Loading...
Draft Minutes 02-28-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:00 P,M, CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES February 28, 2006 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The study session and regular Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 2006 was called to order at 6:00 p,m, in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Cary Chien Taaghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Aki Honda Eileen Murray STUDY SESSSION: I, Planning Commission 2006 Work Program Tentative City Council date: March 7, 2006 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: · Presented a summary of some of the work program possible priorities, based on unfinished projects from last year and also on City Council goals for this year. · She referred to the Work Program Action List 2006 (Exhibit C) and said she would highlight the ones that have the most effect on the Planning Commission as far as being larger projects and taking more time from the Planning Commission. · She reviewed the Council goals and provided an update on each, including: · Crossroad StreetscaDe Plan: A draft was created at the time the General Plan was considered and put on hold until the General Plan was completed. It will be calibrated to any policies in the General Plan that may affect it, completed and a recommendation will be forwarded to the City CounciL · The SÌlm Ordinance: Was scheduled for review in 2005, but the Fence Ordinance preempted it It is next in line for review, · The Fence Ordinance: The item may be finalized this evening if action is taken by the Planning Commission, · Nexus Studv: At the February 27th meeting, the City agreed to consider the fees for the Nexus Study for housing mitigation to go onto the City Council fee program. · Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing: It may not require much Planning Commission time Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 2 February 28, 2006 unless it becomes a project; it is being worked on in tenns of trying to pull together some parcels north of Rainbow and West of 85 in the Cleo Avenue area; not certain if it will develop into a project. It will likely not be time consuming. · Heart of the City Plan: This is also Stevens Creek Boulevard, just not the Crossroads; it encompasses all of Stevens Creek Boulevard, It was adopted in 1994 and would need to be compared to the General Plan; there are some clarifications which will need cleaning up. It would be comparable to the Crossroads as far as being a bigger project. · The Green Buildings DrOgram: The Council has directed it to be in the work program for this year, There are some implementation measures in the General Plan related to this but could be quite substantial. Some of the approved wording was to set standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving efficient buildings and to prepare and implement green building standards for all major private and public projects that ensure reduction in energy consumption for new developments through site and building design, It will be fairly involved. · Relative to Vice Chair Giefer's inquiry about the possibility of reducing fees for people who use solar energy, the Building Department has already been directed and working on coming back to the City Council for some possible fee reduction. The implementation read would likely be the implementation the Planning Commission would be involved in, · Annexing Small Unincoroorated Pockets: There are nine pockets to move ahead on; the County is giving some break to the cities, in terms of processing fees if action is taken on some of the pockets, · She reviewed the Planning Projects which are not Council goal directed, but projects ITom other sources, The first one is a carryover ITom Council last year; there were some concerns by residents that the Hillside eRRS) standards that are in Rl ordinance had not been fully aware how this would affect their properties. The City Council agreed that they would bring it back for hearing so that people would have adequate opportunity to address their concerns. · She noted the Private Development Projects, of which some are a follow up, which provides an idea of the kind of workload that may come through next year in order to budget the time, Some of the projects are follow up on projects that are already approved and would be just the building permit and construction overseeing of that. · The Taylor Woodrow project is in the public hearing mode; there is a smaller project on the former McDonaldIDorsa Quarry Site on Stevens Canyon Road, The former Any Mountain site will be proposed for rebuilding as an office site; and some properties on No. Tantau Avenue have come in, but have not been scheduled for a public hearing yet to convert some industrial properties to residential. Chairperson Miller discussed his suggestions: · Shared his vision to address issues and projects ITom a planning standpoint in a more proactive manner, that would benefit the Council and the city for 2006, He said he felt if they could identify the areas in town that are going to come up for development in the near future and get a head start, they would not be so controversial. It would enable the city to weigh in advance rather than the developers, and it would provide the residents the opportunity to do so as well and things would go smoother. · He said that one of the areas he considered, was doing more proactive planning for key areas in town that may come up for development in the near future, Staff has identified one in terms of the Heart of the City and others are potentially South Vallco depending on what happens with the Toll Brothers project; North Vallco and also the Homestead area, Villa Serra. · He