Loading...
PC 06-15-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:00 P.M. June 15, 2005 WEDNESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The special Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Gilbert Wong Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Colin Jung City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chair Wong moved the agenda to Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2. EXC-2005-08 (EA-2005-02) Hillside exception for a new 6,500 squaze foot Martin Bernstein residence on a prominent ridgeline with slopes 22362 Regnart Road greater than 30% and exceptions to the maximum wall height on the downhill elevation and to exceed the malcimum grading quantities. Planning Commission decision final unless Appealed. Request pastponement to the June I5, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Colin Jung, presented the staff report: • Noted that the application was to demolish an existing house to build a new 6,500 square foot residence at 22362 Regnart Road. The exceptions requested aze the rebuilding of a house on a prominent ridgeline, development of more than 500 squaze feet on slopes greater than 30%; Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 15, 2005 exception for the maximum wall height on the downhill elevation, and exceeding the maximum grading quantity of 2,500 cubic yazds. • Reviewed the location of the property on a site map. • The applicant is proposing a two level house, the ground level is 4,000 sq. ft., lower basement level is 2,477 sq. ft. The required parking for the home is 4 plus an additional 2 parking spaces since there is no street pazking in the azea, and they are providing 9 spaces total. • Reviewed the topographic map of the azea. • The main issue with the house is the visibility of the residence. He reviewed the policies in the General Plan regarding visibility of hillside homes. • The house has the scaffolding erect, and photos were taken with the story poles up to see if it was visible or not; and the conclusion drawn was that there was no residence visible from the 6 vantage points; but the house is visible from neighboring properties, with the caveat that most neighbors of that surrounding area support the project, and there aze letters to support that. • The applicant took the following measures to reduce the house visibility: o The house has a single story profile since they buried one story below grade. o The design is simple, lineaz on a ridgeline and the roof pitches are in the same line as the hillside slope. o There is a requirement to use muted earth tones in the building finishes. o The applicant is proposing planting of additional trees to screen the house. • Reviewed the elevations of the house and the proposed landscape plan. • There aze some other exception issues for which they aze requesting an exception: (1) the development on slopes greater than 30%; most of the propeRy is on slopes greater than 30%, but they aze proposing development to occur on the existing house pad which is the flattest poRion of the property. It will still need some excavation for the driveway access and a flat area that they desire for a covered patio to the east; they will be screening these new grading cuts with landscaping. The applicant is also asking for a taller downhill facing wall height than what is allowed by the ordinance. The intent oF that section is to address highly visible walls that aze unarticulated, but that is not the case. What we have here for both the garage side and the patio side, aze deeply recessed walls, highly articulated walls that don't have the mass and visual impact that you would with a blank tall wall. T'he landscaping uound it makes the wall appear smaller than it actually is. The maximum grading allowed is 2500 cubic yards unless you get an exception; they are only exceeding it by 100 cubic yards, 2600 cubic yards and that is needed to allow the house to be dug deeper in the ground. Past Planning Commissions have found this type of exception to be acceptable especially when it results in a less visible house. • One of the neighbors had some issues with the house; he submitted a letter in support of the project, but since then has modified his support for it. He has a number of concerns: o Downslope of the house itself, he is concemed about the grading that may result in damage to downslope improvemen[s, par[iculazly the fence. He has a vineyazd below and is concemed about the damage to the fence and allowance of animals into the vineyard which would hann his plantings. o Concemed about the grading activating slides on the propedy and result of excessive construction traffic from excessive grading. The grading itself is only 100 cubic yards more than what is currently allowed. The city geologist is looking at this project and has offered his recommendations of approval with it, with the appropriate mitigations. As faz as the damage to the fence itself, I am sure the applicant and the downslope owner can work something out in the event that something of that nature happens. o The house will result in increased impervious surfaces which is true in drainage on lullside slopes. Typically the city geologist will design a drainage system that takes off the Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 15, 2005 drainage flow from the steep slopes onto azeas where it is acceptable to drain to. It may be a downslope azea, maybe on the street, but not on the steeper or exposed slopes. • One of the neighbors is concerned that emergency access roads should not be used for construction traffia l tttink the existing road will suffice for access to this project, but one issue that we will discuss later regazding the sanitary sewer access, if and when the sanitary sewers aze put in, the emergency access would be trenched and it would have to be repaired as a result of the installation of that utility. The neighbor contends that the architecture is not compatible with the hillside environment and I previously talked about that, and staff would azgue against that in that the azchitecture is compatible with the surroundings. • The last issue relates to sanitary sewer access. There aze no sanitary sewers in the Regnart Canyon area, but all septic system now, and that has been a hindrance to the creation of any sizable dwelling on the propeRy because of the limitations of a septic system on a hillside environment. • The applicant is proposing to connect to the sanitary sewer system on Lindy Lane which is downslope from the property; and the path, since there aze a number of properties that intervene between the applicanYs property and Lindy Lane, the idea would be run the sewer line down the emergency access easement. The Sanitary District will issue a letter saying they will service it once the sanitary line is put in. • StafPs recommendation is to approve the hillside exception application per the model resolutian. Mr. Jung answered commissioners' questions regarding the application. Martin Bernstein, Architect for the McCamish residence: • We consider ourselves stewazds of this land and wish to respect it by addressing building height, profile, size, mass, landscaping, views and drainage. • We have reviewed the plans with the neighbors and received 7 unanimous letters of support; we have a letter of approval from the president and treasurer of the azchitectural review committee of the Regnart Homeowners Assoc., and unanimous support from the CupeRino Sanitation District for the installation of the new sewer connection; We aze nnproving the drainage system by collecting any runoff and connecting to the existing storm sewer system; the new home will be viewed as a one story structure because the lower level is depressed below grade. The massing of the building is greaUy reduced because of the transparency of the loggias on the east and west elevations. • Relative to Com. Giefer's concern about the oak tree, we addressed the concern by Barry Coates regazding the one patio, and on the landscape plan have removed the patio where it was undemeath the drip line. It was never the intention that the house be under the drip plan of the tree, but patios were; we have subsequently removed the patio from the drip line of the tree. • We also had unanimous approval from the ERC; their concems were trees and drainage. We are removing the eucalyptus trees, and any tree removed will be replaced at least on a 1:1 ratio. • Regazding drainage, the drainage system takes the drains all the way to an existing storm drain system located southward. We aze greatly improving the existing drainage situation. For those of you who have been to the site, you have seen the access road where the asphalt is cracking and there is some seepage there; there is also tree debris there. By repaving the access road and installing the sewer system, it provides the opportunity to create the proper swales so all drainage goes through the drainage system greatly enhancing the current system. It is a sensitive area and it is important that we capture all rainwater produced by this project down to the proper channels. • Regazding the concem from the neighbor living downhill, during construction, he said they would not have any access trucks or delivery trucks, equipment trucks going down the access Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 15, 2005 road and Regnart Canyon Road; everything will be directly from Regnart Road itself, and that has strict guidelines with how much weight can be on that road. • Said the house was about 20 feet from the access road, the emergency road on [he west side. • Relative to the dirt being removed from the site, about 100 - 150 cubic yards of dirt will be used on the site; as we improve the access road, we may need to reinforce some of the fill to make that happen, or some of the retaining walls there, so wherever possible, for money savings as well as environmentally, we want to incorporate that soil to help stabilize any work we would do on the access road. • Relative to the sewer access, we have a"will serve" lettec from the Sanitary District which gives the applicant permission to submit for construction drawings for a permit for installation of the sewer system; so we have done the documentation of the title reports of neighboring properties. We believe it meets the requirements of the Sanitary District. • This rendering illustrates the placement of the trees which will mitigate We visibility of the house. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Mary Rose MacKerrow, LaPlaya Court: • Opposed to application. • I am concerned about so many exceptions being made to the current General Plan; I feel that there were good reasons the rules were put in when the Plan was defined related to size, visibility, and elevation. • I am also concemed about the visibility; I heard the photos may have been taken on a cloudy day by the applicant; it seems logical to have the photos taken by Plaimivg Commissioners or staff so it wouldn't appear to be one-sided. • Recently there were landslides in Laguna Beach where hillside homes slid down the hill; it could happen here also. About 35 years ago there was a slippage of a house on Lindy Lane destroying the property beneath it, which is a concem. If something similar happened here, the emergency response team from the city of Cupertino would be involved, which would be at a great cost to all the taxpayers. All these things should be taken into consideration. • Relative to tree growth, the trees shown are large trees, but it takes a long time for trees to grow, and it will not look that pleasant for a long time. George Luc6essi, resident: • Neutral on the application. • Two letters aze in the packet; the reason for the second letter was in response to your legal notice that if I didn't bring up some subjects, I might lose some legal rights; that is why I stated everything I did. • I have three additional concems: the water main and the sewer main will be under the same road; it could be close together, within 5 feet; the sewer line may cross the water main in two spots; the map doesn't show the connection between the end of Regnart Road and the emergency access easement. They do in fact connect and they show on the map. • Their consultant plotted those easements and I am not sure Wey coincide with the actual easement on the ground; I would prefer that someone survey this and establish where these easements actually ue on the ground. • At one point, the existing easement seems to go undemeath the house pad in one comer, which needs to be addressed. • I am concerned that the easements are as plotted. