens and a mix of affordability in housing so that all segments of the community individuals and families can afford to live here. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 April 26, 2005 · I applaud your efforts in looking at the jobs and housing discussion as part of the General Plan. · I don't have any specific numbers with respect to densities or where units should be located, we felt that the staff's recommendation in the General Plan that the task force began with were sound. I urge you to look at something close to that, because I think it will provide a tool for the staff, yourselves and the City Council to really plan and develop our city and achieve our vision in the future. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · I hope that the future of Cupertino will be something We can all look forward to. · Is Cupertino going to be a bedroom community or a high tech commercial city? The city should have designated tech areas that are protected and maintained as tech areas. · What is the projected buildout population for Cupertino? 65,000 if we protect the high tech area, or 95,000 if we subdivide every commercial holding for housing. · Do we want to have a resident density like San Francisco, or do we want to keep it below that? Our public resources in the city such as our schools are at full impact now, DeAnza College has an enrollment Over 30,000 and they are at full capacity and have layoff lists. · I hope that we can see a city that has a good mix for the residents here. I do hope that we can look to protect our tech areas; they are very important for the future of Cupertino because Apple, Hewlett Packard, Semantec and many other high tech companies have come out of Cupertino and Cupertino has a great heritage in the high tech arena, and it is coming back from all indications. · Because the Vallco, Tantau and Ridgeview areas are the last buildable areas in Cupertino, in the rush to build in this virgin area, please do not compromise the integrity of this part of Cupertino because this area is away from the center of the city; please do not allow rules that work for the rest of the city to be overlooked here. This area is an important area to Cupertino just as is the City Center. Please do not sacrifice the integrity by allowing increased building heights, reducing setbacks and increased density in the haste to build in this area. · There are residents who want the Val1co, Tantau and Ridgeview areas to have trees, greenbelts, setbacks and views of the mountains; why should the quality of life in southern Cupertino be any less valuable than anywhere else in the city? Allowing compromises to be made to the Val1co, Tantau, Ridgeview areas in building lowers the quality of life to residents in southern Cupertino. Ed Shaffer, Attorney for Taylor Woodrow Homes: · The city's General Plan since 1993 has identified the Bubb Road area as an opportunity area for residential development conversion of industrial space to residential, 150 units in the current General Plan of which 56 have been built. · The task force continues to recognize that designation and as Vice Chair Miller indicates, the current General Plan designations may exacerbate the housing jobs imbalance; it is possible if those numbers were adopted, that ABAG might come in with a higher housing requirement for the city in light of those numbers, making these designations all the more critical for residential development. · My purpose speaking tonight is to ask the Planning Commission if it decides to recommend to the City Council something different from the current General Plan and different from what the task force recommended, that it explain its reasoning for that regarding Bubb Road. · For the benefit of the City Council as it makes its consideration, I think you owe it to the property owners as well who have been looking at the General Plan all these years. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 April 26, 2005 Dennis Whitaker, resident: · How much is enough? I don't think we ever got to that point in looking in the future as visionaries; where do we draw the line on what is the best for Cupertino? · Seven Springs should have taught us a lesson that at the time it was built people said schools won't be impacted; but I come from the neighborhood of Faria and Jollyman where our kids have to cross dangerous streets, they have to go a far way to school, break their continuity and there is going to be more traffic getting the kids to and from. · Traffic on Stelling and Stevens Creek and DeAnza is worse now than in the past 31 years. Without the new housing being constructed yet our schools are impacted and our traffic is impacted; we need smart controlled growth; we need to see now what we are doing and where we are going from here. Too much is going on now and we need to digest it now. · There are 2200 cars one way added onto Stevens Creek and DeAnza; we have no control over DeAnza College and no control over the community surrounding us, yet they go through us. · Investments for our future need to be protected; what about the finances for our city; please do not easily give away the retail and the commercial that the high school district said they need so much as far as tax dollars go. Plan for a good future for our future. · I would like Mr. Piasecki and Vice Chair Miller to answer why there is a correlation between huge numbers of housing going on in the Bay Area and look at the huge increase in prices; something is going on that doesn't Seem right when we are trying to get affordable housing for our kids and family. · We desire density in the Heart of the City; I don't; but that is what is being said; how is traffic going to easily get around the Heart of the City when you add so much more density and get rid of the attitude of jobs to housing; why don't we adopt the new attitude, what is beneficial most for our city. · We need boutique shopping in the area, a Westgate in the Crossroads and a major mall in Vallco; please help us get the retail back. · Weare not trying to keep people out; we are trying to do what is first needed in our city and that is keep the city financially sound and then go on from there. · Plan as best you can to save our future; it is vitally important for those of us who plan to stay here; and if you don't control it, it is going to get out of control; once you build you cannot tear it down. Tom Huganin, La Roda Court: · How will the major employers react to payroll taxes; will they keep the jobs here; how would their employees react? The only city that does that is New York City. · Assessment districts - the property owners willing to vote for an assessment district and they are only a land owner and own a lot of property; that is a bright idea. Maybe that could help in certain situations; can we encourage that; it is up to the property owner to vote for it. There is only one property owner and they are the only one voting for it; it is fairly easy to pass it. If they don't want to do it, you aren't going to get any money from them. · Living close to your job - most engineers last 5 years in their job and they are onto the next one because it is something more creative to do; that job may be in one comer of the valley five years from now, and may be in another comer of the valley in another five; it depends on where the employment is at. · Impact on the high school and the elementary district - I can't emphasize it enough, that is one of the most important things we have in Cupertino; the most important thing to almost everyone who lives in the city. Don't destroy that! Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 Aprij 26, 2005 Ms. Wordell: · Discussed the future meeting schedule and constraints involved in reserving meeting rooms. · May 10'h should be changed to a regular meeting, not General Plan meeting. · Suggested continuing the item to May 10'h to set dates. There was consensus to continue Application M-2oo5-0l to May 10,2005. OLD BUSINESS 5. Planning Commission 2005 Work Program. Com. Saadati: · Said it was consistent with discussions held. Com. Giefer: · Said she would like to have further clarification on the tree ordinance, because many native species are not included, such as Bay Laurel. · Recommended that staff review the tree ordinance, specifically native species that should be listed as protected, but are not; and remove some non-native species that don't belong there. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: · Chair Wong reported that a meeting will be held Wednesday, April 27'h Housinl! Commission: · Com. Saadati reported on the Aprill4'h meeting, which included a presentation by a consultant relative to fees. · The Housing Commission made a recommendation to the City Council based on building types analyzed; currently the city has a fee of $2.25 square foot for developers on office and high tech. Recommendation included $4.75 per square foot fee for all types of building, office high tech, retail and hotels. Mavor's Meetinl! With Commissioners: · Chair Wong reported that the monthly meeting was changed to a bi-monthly meeting. · There will be three more afternoon teas scheduled; Corns. Miller, Saadati, and Chen will receive information to schedule attendance at the meetings. Economic Development Committee Meetinl!: · Vice Chair Miller reported that the focus of the meeting was to discuss the Oaks Shopping Center, which was recently purchased by Peter Hewe-Pau. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: · Mr. Piasecki reported on his and Chair Wong's attendance at the recent Planners' Institute in Pasadena. · Reported that the city recently hosted the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials. He provided a review of the schedule and presentations.