said those areas are worth considering in terms of doing advance planning, and when deliberating on the General Plan, they agreed to do more proactive planning in the future, and this is the first opportunity afterreviewing the General Plan last year. · There are a number of R&D buildings in town that are obsolete and some of them have come Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 3 February 28, 2006 up for a review and have worked out to be projects, some were approved, some were not approved and some are still going through, It is clear that these buildings exist, and because they are obsolete they are going to come up for development. This is an opportunity for a head start on what is sure to be happening, · He said a recent article in the Business Journal said that the economy in the area is becoming more knowledge based, and with R&D, production line things, and manufacturing going away, it has left a number of buildings vacant around the valley that are not functional, totaling about 12 million square feet in the valley itself which is approximately one-third of the vacant space currently in the valley, Other towns are in the process of tearing them down and converting them either to retail or newer offices or residential. · A top priority is the issue of providing affordable housing for people who work in Cupertino in the major corporations such as Apple and Hewlett Packard, Ms. Wordell: · Said the City Council has scheduled a study session on the conversion of industrial lands, and conversion of all commercial industrial lands to residential. They want to look at areas that are not functionally obsolete and remove the residential potential ITom them. · While the approach had been to encourage residential uses in as many places as possible in order to achieve the residential goals, perhaps the City Council would consider taking that away ITom areas that are not appropriate to convert. Chair MiUer: · Said he listened to the City Council study session on goal setting and came away with a number of items that different council members discussed including improving the process of streamlining permits; affordable housing, financing, proactive planning, and revitalizing retail. Com. Saadati: · He said proactive planning is the best approach. Concerning the issues that came before the Commission during the last year, evaluating the conversion and identifYing what the needs are and even though some of the facilities are getting older and obsolete, hopefully evaluate the entire city and see what the city's needs are. Vice Chair Giefer: · Said green building and energy conservation were a priority with her, · She reported that the city is moving forward to eliminate fees and incentives for using solar, photo voltaic and other solar systems, · Said if there were other things they could identifY to help design a program to put Cupertino in the foreITont of green building and energy conservation, it would help future generations of others who live in Cupertino. · The housing stock inventory is made up of apartments, entry level housing, high density housing, single family dwellings, and larger single family dwellings, etc, There is a need to look at the conversion of apartments and allowing them to be replaced with single family homes, because home purchases are down 24% statewide because of rising interest rates. Apartments will be more in demand to provide housing for those who cannot afford to purchase homes and need to rent. · Said that the only issue she had with studying conversion and identifYing obsolete buildings is that they may inadvertently be manipulating the marketplace. · If a commercial building is tagged as being obsolete and then it meets the criteria for conversion, that land may increase in value; and someone may be speculating tearing down the obsolete industrial and putting in housing. She said before getting completely on board with that, she would like to have counsel weigh in on that and make sure they are not setting Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 4 February 28, 2006 themselves up for market manipulation · She said she agreed that they need to have foresight and plan as best they can to help engineer a community that meets their needs today and in the future. · There was no action on the tree ordinance on the 2005 work list. It has become of greater importance because of the many people complaining about illegal removal of trees, and trees not being protected properly. There has been an execution issue, and as long as it remains on the lowest priority for Planning and Building, the problem will continue. She said she would like it to be included on the work list for staff. Chair MiUer: · Said he would not call the process of planning in itself a manipulation of property values, although it causes changes in property values, He said there was no way to avoid shifting property values when planning and changing zoning or uses. It has to be weighed against the value of planning in advance. He emphasized that they were not giving the green light to anyone, but merely preparing in advance so that when someone comes in, they have to fit those requirements, rather than waiting for the developer to come in and say what he thinks the requirements should be. Vice Chair Giefer: · Said she agreed that they needed special planning areas, but was not comfortable with saying the Planning Commission was capable ofidentif'ying the buildings as obsolete. · Said that they need to ensure they are preserving enough of the valuable commercial property for the long term, and not sell tomorrow off today. · Questioned whether a one story strip mall is the best use of the building, because at some point the land will come in as well. · She said commercial has to