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 15, 2005 Jennifer Griffin, resident: • Said she was pleased that the oak trees were acknowledged on the pcoperty; and that it was [aken into account that part of the house was well within the drip line; it looked like the house was on top of the tree. If people building the house understood that, they are removing the patio structure, the concrete slab or whatever was proposed for undemeath the oak tree. • Suggested not having lawn under the oak tree, because it will kill an oak tree if there is too much wa[er on it. • Another concern is the two story loggia which is over the back of the property; appears to be 23 feet. I understood that it it two stories, it has to have a setback; this does not appeaz to be even for one story. I have concerns about this looking like Monticello or Washington's home along the Potomac; it is beautiful azclutecture but I would be concemed about having a precedent for this set in these hillside azeas. • I hope we can protect the trees and the views. May Koski, resident: • My husband and I do not support approval of the proposed new McCamish residence. • The proposed design is unsatisfactory with regazd to privacy, building height, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and views. • It has impacts to our property and to Greg Young's property and to users of Fremont Older open space who have not been considered during the planning process. We have not received any notices regazding the development and had no idea this was the final hearing. • We have several concems and are conFident they can be corrected before the proposed residence receives its final approval. • We have a small house, spend a lot of time outside throughout the year; the existing McCamish house, while on the ridgeline is smaller setback and low enough to not impact our privacy and view. The proposed home with its greater height above the ridgeline and its increased size will be unpleasant to look at. • The proposed changes also influence the enjoyment of ridgeline views for thousands of people who enjoy the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve throughout the year and particularly the view from Hunter's Point and the woodland hills trail. There is no mention of the impact to us or to the users of the Fremont Older Open Space in any of the Planning Department documents. • With regard to the site development, it is a new development and it doesdt meet the 15% site line, RHS criteria; in fact it is built on the ridgeline. The logical use for suppoct is that this house replaces an existing house wluch also did not meet the site line criteria. • I spoke with a longtime resident John Golsen who also lives on Regnart Road who explained that the existing homes on the ridgeline were allowed years ago because the photos used to determine the site line used Montebello Ridge instead of the actual ridgeline of Regnart Road. We could probably live with this reasoning if the house was not higher than the existing house, but it is significantly higher. • We are supposed to be protecting our hillsides and two wrongs don't make a right. • Height - the height from the existing grade in the front of the house to the top of the entry way is 28 feet, 4 inches, which is a lot higher than the existing house. It is distressing considering new homes are not supposed to be on the ridgelines. If you make an exception for this homeowner, there are lots of homes on the ridgeline that were allowed back in the 70s and you will be setting a precedent for a lot of other home owners present and future. • Landscaping - From examination of the tree inventory and landscape plan, it appeazs that few trees and no perennial trees aze planted to screen the proposed home from a large portion of our property and the new visual problems that we face. • I have not received any notice about this. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June I 5, 2005 • We also have outdoor lighting issues and we just feel bad that we were never informed. Greg Young and I would like to discuss this with the homeowners before the plan receives its final approval so that we can try and mitigate our concems. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: • Staff clarified that an outside consultant was hired to take the photos. • Asked staff for clarification on who received the notification Ms. Wordell: • Said it would have gone to a 500 foot list; ten days prior to the public hearing. Chair Wong: • The other concem is how many exceptions aze we making, if any? • Could you also address the concem about the water main and sewer line being too close. Mr. Jung: • Four zoning exceptions; there is an exception process in the RHS; these are not General Plan exceptions. The exception process was put into the zoning ordinance to give applicants' development flexibility because of the extreme difficulty in building in hillside environments. • The Public Works Department and Sanitary District will address the concem of the water main and sewer line being too close. Vice Chair Miller: • What is the height of the current building in comparison to the height of the new building? Mr. Ramsey, Architect: . The existing house ridge is about 16 feet to the floor, 8 foot ceilings and about 4 or 5 feet to the ridge. The main part of the house shown in the lower section B, has 19.6, it is about 3 feet higher than the existing house. Mr. Jung: • There is a 30 foot height lnnit for hillside homes, measured from the grade. • Relative to proposed outdoor lighting, he said he was not awaze that they had proposed any outdoor lighting with the new house. The lighting is an afterthought, typically when they tum in the building permit application, you may see some light fixtures on it. • What we normally do is request that the lights themselves use full cutoff features and just illuminate the parts that need to be illuminated. . Relative to Ms. Koski's concem about color and windows not reflecting out into the valley, there are color standards and reflectivity standards for the colors used with buildings. There is a condition in the hillside exception stating the applicant shall comply with the ordinance, but in this particulu case it is written that they must be muted earth tones for the exterior finishes and the reflectivity values reflect what is in the ordinance. Vice Chair Miller: • The applicant has gone to considerable lengths to build a house that is compatible with the area; it is higher than the existing house, but from a height standpoint, still falls within the ordinance guidelines. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 15, 2005 • In the current house, there are a number of drainage pipe coming out from the house and drain directly down the hillside slope, and drain into the neighbor's vineyazd. The applicant is upgrading the drainage system to improve the drainage on the lot, which is a benefit. • The applicant is also proposing to redo the access road wluch is in need of repair. There is also a wood retaining which is flimsy and potentially would become a hazard to the neighbors, and they are proposing to remove it and replace it with a substantial wall that will improve the safety and drainage and make it a better road for the neighbors in the azea. • I am concerned that some of the neighbors did not get notice, it is easy in the hillside azea to exceed the 500 foot noticing area and still be a neighbor of this facility. That is an issue for me; I think it is impoRant that all the neighbors get to voice their concerns and that they be adequately addressed, and Mrs. Koski did not get that opportunity. • I noted that the majority of the neighbors have written letters in favor of this application going forwazd and the comments were that the current house was an eyesore and this is a significant improvement over what is currently there. • I am inclined to favor moving forwazd with this application, but I am concerned that we havedt taken all the input from all the neighbors. Mr. Jung: • Correct previous information provided eazlier in the meeting. A question was asked about the maximum height of the house, sheet A61. Looking at the peak of the roof of the cupola, it shows a height when you take the height measurement from the edge of the property; the height of the cupola is shown as being 27 feet 4 inches; however, the way we measure height is from the ~ound and vertical. • I suggest that the point below the cupola on the ground to the top of the peak of the roof is closer to 26 feet, about 27 feet, not the 23 or 24 I previously estimated. Com. Giefer: • I think the plan has been sensitive in protecting the live oaks on the site; and I appreciate that because they aze beautiful old trees. Some of the other trees that are proposed to be removed actually wuld be somewhat of a Fire hazard in the azea. However, I have some reservations about this project. • Regnart Road floods and got wiped out twice in the past ten yeazs; that access road that is along this property is very important because you can't count on Regnart Road being there, and the reason it closes, is because of slides or the creek undercuts the road and the road caves in. That is an important thing in my mind because we do live in a neighborhood with expansive soil. I also have faith that the sewer and water lines in the easement, I believe is something Public Works will straighten out, but I am somewhat concemed about that because I don't know how well that has been looked at tlus point. • Regarding May Koski's point regazding visibility from the eastern portion of the canyon, the open space there, every one of the homes looking west from Hunter's Point in the Woodhilis Trail, you can see every one of those houses. Even though I think the visibility on the ridgeline for the neighborhood and the valley floor is actually minimal; I think anyone who hikes up in those hills will have a very strong view of this propeRy. The measurement of the cupola we learned was 27 feet, 4 inches; but we have a 23 foot exposed wall on the east side. If you aze looking at the house, the potential bottom of that grade to the top of the cupola could be as much as 50 feet. You aze going to see a lot of house when you are hiking in the open space, and I think we have a very strong and a very good hillside policy and I particularly am concerned about the exposed wall from the open space and from the east side of the canyon. • I am not in favor of this application; I would reconsider it if there was a way to mitigate and reduce the amount of exposed surface from the viewpoint of the east side. Cupertino Planning Commission S June I 5, 2005 Chair Wong: • If we were to mitigate it with more trees and landscaping, would you be supportive of that? Com. Giefer: • Not certain if the landscaping would improve that, because We trees and shrubberies may not provide adequate coverage. Relative to the vantage point from Hunter's Point in the Woodland's Trail, there is another house below it with the same profile; they have a turret and it has big Xs along the bottom of it, and have tried to screen the bottom of that house with shrubbery. I see the house, but on the ridgeline instead of partway down the mountain. I would hope it could be screened,. I am not conFident that it can be effectively screened from the vantage point, because you will almost be at the same height as the home itself and it is highly visible along the whole trail between the Regnart Trailhead and Hunter's Point • I still think because this house has a cupola and it has that 23 foot long wall, the visibility of it is still going to seem enormous from the opposing ridgeline which is the open space trail. Even though it is not a valley view issue to me it is the beauty that one enjoys and we pay deazly for that open space in acquuing it and maintaining it, and I am glad we have it. It is a tremendous asset to our community. Com. Saadati: • I have some concems that need to be addressed, although some of it can be done by staf£ The she~eNse sewer line is sometlung that usually Public Works looks at but it needs to be addressed eazly on rather than later. It needs to be checked to make sure that those should be accurately reflected on the drawing; you aze saying it will be looked at when they submit the plans for permit. Ms. Wordell: • I concur with Mr. Jung, that it was prepazed by a civil engineer. Com. Saadati: . The information needs to be accurate; at this time it seems that the accuracy is doubted; during the permit process it can be addressed. • Relative to the easement, I would like to see a followup to get a validation of that [he design engineer or civil engineer who did the survey can review his work, and suggest that a condition be added to verify it. • The photo on Page 6 does not accurately show the house, and I am concemed about the visibility from the valley below. I would like to continue this, and come back and address the visibility issue, especially concerning Eeek-6iefe~s issues raised by Com. Giefer. The house overall looks very nice, and the height is within the guidelines, but my main concern is visibility, and from this drawing there is no assurance that it will be addressed. If they put a condition that if the house is visible, the occupancy permit cannot be issued and how you correct it. It would be better to have some information that with 95% certainty tkaE there won't be an issue relative to the visibility. • I would like to continue it; as part of the 500 foot, I agree with Com. Miller and the flatland, the 500 feet is suitable, but on any kind of hillside, we need to be more practical about this and inform more people. Ms. Wordell: • If it results in the visibility issue being the only reason that you would bring it back, it might be possible to condition it that we would verify and bring it back if it proved to be visible. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 15, 2005 Com. Saadati: • I agree with that. Mr. Jung: • In response to Ms. Koski's question if there were any road changes proposed regarding the width of Regnart Road to this project, Mr. Jung said there were none. Chair Wong: • Thanked the concerned residents for attending. • I understand their frustrations but felt staff did a good job in trying to address the issues, as was the Planning Commission. • I understand May Koski's frustration about not getting notified. I concur with Com. Saadati that we need to verify some of the concems expressed as a condition before it will be approved. • I also agree with Vice Chair Miller that notification was lacking to some residents, but the 500 foot rule was followed. Perhaps for the residential hillside ordinance, we might need to change it to 1,000 feet; which would take into account more neighbors. • Also agree that we need to verify the sewer and water with the civil engineer, wluch will address that issue. • A consultant took the photos and possibly made a human error; the photos need to be verified. • Regarding the visibility, from the valley floor, you may not see it, but if looking at these pictures, the audience brought up, you can see it really close if you aze surrounded by it, but with what staff showed us, we cannot guarantee all views. It is private property, and people do have the right to build as long as they aze within the residential hillside ordinance. • The residential hillside ordinance is a very strict ordinance and will make exceptions that fulfill other requirements but we don't grant exceptions that easily. I believe that with the good azchitecture compared to the old house, this is a better design. • I am concemed regazding what Ms. Griffin brought up; but it does meet the ordinance, so I cannot really deny them. • Regarding Com. Giefer;s suggestion about the front, we could add some landscaping and I think that the applicant could be amenable to that. It won't solve Com. Giefer's total concern, but will help mitigate it some. • Overall, I support the application, with the condition oF approval that was suggested by my colleagues. Vice Chair Miller: • (to Com. Saadati) Asked for clarification whether he wanted the application to come back or that conditions be included. Com. Saadati: • Ensure that it will not be visible, not necessarily 100% visibility or non-visibility, it needs to be screened to the best extent possible, so one looking up doesn't see the entire house. Some of the house through the trees is not too much, but overall it needs to be addressed and the applicant needs to take a hard look at that and take a better photo and show it to staff and let staff handle it. • Said he would prefer it be shown to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Miller: • In terms of the visibility issue, if staff could address hillside ordinances; is it just visibility Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 15, 2005 from the valley floor or is it at a certain height above the valley floor; please give the exact language of the ordinance. Ms. Wordell: • We have established vantage points; I don't recall if the exact wording is in the ordinance, but for years the vantage points they used on these photos are the vantage points we have been using in evaluating visibility from the valley floor. Vice Chair Miller: • I understand that; and some of the issue brought up here were relative to people hiking in the hills and my question is, is that sensitivity included in the ordinance today? Ms. Wordell: • That is not in the ordinance; I think that would be a judgment call. Vice Chair Miller: • It seems what we should do and it would also give staff an opportunity to notice people at 1,000 feet, is bring it back because I don't believe there is enough of a vote to move it fonvard, and let staff deal with the details. Com. Giefer: • With regard to noticing, if you only notice at 1,000 feet, you are still going to get the west side of the canyon, you will not reach to the east side of the canyon. You may want to notice property owners; I don't think there aze more than 100 property owners up there; but the lots are very large and steep. • I applaud your objective, I just don't know if that will solve it and am not sure what the best way to address it is. I don't think the Koskis would get noticed or their neighbors because they are on the opposite side of Regnart Road. Chair Wong: • I trust staff to bring it back as a conditional item, since it concems canceling three meetings. Com. Saadati: • I will agree to staff receiving and evaluating it, and informing us that it has been addressed. MoHon: MoHon by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application EA-2005-02 (Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Giefer No; Com. Chen absent). Motion: MoHon by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. SasdaH; to approve Applicatiou EXC-2005-08 per the model resolution and the additional changes suggested by the Planning Commission: • Verify the photos on visibility from the valley floor taken by the consultant. • More landscaping to hide the 23 foot long wall facing the front of the house; • Verify survey of the easement; • Make certain Public Works verifies the water and sewer line; • Ensure landscapiug is appropriate so that it doesn't 6arm the oak tree; • Verify the revised landscaping plan presented by Mr. Bernstein. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 15, 2005 ( Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Giefer No; Com. Chen absent) Ms. Wordell: • Noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendaz days Mr. Juug: • Clarified the plan that Com. Giefer pointed out regazding Barry Coatees report, that was an earlier rendition of the plan itself and showed the patio and a walkway around the oak tree. After they received Barry's comments, they came back and revised the plan and shrank everything and pulled it away from the canopy of the oak; there are no plantings proposed around it, it is supposed to be just the natural vegetation. There is no lawn proposed in the ]andscape plan. 3. TR-2005-02 Tree removal for removal (trimming more Joe Roan/Norman Yeung than 25% of the canopy) of an oak tree. 21535/21545 Addington Court Planning Commission final unless appealed Mr. Jung presented the staff report: • Application is for a tree removal permit for a retroactive removal of more than 25% of the specimen Coast Live Oak tree on the property line of 21535 and 21545 Addington Court. • Illustrated an aerial view which showed the azea before any pruning had been done; and photos of the tree following the pruning. • Applicants contend that less than 25% of the oak tree has been pruned; however, the arborist stated that it is closer to 40 to 45%; staff noted miscalculations and estimated the amount to be in the range of 28%. The code enforcement officer estimated that the pruning was 35%. • Reviewed the four conditions in the model resolution as recommended by staff, and outlined in the staff repoR. • Staff recommends approval of the tree removal application per the model resolution. Since the tree was not removed, staff is not recommending any tree replacements; but asking that any recommendations made by the city arborist be incorporated in the tree removal application. • Reviewed the background of the tree trimming incident by the resident. Staff received a phone call from a neighboring resident who was concemed about the amount of tree trimming on the oak tree; a code enforcement responded to the incident. Once the report was made, he informed Planning staff about the cuts that had akeady been made, stafF wrote the property owners a letter saying we believe too much of the tree had been cut which is a violation of the ordinance, and they would have to apply for a tree removal permit. One of the owners is an elderly woman and said she could not afford to do that and said that it was not cut that much; she asked Councilmember Wang to help in their dilemma. After that we outlined some options to the applicants; they responded and filed for a tree removal application. Barry Coates looked at the tree and he also had access to the photos • Clarified that a permit is required if more than 25% of the Oak tree is pruned. Ms. Wordell: • Said that she looked at it in terms of how to remediate what happened is that normally we would want to see some additional trees planted, perhaps some very lazge Vees would be quite costly. Given that the tree appears to be doing okay and actually is regaining some foliage, and there appeared to be limited opportunities to plant additional trees in that yazd, simply correcting the problem so that this tree stays healthy seemed like a very reasonable condition for the tree removaL Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 15, 2005 Com. Giefer: • I reside on Regiart Road and was noticed as a property owner about this, but I have no financial interest in this, the city attorney advised me that it was not necessary to recuse myself. • In some retroactive tree permits in the past, we have required the applicant to record the tree on their deed so that once the property is sold in the future, we don't run into the same problem again. Is there reasons staff did not recommend that in this case? Ms. Wordell: • It seemed a reasonable thing to do. We are doing that on a regular basis for trees that aze coming under a subdivision or use permit, that we record the tree protection; we can't go azound and record that all oak trees have to be protected, but this is an opportunity to do that since it is an application. It is possible. Mr. Jung: • The tentative map for this subdivision did point out this as a protected tree under the tree ordinance, but there was no sepazate covenant on those trees as a result of the earlier subdivision, which happened quite a while ago. Ms. Wordell: • Recording a covenant on sepazate trees is a document that we have a template for that the applicant takes to the County recorder and pays to have it recorded, provides the city with a copy of it then it should show up on a title report. Chair Wong: • Said that recording a covenant was a time consuming and costly process, but it could be done. • Suggested educating the community regarding specimen trees, perhaps through the Cupertino Scene through a news article. Vice Chair Miller: • Said that he was amazed that the tree was still reasonable healthy given the proximity to the house and to everything surrounding it. Joe Roan, Appticant: • Said he hired the contractor who understood that the tree was a specimen tree, and assumed he was fully knowledgeable about the city ordinance. The contractor had trimmed all the trees for the applicant's employer at one time, his credentials were checked and he also had a state license for tree service. Chair Wong: • Staff has recommended some mitigating factors; have you had a chance to take a look at it. Is that amenable to you. Mr. Roan: • Yes, I think it is a good mitigation that would benefit the tree; the only thing I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Yeung about is the physical obsolescence because this tree was severely trimmed yeazs ago, under a subdivision act. The city has taken a great measurement to protect all the specimen trees; I don't think there should be two standards. Everything is a fact, the reality is there; I want to say other than we hired a licensed contractor to do the job, Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 15, 2005 the tree is in excellent condition based on my own estimate 3 to 5% of the foliage has grown back. In reviewing Mc Barry Coates report, I don't know what to say; you make the judgment. I am a state licensed civil engineer and licensed structural engineer and licensed real estate broker. If I write a report which has errors, they cannot put the numbers together, I can easily demonstrate on the paper it less than 25%. Unfortunately we don't see eye to eye on this issue, but the fact is the tree is alive and healthy. On the other hand, before I graduate from school my professor told me don't be so precise that you forget to be acwrate. Chair Woug: • In your calculation, how much did you feel it was overcut. Mr. Roan: • People say to work with the city and give them what they want because they won't have a good relationship with the city. Everything is a guesstimate, nobody can say that. Mr. Coates has had enough time to respond to my questions, he chose not to as a wnsulting arborist. I am still puzzled why I do not have an answer. Mr. Jung: • Noted that the applicant paid a deposit; and when the arborist writes a repor[, he gets paid for his services. Ms.Wordell: • Said that the deposit is $2,000; and the consulting azborist fee is in the range of $400 to $500. Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffiu, resident: • Pleased to see that the city is recognizing the heritage status of the oaks in Cupertino. • In this situation I cringed when I saw the photo, particulazly those the code enforcement had taken, because we had our street trees in my neighborhood cut down this way and we had [o have neighbors call police. I understand in this situation a call to the city before doing anything to an oak or a tree of that size is in good order. Obviously, Barry Coates is a very well known arborist in the arena, I do have respect for his authority in this. I understand if this tree had been a victim of a prior planning subdivision in there; I hope that nowadays we would not build homes so close to a tree of this size. You also don't want to have the tree be unbalanced, oaks tend to grow somewhat symmetrically; in the situation you want a tree to be balanced and taking off a great chunk of one side is going to do a great deal of load balancing problems from the top of the tree, so I understand that this gentlemen hired to cut the tree, had a licensed, but you need a specialist for oaks because they grow differently than the average street tree. I do think that if Barry Coates is recommending that this tree be retained, this is almost grounds for fmding; I have seen 30 inch ash trees cut down to 2 feet off the base and its not a pleasant thing; it is very revolting. In this situation, I think that the owners obviously understand that this is a tree that belongs to the city; I do think retaining the tree if Mr. Coates believes that the tree is healthy and the owners have attested to it, I think that it is highly desuable, because to plant a repiacement is expensive and would take a long time. • I hope that we can retain the tree. Chair Wong closed the public heazing. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 15, 2005 Com. Giefer: • I think the applicant acted in good faith and thought they were hiring a tree trimming service who would be knowledgeable about our ordinances. It is difficult to tell from the photos that code enforcement took and Mr. Coates' report if it was closer to 30 or 40%. I would be in favor of supporting staffls recommendation; I would also recommend that we record an additional covenant regarding this particular tree so that in the future the specific property owner not as just part of the subdivision, but as this moves into the future, future owners will know that they need to be sensitive to this tree as well when it appeazs on their title report. I have heazd a number of comments with regards to expense this evening, but I think everfy one of these cases we look at, we need to make our decisions based on the merit of the case. Vice Chair Miller: • I support stafPs recommendation and have no objection to a covenant. Com. Saadati: • I support staffls recommendation. This is not the fust time we have encountered a situation like this, and we have talked about educating the public and preventing this type of thing. We need to continue putting emphasis on that and try to prevent this; because when it happens, it is difficult to go back and fix. We need to continue informing the public with information in the local newspaper. Chair Wong: • I agree that we need to educate the community once a year regazding our tree ordinance through the Cueprtino Scene or through the media. • I think Mr. Roan was trying to just trim the tree, but unfodunately the contractor overcut it and the pruning exceeded 25%. • I applaud that Councilmember Wang was trying to help you. I believe that the mediation suggested by staff seems fa'u and I know that you are concerned regazding the cost. Even though the azborist may have some mistakes, we aze just trying to uphold our ordinance. • I appreciate you coming here tonight to try and do the right thing. MoHon: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Application TR-2005-02 including the condition for a covenant for the recording. (Vote: 4-0-0, Com. Chen absent) Chair Wong declazed a recess. The agenda was moved back to Item I. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. GPA-2004-O1 General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan. EA-2004-17 Subject: Preliminary recommendations City of Cupertino Tentative City Council date.• July 19, 2005 Citywidelocation Chair Wong: • Smnmarized that the meeting was Day 4 of the General Plan mazathon; have been meeting since Sunday; will be reviewing the preliminary recommendations for changes to the task force General Plan. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 June 15, 2005 • Thanked the audience membe~s for their participation and attending the many meetings. Ms. Wordell: • Already started going through the document of preluninary recommendations and tonight we want to go back to the beginning because there are still some we haven't discussed. • Staff has indicated the Consent topics, and the ones that need to be fuRher discussed. No. 1 - Mixed use: Chair Wong: • Recommendation that we should say "consider mixed use" change to say "encourage mixed use". Chair Wong: • I prefer the original "consider" mixed use. Com. Giefer: • The original language was "encourage" in the administrative drafr; and it was the housing subgroup in the task force who changed it to "consider". I think it goes back to what your vision is; if your vision is that we are trying to maximize We space we have within the city, and not deplete our commercial and our office space and be able to provide adequate housing for current or new residents; I think "encourage" is the appropriate word. Vice Chair Miller: • It is a fine point, and would prefer "consider". Com. Saadati: • I don't feel it makes much difference, but would suppoR "consider". No. 2 - Crossroads: Chair Wong: • Discussed at previous meeting (3:2 vote) that we want to encourage commercial and limited housing. No. 2 and No. 12 should be cohesive; presently they conflict. Com. Giefer: • There is already housing at the Crossroads, what has been built to date; perhaps with that housing and these modest amounts of incremental housing in that azea, we could still have a vibrant center. Ms. Wordell: • Crossroads on the map is Stelling to DeAnza Chair Wong: • What I suggest is to make it cohesive with "create a vibrant shopping village in the Crossroad area" what the General Plan task force recommended. . Vice Chair Miller: • Sounds appropria[e. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 15, 2005 Com. Saadati: • I concur with that. Na. 16 - Chair Wong: • What is the definition of "remainder of neighborhood commercial azeas." Ms. Wordell: • They aze listed on Page 229; it is smaller azeas, including the small shopping center on Bollinger and Miller; Blaney and Homes[ead; Foo[hill Boulevazd and Stevens Creek; Homestead Road near Foothill Boulevazd. Chair Wong: • I am fine with that. No. 17 - North DeAnza Boulevard Chair Wong: • There is a paragraph that says "higher FARs may be allowed for all designed mixed use developmenY'. Are we allowing mixed use in that azea? Ms. Wordell: • Yes, some of that zoning is already zoned General Plan residential and some of it has residential zoning and on North DeAnza you have allowed 100 more residential units. Chair Wong: • There was a project done by Pinn Brothers that was strictly housing and with this language does it tie them to just mixed use or if it was a good project, can we have only housing? Ms. Wordell: • It doesn't tie it to mixed use. Vice Chair Miller: • Particularly in light of the Chamber's comments and Mike Foulkes' comments, I would like to at a minimum have a statement that there will be no housing on the Apple campus; and to the extent that we can extend that to some other parts of the No. DeAnza industrial area, I think it is appropriate to take the housing out of the zoning in that azea and leave it industrial. Ms. Wordell: • No. DeAnza goes on both sides of DeAnza Boulevard so you do have some residentially zoned land to the west and non-residentially zoned land to the east, so you would be taking it away from currently residentially zoned lands. Vice Chair Miller: • There are no residents currently on DeAnza except For the Santa Bazbara Grill, but it is allowed. The first concern I have is it is inappropriate to be azguing that we aze going to put residents on the Apple campus; I think there has to be something that we get rid of that. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 June 15, 2005 • I feel it makes sense to expand it a little further than that into cover more of the zone that we consider one of our major business zones and we should not be putting residences there. We want to limit the residential zones to other azeas. • Presently we have mixed use everywhere and this is one area that I don't believe it is appropriate. Ms. Wordell: • Do you think your new conversion wording would give you the support you need to not convert that so that the message would be our industrial areas if they aze sound industrial azeas should not be converted and therefore that policy would not allow conversion on Apple. Chair Wong: • Lynwood Acres is next to the Apple property, so if you used that conversion policy, if Apple wants to sell off the east side of their campus for residents, they can do that if they want. I am not saying they want to do that, but that is the scenario. Vice C6air Miller: • We have a policy and it has some very strict requirements to it and maybe they fit under that and maybe they don't. With Apple specifically, what I suggest is perhaps we don't want to allow that to happen and one way to make it hazder to happen is to take the residential zoning out of that azea so that it is not zoned residential any more. Chair Wong: • You said that there were other azeas that you want to consider. Vice Chair Miller: • I dodt know, and iYs cleaner, when we get to North Vallco, I think it is cleaner. Chair Wong: • I support what Vice Chair Miller says. Com. Saadati: • We keep going back and changing what we already agreed to. I think it does not, by leaving this language, necessarily mean there is going to be housing on the Apple campus. That is something that comes up and is going to be tumed down if somebody wants to put housing. It has to be approved based on its merit. • I think this language will take care of it and I dodt think the Apple campus and all the office is going to go anywhere for the next 20 years. Vice Chair Miller: • At a minimum my first objective is I think we should take the option for housing out of the Apple campus. We aze not going to put it there and there is no reason why the General Plan should say it could go there. There aze only two exceptions, and it is worth considering; one is the Hewlett Packard campus and the other is the Apple campus. Com. Saadati: • [ don't foresee any housing on the Apple campus or Hewlett Packard campus. Vice Chair Miller: • I am just looking to make the General Plan consistent with what we think we want to do. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 June 15, 2005 Com. Giefer: • I don't think it is necessary to change the policy because it was voted last night that there would be language with regards to commercial to residential and many of the commissioners felt strongly that it would help and I think it should solve the problem. Chair Wong: • For Block No. 17, for the Hewlett Packard campus and Apple campus, _Mr. Shaeffer did come in and they were concemed about housing going into those campuses; if there aze 3 of us who said yes, we should just move on. Block No. 18: no discussion Block 19. Vallco Park North: Ms. Wordell: • In looking at this today, I felt we could put it on consent because we have talked about some of these concepts and I don't see any issues now. Response: No issues. Block No. 20, PlanninQ Commission didn't discuss the heieht - Bubb Road Chair Wong: • I want to put out for discussion, I see Bubb Road as part of Monta Vista neighborhood and I want to do 30 feet as we all agreed to that. • Regarding residential, we akeady addressed that in Table 2-A last night. • Need feedback on the height of the Bubb Road area. Com. Saadati: • Didn't we put 30 feet in the table we reviewed. Ms. WordelL• • I neglected to put Bubb Road on the height matrix and so that is the reason you didn't specifically indicate. • If you agree with the task force draft, that is the simplest thing to do. • I pointed out that the policies in the task force draft encouraged some supportive type of commercial use; however, the land use map for that azea doesn't allow commercial and I said we need to give it some commercial square footage. I don't think you need to attribute squaze footage to Bubb because if it came along and you wanted to give some to Bubb, you could take it from the other areas as we discussed before. I don't think it is an issue anymore, but I think if we could have some complementary commercial in that azea, we need to change the land use map to be industrial/commerciaUresidential. Vice Chair Miller: • That is reasonable. Presently there are some vacant buildings over there, and we don't know how long they will remain vacant. If there was another choice, it is not clear that wmmercial would be viable there, but there is nothing wrong with making the policy more flexible. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 June 15, 2005 Chair Wong, Coms. Giefer and Saadati: • It is acceptable. Block No. 21. Policv 2-28. Pa¢e 2-35 Economic Develooment. Chair Wong: • I want to add language that since we aze in a slump now, the best time in the slump is to have an economic development manager; unfortunately we do not have the budget. • I would like to add language that will encourage the city to have a budget for economic development and also have an Economic Development Manager as well as support staff. Vice Chair Miller: • I have suggested that before and I tluiilc we cacuiot afford not to have it because it would help, if done properly, to increase our revenue stream ac~ even if we decided not to have a head count, at least if there was a budget, then we could have some consulting efforts done on ow part by some outside agencies. Com. Giefer: • Support the addidonal language. Com. Saadati: • Support it also. Block No. 22 - Conversion of office - already discussed Block No. 23 - Commercial development as related to Vallco Fashion Park Mall. Chair Wong: • This is a recommendation by Com. Giefer; he asked why they can't have it citywide and not have it just for that particulazly property owner. I believe it should be a citywide policy vs. only at Vallco Fashion Park mall. Com. Giefer: • I agree; the task force has taken that out and the recommendation to add that back in came from the Housing Commission. • I flagged that it was removed from here and my recollection was that the Housing Commission recommended that this be added back in; the original administrative draft. • This specific language was removed from the task force draft in several difFerent places because the task force either felt it was; I don't remember the context but I think they felt it was unnecessary to specify that the different low income housing types. Chair Wong: • Do you feel comfortable removing that language from Vallco Fashion Pazk Mall and have the General Plan for the whole city? Com. Giefer: • I don't think it is specified as a general policy citywide. Ms. WordelL• • The requirements aze very low and moderate in the housing element. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 June 15, 2005 Com. Giefer: • Do you recall why it was specifically in the Vallco development portion in the original administrative draft. Ms. Wordell: • It may have been along the lines of interest in retaining revenue producing properties and not wanting residential. Com. Giefer: • Or was it with regazds to the redevelopment funds; do we have to provide that. Ms. WordelL• • We do have to provide that; there is a legal settlement where we do have to provide very low and low. Com. Giefer: • I think the issue was if we have redevelopment funds in that area, then we have to have the different type of low income, low to moderate income housing there; and that was removed by the task force. When I was on the Housing Commission last year it was flagged at that point, which is why I asked to have it reinstated. Chsir Wong: • I understand where you are coming from, it is just that I wonder if Vallco Fashion Park mall owners are aware of that. Vice Chair Miller: • The question is, it is specifically saying for redevelopment funds, is Vallco the only redevelopment area? This is a specific policy, I think there are other opportunities that will add to make a broader statement. Chair Wong: • We should also have some kind of policy to encourage it citywide, because people could say Vallco Fashion Pazk already has it, so we will dump everything at Vallco Fashion Pazk; and I want to make sure that these residences are spread throughout the city. Ms. Wordell: • Page 14 ABAG requirements, where for all those categories and those aze citywide requirements, those categories were taken out by the task force and they are required by ABAG, perhaps there is connection between that and taking them out of Vallco. I noticed in the task force draft for Vallco South, one of the alternates had no housing units in Vallco South, so there was some sentiment not to have residential there. Chair Wong: • As Vallco Fashion Park mall develops, you will take into consideration that it complies with the state law. Ms. Wordell: • It was the legal settlement that requires very low and low in that particular place. The State law looks at whether we aze providing adequate sites for high density; we show them that we have certain azeas zoned and higher densities for a certain number of units and they find it Cupertino Planning Commission 21 June 15, 2005 acceptable that it means there are going to be some affordable units there. Project by project we don't say, here is where they have to be, but plan-wide, we have to show that we have adequate sites for those different categories. Vice Chair Miller: • When we get to Page 16 it will be another opportunity. No. 24 - Vallco Development Area - Consent item No. 25 - Mixed Use - Chair Wong: "Allow" vs. "consider" - I prefer "consider" Com. Giefer. • I suppoR mixed use and you will see this several times, I felt that the task force weakened a tremendous opportunity for us philosoplucally to strengthen and encourage the direction we would like the city to go in. • If we can develop new mixed use neighborhoods, it has a lot of benefits to us both city revenue-wise, from both the housing, property tvc as well as potential revenue tax from whatever business happens to locate in that same area. • There are also the environmental reasons why one would want to place housing and shopping etc. neaz transportation because you get people out of their cazs and they start to walk; and it reduces traffic. • The point is if we make it, you can do that too, it is a little less strong and purely philosophical; you are going to see the same thing throughout this document when it comes to mixed use. I went back to the administrative draft language because philosophically and with regards to my vision for the city, it is just more closely aligned and it is not going to get any better, you will see the same thing over and over again. • The word "consider" came from he task force; they wanted to make it more general; and the Minority Report signers felt that mixed use was a very strong tool for the city to use. Chair Wong: • In the interest of time, and three commissioners agreed to the word "allow" suggested that it be changed in the text where it appeazs rather than specifically considering each box. Com. Giefer: • Said she was not opposed to wholesale deciding at this point so we dodt have to go to every box Vice Chair Miller: • Said he felt there is an inconsequential difference between the meaning of the two words. • I think we should be consistent. If we already decided to go with "consider" let's just make it "consider" Chair Wong: • For the record noted that he supported mixed use and said that it is just a word; it is semantics. No. 26 - Big Box Development - Consent Cupertino Planning Commission 22 June 15, 2005 No. 27 - Hillside Development Standard - Consent No. 28 - Nathan Hall Tank House - Cousent No. 29 - Trail Linkages - Consent No. 30 - Park Designs Suggested by Com. Giefer Chair Wong: • Please explain the strategy. • I support it, but it seems awkward where it was positioned. Com. Giefer: • It should be tied into another strategy with regazds to the same thing; it should be a second bullet. The actual verbiage was related to using the natural contours of park design; and this would be added as the second strategy. Other commissioners said they agreed. No. 31 - Public Art - Discussion regarding the 1 percent total project budget on site and would only apply to projects over 50,000 square feet. Chair Wong: • I support the one percent with the restriction of 50,000 square feet. Vice Chair Miller: • I have a problem with this. I don't have any problem with art per se; or providing money to art in the city; I think it is the right thing to do. However, particulazly now, there are other higher priorities and we have talked about things that we can't afford. The most significant is that the city has a deficit and the way they are filling that deficit over the next two years is by selling off properties. • With respect to art, the examples given in the information provided by staff, was if we had done this for the Cypress Hotel, there would be $4 million to provide for art and there would be another $2 million for the library. If there is that kind of money that we can chazge as additional fees to developers, I think right now it would be better spent on filling the budget deficit, setting up an Economic Development person in the city; putting a policy in place for doing green buildings and being more environmentally sensitive; or putting some money towazd affordable housing. • We need to prioritize and while art is a great thing to have, and is very nice for the city, right now we have other things to do in my opinion aze of higher priority; and if we can really extract these kinds of monies, we should be putting them toward those things fust. If there is anything lefr, it goes toward art. Com. Giefer: • We need to consider that this is a 20 year plan and I don't believe our budget will be as poorly funded in the future as it is today. • Is there a different percent that you might fund public art than one percent? Cupertino Planning Commission 23 June 15, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: • It is an issue of priority, and if there is money to be had to do things, I would prioritize where the money went, and if there is anything left when we get to art, then it could go to art. Com. Giefer: • I do believe that art is important; I think that it does set a certain tone for the community, and the communities that do fund public art aze quite lovely and it begins the dialog what is art. • It exposes people to things that they might not have been exposed to otherwise. Vice Chair Miller: • We have talked about doing things that aze more environmentally sensitive in terms of our buildings and what we do. If you had to choose where to put the money, which would you choose? Com. Giefer: • We compazing fiuit, and not applies to apples; and I think that with improvements to public buildings which is what we are talking about, we wouldn't use public funds to improve people's homes; we might use public funds to start a hot roof program to help the city roll back an energy cost. How you would use public funds to implement some of those programs other than affordable housing, I am not sure that is as practical. Vice Chair MiRer: • We talked about setting up a committee to explore environmental issues and we were told we didn't have the funds to do that. Com. Giefer: • I hear everything you are saying, but again looking 20 years in the future, if we don't get started now, and we don't have it in the General Plan, we will never get there. Vice Chsir Miller; • I don't disagree with that, but I think if we can have a policy where in the early years when there are other more important things, that the money doesdt go to art, but to other things, I don't object to that. Com. Giefer: • I don't believe there is any way we can completely solve the problem with regards to housing, but on the top of my list would be better affordable housing. Ms. WordelL• • Recalled that when the Fine Arts Commission made their recommendation, they recommended not having an in-lieu fee for several reasons. They said that they should be onsite and one of the things they pointed out is that there are various ways that buildings can provide this, that it's not just a piece of sculpture sitting in a plaza; it can be materials or treatments. The fish tank at the library could count toward that contribution. It wouldn't be money that would come to the city, it would be somehow incorporated into the site. • In the matrix when you discussed this before, Com. Saadati said that an ordinance should evaluate the effect it has on development. If an ordinance is considered and we have the direction that you have to assess the impact of this program on development, it might bring out those issues of, is this an undue burden for development. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 June 15, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: • Whether the developer builds it or pays a fee, it is still a toll on the development itself. Ms. Wordell: • I was thinking that your scenario was that monies would be coming to the city and we could spend that money otherwise and that would not be the case. Vice Chair Miller: • I understand what you aze saying, but it is still a toll on the developer and we aze asking the developer to fund something. From that standpoint in my mind, these financial things are all interchangeable. Com. Giefer: • In summary, I would support the one percent for art. Com. Saadati: • I have expressed my suppoct of this and even mentioned that $50,000 is a sizable building and I have seen it in other cities which they have a policy for a smaller size building and I think it is reasonable. • This is a 20 year plan and I support it. Chair Wong: • On the decision matrix, Com. Chen also supported this also at $50,000 or higher. • No. 32 - looks good. I didn't want to go discussion of urban trails; is there any way we can document that Com. Miller and I supported the 66% and that we make the recommendation to the City Council, but it didn't get enough votes for Chair Wong: • Read the sentence "regarding urban trails to evaluate any safety and security impacts and measures associated with trail development." Lisa Giefer recited the new sentence: • We also wanted to add "the placement of trails should be on the opposite side of the creek away from homes" Vice Chair Miller recited t6e new sentence: • Add to the front of the sentence "Evaluate any safery, security and privacy impacts." No. 33 - Consent No. 34 - Consent No. 35 - The table should be amended to incorporate private parks and open space azea. Chair Wong: • (Change needed) They wanted to add azeas like Cali Pazk, Mill Plaza, Library Plaza, and private open space and planned development ueas such as DeAnza Oaks; I also would use Sazon Gazdens. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 June 15, 2005 • My concern is for public azeas like Cali Pazk Plaza, the library, City Center, I agree with tha[; but for private development which is a private park, we shouldn't be adding that to the count, and I[hink that deceives the community that we aze having open space, but it only serves that particulaz one community. Trevina is another one I was thinking about. I think this is not worded correctly. Com. Giefer: • In the note, it says don't count it toward the three acres per 1Q000. We can acknowledge it but it doesn't count towazd the ratio. Chair Wong: • When you say amended to incorporate private pazks, I don't understand what the need is if you are not going to count it toward open space. • It doesn't make sense; azeas such as DeAnza Boulevard that you can see and Stevens Creek I can see how it benefits, but the other developments aze hidden inside a development or a planned unit development. Ms. Wordell: • It is to acknowledge that we have these other resources and they azen't public parks but they do provide open space and recrea[ion resources to the residents and to paint that as part of the picture. • Mr. Piasecki was an advocate for tlus. • The question is why we need to list these private open space areas since they are not public and he acknowledges we say we aze not counting it, but why list them at all. Mr. Piasecki: • We want to list them so that we have a comprehensive inventory of our open space available to the public whether we purchased it or not, or whether we have simply an easement right over it, we want to be able to have an accounting that says, we have X acres, we own, we operate and there aze X acres out there that we dodt own, but we have the right to use similaz to the pazk across the street. • It is a way of showing the public that we provide open space in many different ways and not just through conventional park acquisitions which are very expensive for us to do, and we look to provide open space in a variety of ways. Chair Wong: • I understand what you aze saying on Cali Park Plaza the Civic Center or Pazk Plaza, but from Morano there is a small private pazk in there; Trevina has a right of way that folks can walk through; sometimes the public can't find these or aze not even awue of them. Mr. Piasecki: • I don't have a problem when they are truly private and we do not have public rights on the property; we would not list Morano or Trevina; you can walk through there but there is not a public right to utilize that as a pazk. • We can make that distinction because there is lots of open space; iYs private, and even though there may be a right to traverse through the project, it doesn't necessazily mean that the open space was going to be made available to the public. We are talking about the spaces that aze open only to the public. Cupertino Planning Commission 26 June 15, 2005 . Chair Wong: • Asked that the distinction be made. Nos. 36, 37, 38, and 39 - Consent No. 39 - New construction Chair Wong: • A recommendation by Com. Giefer; added text from the administrative draft based on the facts that the city during the past decade had an average of 200 units per year, the 5 year goal of 2325 would be adjusted, will need to be aggressively pursued between 2001 and 2006. • The General Plan Task Force recommended as the jobs/housing imbalance seems to have shifted, this goal will not be aggressively pursued. • I do support what the General Plan Task Force says, and I think that language should remain, the reality is that we will still have a jobs/housing imbalance, but if this is a recommendation by the General Plan Task Force I feel comfortable with it, but I believe we will still have an imbalance, but I would like to honor what the majority task force says. Mr. Piasecki: • This is another area where staff disagrees with the Task Force because the current market conditions change, and we are talking about a 20 year plan and there was a time when we had a lot of vacancy. • As Mr. Foulkes indicated recently, Apple is occupying a lot of the vacant space out there and some of the other vacant space is not occupyable because it is functionally obsolete. The jobs are out there in Cupertino, we should embrace the idea that we aze going to have a closer jobs/housing balance or not, but we should not just take the issue de jeur, the condition o£ the mazketplace for the day and respond to that. Vice Chair Miller: • The comment about the jobs/housing balance shifting is not accurate and we should strike it for that reason. I am not sure I see the need for the second statement. The mazketplace will do what it will do and as we are seeing, we aze getting many units of housing; we aze pursuing that goal without having the statement in there and I am not sure the statement adds anything. Com. Saadati: • I concur with striking both statements, leaving the upper por[ion; that in general addresses the issue. I would rather strike both statements. Com. Giefer: • I am not sure that is what the original text of the administrative draft had. The part I found objectionable was the part that was struck out. • I want to have that part deleted. • I have no problem keeping the other part, but I am not sure that is what the original administrative draft would have had; staff will verify that. I wouid suppoR keeping it in. Vice Chair Miller: • We have to change the numbers; we aze working with different numbers now, so if we aze going to leave numbers in there we ought to make them match the numbers we aze now working with. Cupertino Planning Commission 2~ June 15, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • The ABAG goal is a 5 year goal, so you dodt need to substitute new numbers. Chair Wong: • I will compromise and agree with what Vice Chair Miller says. No. 41- Chair Wong: • These are just numbers that were required by ABAG. Ms. Wordell: • Required by ABAG; we are required by law to send to the State our draft housing element with any changes to it. The State wrote us a letter saying except for the omission of that, our draft housing element would be certified. No. 42 - Consent No. 43 - Densitv Bonus - We received somethina in our packets. No. 45 - Chair Wong: • The task force deleted two implementation programs for the administrative draft. The Planning Commission discussed the task force deletions. This is regarding conversion of commercial land to residential. Ms. WordelL• • Because you were talking about conversion, Com. Giefer raised it several times that these were the policies that had been deleted, that you might want to look at them and see if you wanted to restore them in light o£your interest in that subject. • Your new policy might do the job for this. Vice Chair Miller: • For program 17, we should replace it with a new conversion policy; No. 18 is a different case; it is consistent with the density bonus requirements. • We can leave it at social goals or be more specific and talk about senior housing, low, very low and moderate housing. • This applies citywide which is what Chair Wong was looking for previously; if we made the language more specific, or just added special community social goals, including low, very low and moderate housing, and low, very low and moderate senior housing, special needs housing. Chair Wong, Coms. Giefer and Saadati: • Will suppor[ that. No. 46 - Discussion. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 June 15, 2005 Chair Wong: • Energy conservation. Strategy is to reduce pemut cost of homes that exceed Title 24 requirements; recommendation by Com. Giefer. Com. Giefer: • I would like to evaluate what the impact would be if we reduced permit costs for people who would actually like to do more green building or energy saving construction, in the form of providing the fmancial incentive to do so with lower cost permits. It is a goal that the workplan evaluation already supports. • Title 24 includes fluorescent lighting to reduce electricity usage, it would include minimum amounts of insulation, the insulation one might have in their home, and things that help with general energy reduction. Vice Chair MiRer: • No objection. Com. Saadati: • Incentive is a good thing to have to encourage people to go beyond Title 24, such as energy rebate from PG&E. Mr. Piasecki: • I think Com. Giefer is looking for if there is additional incentive that will push people over the edge so they will embrace; it could be good for everybody. We should be concemed that we don't overdue it so we don't end up undermining things. Com. Saadati: • I think we evaluated it that tying it to the fee may not be the most appropriate way to go. Vice Chair Miller: • Change "reduce permit fees" to "evaluate providing incentives for homes that exceed Title 24 requirements." Com. Giefer: • Would that also potentially be the evaluation of reduced permits, because I think it has to be real money. I can get rebates from PG&E today, but iF I want to do solaz installation I get certain rebates from the State; it would be nice if I could also lower my permits costs. Vice Chair Miller: • The general includes the specific. No. 47 -Feeway reduction for energy conservation... Chair Wong: • The change as shown, the city will evaluate and implement the potential to waive or reduce fees for energy conservation improvements to resident units, recommended by Com. Giefer, existing or new. • I also support this. Mr. Piasecki: • Can we make the same edits to that; provide incentives? Cupertino Planning Commission 29 June 15, 2005 No. 48 - Pedestrian Improvements - Restore the administrative draft to enhance walking; consider reducing the number of through traffic lanes on streets with 4 or 6 more lanes where feasible and appropriate traffic lanes will be converted to parking lanes; widening sidewalks or a median. Suggestion by Com. Giefer. Chair Wong: • For the record, both the Chamber and I had spoken on this; staff would like this, but I believe that reducing lanes is not good on major thoroughfazes because we need to promote business in Cupertino. Com. Saadati: • I think it should be evaluated and implemented if it helps walkability as stated. • If it is not feasible, don't do it. • I support it. Com. Giefer: • I support it. Vice Chair Miller: • One of the concerns I had about the task force draft was it seemed to be decidedly pro- automobile and anti-pedestrian, and I would like to put back in the General Plan the comments about walkability, although I am not sure that reducing traffic lanes is necessazily one of the ones that make sense. • If we could be more generic there I would support it. Mr. Piasecki: • You could use the wording we used on the preceding ones if you wish. Chair Wong: • Remove the words "4 or more lanes". • The definition should be walkability; the purpose of pedestrian improvement if there aze ways to improve walkability, mass transporation, bicycles, without reducing lanes, a lot of cities such as Campbell, San Jose and Sunnyvale, have six lanes and they are doing fine. By reducing the traffic you will reduce the level of service of traffic in Cupertino. • I feel very strong about this; I would rather have language about walkability and ways of getting people on buses, light rail, and away from cars. The special language to reducing lanes, I feel strong about. Mr. Piasecki: • If we reworded it to say "the city of Cupertino will look for opportunities to enhance walkability throughout the community and by connecting sidewalks and/or widening sidewalks and evaluating the street designs" and that way it might open that topic for Com. Giefer's concern. Ms. Wordell: • Pointed out that it was a series of a number of different strategies to improve pedestrian walkability; some of the things mentioned aze already in there. Tlris one was specifically designed at looking at the streets and not crea[ing another list of things you could do. Cupertino Planning Commission 30 June 15, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: • What we aze talking about is Policy 4-6, Traffic Service and Pedestrian Needs that was completely stricken. It says "balance the needs of pedestrians .....and its specific intersections". • It also had some strategies which we could argue over. One was traffic signal walk times; the strategy was described in Policy 4-3; "added time to walk signals would be most appropriate neaz shopping districts, schools, and senior center developments" which seems reasonable. • No. 2- Reduce street widths; this strategy is described in Policy 4-3; study the impact of the reduction of travel lanes on uaffic LOS; reduce the width of streets only after a case-by-case study where service levels would not be degraded below level E+. • What we are arguing about now is the second strategy under policy 4-6. I would propose we put back policy 4-6 and continue wordsmithing the second strategy. Com. Giefer: • I dodt think it is second strategy; it is strategy 5; pedestrian improvements was the one I was suggesting be replaced. Policy 4-3, strategy 5, pedestrian ~ee~uit~eets improvements which reads "where a median is provided Promotes slower traffic and less pervious service." Vice Chair Miller: • My general concem was in this section all references to pedestrians or better walkability for pedestrians was deleted and you are just picking out one of those, and I would want to put them all back, and if there is a concem about the specific issue of reducing traffic lanes, we can talk about that. • In general the rest of them are acceptable from a walkability standpoint. Com. Giefer: • I agree, we need to make the General Plan more pedestrian oriented and less car centered. Com. Saadati: • I agree with that; perhaps we need to be more general than specific. Chair Wong: • Can I suggest as a compromise that what Com. Giefer was saying was Wat make it more pedestrian friendly and less auto centric, instead of being specific of reducing the lanes to 4 lanes. Would that be acceptable. Com. Saadati, Vice Chair Miller: • That is fine No. 49 - Consent Vice Chair Miller: • What about my suggestion that we look over that circulation element a little more and add some of the other policies originally in the Plan that were taken out that were pedestrian centric. Mr. Piasecki: • We would like for you to do that; that is why we suggested it. We have had this automobile focus £or decades, it has been at the detriment of pedestrian walkability and safety. • I would encourage you to do that. Cupertino Planning Commission 31 June 15, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: • Rather than go through each one of them, could you please add them in and we will look them over on the final. Chair Wong: • If you can add them and show next Thursday, and red line them for us to take a look at. All Commissioners agreed. Box 49 - Consent Box 50 Chair Wong: • " A new strategy is needed to McClellan " • It goes back to No. 48 because there was a mention of level of service; my question to staff is I want to make sure that the policy is D+ or higher. Is it stated D+ and higher? I want to make sure we dodt go down to Es. Mr. Piasecki: • You are at Es in some locations. Practically speaking, it may not be possible to do that. It is a nice goal to strive for, but I don't think you can do it. Chair Wong: • Can we use the words "strive for D+". Mr. Piasecki: • I dodt know why you can't all it means that you will be spending a lot of money at a fairly small change in a level of service. You may or may not want to do that. Chair Wong: • I suggested D+ or higher because if we lmow that the capacity is not there for the infrastructure for buses, light rails, cars, etc., why are we building more industry, jobs, commercial or housing in an area that cannot handle the infrastructure. I believe that we can handle the infrastructure of the schools and the traffic, before we start building and that is my concern. Mr. Piasecki: • That has come up a number of times and with projects, there has been a number of improvements to the sewer systems, because the Sanitary district evaluated every project to make sure it can handle it. Similarly with traffic, we do traffic studies and if it is even remotely practical, we will enhance the roadways to enhance LOS. It automatically happens. • I don't think we can generalize the infrastructure isn't there; there has been the discussion with the schools enhancing and providing; they pay fees and have been talking about enhancements, supplementals, to help make that work. I don't disagree with what you are saying that we do that and should continue to do that; perhaps what you can do in this particulaz case is to say the city should always look for ways [o enhance its level of service. That is a more generic statement and something we should be doing. Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 15, 2005 Ms. WordelL• • I need to know what language you aze looking for and where because this is now the specifics of what you really want to say. Page 412 of the task force draft says "maintain" - Policy 4-5 says to maintain a LOS D except for two places where it could go to E+, • Box 50 is actually [alking about projections from the EIR and show these two intersections going to less than D. Our traffic consultant is saying we may over time need mitigation for that degrading intersection LOS. You might have to do some right turn lanes. • Your plan in the task force drafr does allow three intersections to go to E+ unless you change that. Chair Wong: • The General Plan Task Force says that " DeAnza and Stelling E+ vehicle." Mr. Piasecki: • What is happening in these locations is the commute and the additional traffic from the sunounding world is what they throw in and they project "may damage these intersections". It is not necessarily related to specifically our growth and the Stelling/Stevens Creek is lazgely driven by DeAnza College, so it breaks down during certain times. • I think if you say in these cases we aze going to strive for a better level of service, that is appropriate. Chair Wong: • My vision For the General Plan is a LOS o£ D- or above. • Add the language "to enhance the level of service" Box 51 - Explain the policv Ms. Wordell: • This was a recommendation from the Public Works staf£ The task force draft had inserted some language about requiring a certain percent of approval for traffic calming measures and the Public Works Department has been using a 66% approval; they want to be consistent. Chair Wong: • I prefer 60%. Vice Chair Miller: • Do not have a preference. Com. Saadati: • 66% is common among other cities. Com. Giefer: • Do not have a preference for 60% or 66%. Ms. Wordell: • I am concemed about changing direction from what the ciTy has been doing. The city's policy is 66%. • The General Plan Task Force is suggesting a change from a current policy to 60%; practice. Cupertino Planning Commission 33 June 15, 2005 Chair Wong: • I prefer 60% and let City Council decide; I agree with the General Plan Task Force. No. 52 - Consent No 53 - Recommendation bv Bicvcle Pedeshian Commission. Traftic service and uedestrian needs. Chair Wong: • The concern is if you allow a lower LOS in a business district, you will discourage people to shop in Cupertino because we need new sales tax. I don't feel comfortable with this policy. Mr. Piasecki: • Some of the most popular shopping districts in the valley are the most congested. I don't think it is necessarily true that congestion discourages people; in some cases it may encourage people because that is the place to be. • I don't know if you should use that as your logic, but you can say I don't want it for other reasons, but I don't know if there is a correlation between shopping and congestion. Com. Giefer: • I agree; we just had a discussion on how to make our city more pedestrian centric as opposed to auto centric and this is a good example of how we do that. • I support the Bike and Ped Commission to add this back in. Vice Chair Miller: • I think there are enough words in here to make sure that it dcesn't happen indiscrimi~ately and says "where necessary and appropriate" so it does involve an evaluation. • I would support that also. Box No. 54 - Traffic Calming - Consent Box No. 55 - Chair Wong: • It goes back to traffic; a change is needed in description for future yeaz traffic conditions. • What are you trying to achieve on Box No. 55? Ms. Wordell: • I wanted to find the wording he was referring to; the idea is that we aze going to need to mitigate these intersections in order to maintain our LOS; that was not in the draft, that we would be at D; but we didn't say how we would get; and the way we get there is through these mitigations. • It says that the LOS will meet the standards of the Plan and he really means to say "with the roadway improvements, it will meet the standards of the Plan." Chair Wong: • That is appropriate. No. 56 to 68 - Consent Cupertino Planning Comxnission 34 June 15, 2005 Chair Wong: • No objections to Nos. 56 to 68. • That will conclude the preliminary review. • Relative to Com. Giefer's comment during the General Plan regazding sustainability, I want to put in a policy of some kind for committee or commission. I know funds are tight, but I want to make sure it is in the General Plan because I don't see it. If we don't put any teeth for having a sustainability committee then this will not be done. Ms. Wordell: • It is in environmental resources. Chair Wong: • We have a FAR for Rl and I noticed that we don't have an FAR for the Planned Unit Development or condo or townhouses and we always keep preparing the complex next to Memorial Pazk, Glenbrook Apartments. The FAR for the apartment is small. • Do we have a policy or suggest a policy on making units proportionate to the site because we do it in our Rl neighborhoods, and in our hillsides, and I noticed that when the community comes to us a lot of folks are concemed about 3 and 4 bedrooms and how it impacts the traffic, the schools and would putting an FAR on that help mitigate those concems. Mr. Piasecki: • You may want to consider a design section to evaluate the appropriate building, massing and FARs of multi-family districts and to determine either to find an acceptable FAR or level of massing. Ms. Wordell: • Page 211 of the draft has a section "Building Form" which talks about that and there aze some strategies; Page 213 Sensitive Design and Site Planning, it doesn't talk about FAR, if there is a place to put some official wording we could; Chair Wong: • Asked staff to investigate, so we don't arbitrarily use a number, to have it proportional like we do on RI and the residential hillside. • Relative to Policy 2-16 single family residential design, regazding compatibility, during the Rl hearing there was concern regarding compatibility, how can we accommodate transitional neighborhoods into this policy? Mr. Piasecki: • You may want to consider another strategy that says "recognize that some neighborhoods aze in transition and that more flexibility would be allowed in those areas." Com. Saadati: • It is appropriate. Com. Giefer: • I would support having an additional strategy. Cupertino Planning Commission 35 June 15, 2005 Chair Wong: • Was there anything else you wanted to add or that we missed regarding the General Plan. Staff can get back to us. Relative to the FAR for plaz~ning condos, it talked about design, but not FAR; do you want it to retum with a formula. Ms. WordelL• • Do you want to specify an FAR or say that we should be looking to add FARs. Chair Wong: • Perhaps to add so that later on we can develop a policy; the concem here is that they are building larger and lazger developments and it is impacting the neighborhood; perhaps when we look at an ordinance, it may or may not work. Mr. Piasecki: • You suggested we come back with some language, but from some of the other district to other districts, that compatibility may be slightly different for the same reasons that Com. Miller is making the point that some neighborhoods aze in transition; some apartment areas have changed out significantly; if one size Fits all, you may not get the compatibility you are after. • Perhaps the wording should be something about "ensure that the FAR is compatible with the surrounding similar buildings in the area and we can evaluate that and get back to you. Vice Chair Miller: . I would want to make it at least more general than that; put some language in that we will explore or evaluate the use of FARs. Chair Wong: • That is appropriate. . What I am seeing is that many people aze putting three or four bedrooms and not taking into consideration one or two bedrooms for people who want to star[ in Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki: • Point well taken; however, in many cases the three and four bedrooms are not compatible with the ones and twos in the neighborhood. Chair Wong declared a recess. Upon reconvening the meeting, Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Denuis Whitaker, resident: • The City Council needs to applaud all the Planning Commission and staff for over, above and beyond the call of duty work. You aze all phenomenal. While I may disagree with a lot of you, but you aze phenomenal and I hope the City Council heazs this and I hope at the next City Council meeting they express it. Vice Chair Miller: • The Planning Commission applauds you for going through the process with us. Mr. Whitaker: • Retain the character of Cupertino. When you talk about jobs/housing ratios, please use up to date figures or don't use them at all because it is one of the major reasons for distrust in the Cupertino Planning Commission 36 June 15, 2005 community; you aze using things that everybody knows is not true and still pushing forwazd with it. • The words "limited housing" in the Crossroads was mentioned. I would like in the General Plan is that goes through to define the word `9imited" before it is taken out of context. If you open the door for housing, more will come. Don't allow housing in the Crossroads please. I don't want you to lose that limited resource. • Development: You have been adding development, but I don't see a lot of green space going on; at least San Francisco has pazks everywhere. Please make sure you add the green spaces, no[ little plazas, but add pazks so the public can see it and be proud of it. • We have another limited resource. Lots of doctors and dentists offices in the Town Center to the side; they are not in private condos because they were removed from the azea. I hope you can find some way to make sure we don't kick the rest of the doctors and dentists out; leave the private azeas alone from housing, if you can put it in the General Plan. If you allow housing to go into that azea when these people move on, where will we all go for dentists and doctors; our population has grown. • Dodt lose the site of it for structure improvements. When Town Center was being built, we talked about how they were going to fix the sewage lines on Wolfe Road. I have not seen any widening of our infrastructure at all anywhere else. Wherever there aze neighborhoods we need to be sensitive along with thoroughfares of height restrictions. I would like to see 36 feet as a maximum along DeAnza and Stevens Creek. If you have to add mixed use, do it in commercial areas but not in the gems that we have. Put it along DeAnza and Stevens Creek but only two stories high. That would be the real word "affordable". It won't be subsidized housing where you are using 25%. Allow mixed use in there. • Due to DeAnza College's growth and potential growth, you have no control over them at all. You have no control over the increase in population as faz as traffic; don't reduce the lanes of traffia • Don't easily accept an LOS rating of D or E wherever you go; our schools dodt allow Es or Fs; why should we do it? If you have to stop a major production of housing, then be considerate. Look into the future when you are adding this to see what you aze doing to our arteries. Reduce the street pazking on major routes; it is an extreme dentured to cyclists and pedestrians. You need to improve your parking and if you have to err on the side of good or bad, go more not less. • Be sensible about housing numbers; I am not "no growth," the CCC is not growth; we are all about sensible growth, but when you aze looking at the whole picture, please look at the whole picture. • Please retain our quality schools, improve our traffic LOS, retain our vistas and retain our character. Jennifer Griffin, resident: • Relative to traffic in Cupertino, part of your discussion about the future plans for trafFic in mitigating pedestrian barriers in the city was very interesting. • The traffic has increased greatly in Cupertino; I think we need to be sensitive to the amount of traffic in and azound Cupertino. I use the freeways within the city to do errands and we need to be sensitive how we hand?e the traffic flow at 85 and 280 on and off ramps. The area azound Apple at 280 and Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road is a potential disaster azea. • As we put in more housing toward the Vallco end, Tantau and Stevens Creek is another potential disaster area particulazly if we put in any other retail in there. We need to make sure that if you aze building in there, you make sure the traffic azound that azea is going to move. Cupertino Planning Commission 37 June 15, 2005 J. Tong, resident: • Relative to mixed use and your definition of mixed use, what I saw is that mixed use is mentioned in many places and I want to be sure that we aren't planting a seed in the developer's minds that everywhere along the areas that there is development, they should put in mixed use. . In pedestrian improvements, a commissioner made a comment that the General Plan Task Force members seemed that they were not pro-auto, and were anti-pedestrian. That is not the case; when you read some of that, and I was on the General Plan Task Force, the concern was because of the six lanes and you may have thought the task force was not pro-auto and anti- pedestrian. • The task force on the Crossroads pedestrian azea, felt because of the six lanes the General Plan Task Force voted 24/18 as far as walkability in that azea, and as far as reducing lanes, the task force voted 27/19. Please keep in mind the comments of the majority oF the task force members. . The task force recommended the 60% traffic calming. • Please keep in mind the majority of the task force views. • Relative to level of traffic, D is unacceptable and why is D being considered instead of C or higher as has been mentioned. • Relative to new construction, when the task force began, Mr. Piasecki told the group that whatever you want is what you can propose and he also told the task force to disregazd any ABAG numbers, and now we know that the ABAG numbers are obsolete. • There are many things lined out tonight on some of those issues and areas, many were deleted and revisions were suggested by one of our Planuing Commissioners and she has mentioned she was a signer of the Minority Report; please keep in mind the majority report by the General Plan Task Force people. • Please protect our city's infrastructure; keep schools from being heavily impacted because the enrollment will not decrease and we know that because we have high quality schools in our community. • Please retain our suburban character in our special city for our residents. Tom Huganin, resident: • Item 51, Traffic Calming Devices; I have had the misfortune of living next to one at the comer of Wheaton and Portal. • The device was installed in the mid-90s, based on a petition of residents on Portal Avenue, but no residents on Wheaton were ever notified or had any say in the trafFic calming device. It was designed to be a roundabout and it was installed. People drive like mad down Portal, the sheriff was out there radaring everyone, but to no avail, so they incorporated traffic calming devices for the people on Portal; unfortunately people on Wheaton never knew about it until traffic bolted. I actually believe that some sort of neighborhood notification and possibly 66% of the people would be a reasonable thing in this situation. I am glad to see that the city is thinking about this now, but they didn't in the 90s. Unfortunately we got a roundabout and it is never going to leave; it will be there permanently since the city lacks funds to remove it. • I support walkability in the city but I also support having traffic being able to flow through the city. Unfortunately we aze smack in between the employment centers of the north and Saratoga and residential areas to the south; so we have to be able to flow traffic through the city. Before Highway 85 there was a lot of cut through traffic through various neighborhoods. 85 helped us out, but I do not want to go back to those dazk days before 85 was built. Please try to keep the traffic service a good LOS. • Item No. 30 - it only applies to one place in Cupertino, Vallco Park district, Calabazas Creek. The flood control district fixed Calabazas in the mid 80s; if we want to open up Calabazas Cupertino Planning Commission 38 June 15, 2005 Creek in that area the developer should pay for it, not the ci[izens; and the flood control district should make sure that it is safe to do so. We need that LOS; please be careful with that creek; do the right thing and don't cost the ta~cpayers money. Robert Levy, resident: . I am pleased at the amount you have accomplished in the last couple of days; you should be proud of yourselves and the city should be very enthusiastic and support all of you. • There are too many things to be said about what is going on in the three days and what has gone on in the rivo years before. I don't think anybody has a cleaz idea as to what the city is or should be or is going to be. You talked about numbers of houses here and dozens of houses there but you haven't really said what those houses are going to look like or where they are going to be and what they are going to see when they look out their windows. Will they have convenient services; will they have to get in their cars to go shopping; you address something about tht in terms of walkability; but the items there really didn't solve the problem the last time around. • Trails were discussed and there it is more a case of thinking about what you would like to see rather than what is actually there. You coulddt put a trail on the opposite side of the creek from the houses in back of Wilson Park; the water districYs road is in back of the houses. In order to move the trail to the other side you would have to do a massive reconstruction or move the fence from Wilson Park or cut entrances from both ends. But if the trail can't go any further than Wilson Pazk, why go to all the trouble. There are houses at both ends of that. I know the City Council has great plans for trails and walkability; the General Plan the last time I saw it said it had to have the ability to have specifically mountain bikes on the trails; which says to me that the first time I see anyone on one of those trails on a regular bike, whether it is a 3 year old kid or a 30 year old man, I am going to object strenuously and call up code enforcement. I dodt think anyone has taken that item out of the book. • I leamed something tonight about trees have to read the ordinances on that, because if 20 inches is the top limit that the tree can get to before I can trim it, then when the tree gets to 19 inches I call in the azborist to go phlil~h because I can plant a new tree rather than go through the courts session because I cut the branches off because they were rapping on my roof or window. • I also learned that it is more impoRant that you not cut things out of a tree than you operate outside your use permit. An applicant was present last evening, who was selling lots for two years telling buyers they would let them put in vertical markers and of course they weren't permitted to do that by the use permit. You spent time talking about what the guys who cut the branches off the trees were going to have to do to rectify that; I didn't heaz any discussion about telling the people at the cemetery to talk to their customers and tell them they were going to pull down all those vertical markers and lay them flat on the ground because that is a cemetery and those people invested their money in it, and that was years ago, and what difference does it make? • The people at the cemetery are salesmen, businessmen, it is a business; it is not a reverent place; it is a place where they are trying to sell 500 units per yeaz or more, so they are going to advertising in the windows or on the grass or elsewhere. That place is intended to be flat and level but that is not the way they want to advertise it, they want to advertise it as something bigger and better than that. . Nobody suggested last night that on one of those empty lots over in the Oaks, you could move those veterans' plots and put in a veterans plaza as a park for the city. 6~ai~ Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 39 June 15, 2005 Chair Wong: • Expressed appreciation to staff and the Planning Commissioners for their hard work, tenacity and cooperation with the project and for devoting the extra time for special meetings to meet the City Council's deadline of June 28'". A diswssion ensued regarding the scheduling of remaining meetings to meet the timeline relative to submitting recommendations on the General Plan to the City Council. Adjournment: Chair Wong adjourned the meeting to the next special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, June 23, 2005. d ` /1 /^2 , n 6 SubmittedBy: Elizabett lis, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: August 23, 2005