be preserved for the future and she was uncertain if they were not directly manipulating property values, Chair MiUer: · Said he did not feel the process conflicted with preserving commercial for the future. · He said it was not his intent to suggest identifying buildings for conversion to housing; but to identify buildings that have no functional use, and then decide what is best in that area, Whatever the use, the next step would be to ensure the right policies are in place to encourage that space to be developed, · He said he was not a proponent of converting all office space to housing; it is a planning exercise as to what is the best use and what they want to see in the space, Vice Chair Giefer: · She said she would agree as long as they preserve as much space as required by the General Plan; because there is a certain amount of square footage that needs to be preserved as part of the General Plan, Com. Wong: · The tree ordinance was on the work plan last year and staff did a good job in walking the Commission through the process for the past three years, · Agreed that the tree ordinance was a good ordinance and is an enforcement faction. He emphasized that it needed to be enforced, Vice Chair Giefer: · Agreed that the tree ordinance needed to be enforced; there are many species on the list that should not be included as they are non-native and would not thrive in the area; and there are Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 5 February 28, 2006 numerous natives not included that should be on the list. · She reiterated that the update needs to occur, Com. Wong: · Said it was important to be proactive in planning vs, reactive, relative to Vallco North, Vallco South, and the Homestead area. · Have a specific plan provided for the other potential areas such as Crossroads, North Vallco or Homestead and let developers and property owners know what the city's vision is, It would be easier to let people know what it is so there are not as many surprises or controversies and people will be aware of what is going on. Presently, there are two or three major applications going on and people are concerned even though we already have the Heart of the City Plan there, He said he would support that from the Chairperson. · He said he agreed with the Council that revitalizing the retail was important, as it went hand in hand with affordable housing and mixed use, · Agreed with Vice Chair Giefer about the need for protection of single family homes in hillsides; and the need to determine areas along the center of town of the major infill projects. · Said he would welcome a senior housing policy; it is market driven but as baby boomers are aging, they need places to live in the Cupertino area. He suggested some type of incentive plan for seniors be offered. · Another important issue is public transportation, The County and VT A are suggesting a half- cent sales tax, but as yet the benefits for Cupertino have not been seen, There has been mention from VTA about high occupancy buses and the light rail from downtown San Jose or a light rail connection from Sunnyvale; and a BART system in downtown San Jose, · He said he supported the concept of asking the City Council if they are interested, to direct staff to look into the possibility of bringing in light rail from downtown San Jose or Sunnyvale, utilizing the benefit of the half-cent sales tax. The VT A 20/20 vision plan that has marked that corridor to bring it through either Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road or Stevens Creek to DeAnza College will encourage more infill and more smart growth and have more high density at the center of our city vs, in a single family neighborhood, It is important to protect the single family neighborhoods and hillsides, We need that direction from Council, and if we get direction from Council, Mr. Piasecki did a successful job in implementing light rail in Campbell. Com. Chien: · Said at this time he had no comments as it was his first Planning Commission meeting, · Said that he appreciated the comments and feedback to bring him up to date on the projects, Vice Chair Giefer: · Said she liked Chair Miller's idea regarding a housing incentive, and also suggested consideration of a first time purchaser's incentive, Chair Miller: · Provided infonnation on a program in Monterey County where they are addressing the issue of providing work force housing, The current levels of affordable housing are very low, which is 50% of median income, and low which is 80% of median income, and moderate which is 120% of the median income, In Monterey County they defined two new categories; 150% of median income, and 180% of median income, and they are experimenting with those programs to address the needs of affordable housing for people in industries in critical areas where employers are having difficulty finding people to work there because they cannot afford to live there. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 6 February 28, 2006 Mr. Piasecki: · Said it came up last night at the Council meeting in conjunction with the Nexus study, which is an analysis of the fees charged for non-residential on a per-square foot basis, and the types of housing that can be utilized. The work force housing component came up and the Council did not make a decision whether to move forward with it, but it is an option available to the city, to be able to provide some of the above median income type housing, · The Council will be making the decision in conjunction with the Nexus study of whether they want to move forward. The Commission can encourage them to include that component, but more infonnation is needed before proceeding. Com. Wong: · Said that the Housing Commission is addressing the issue, Chair MiUer: · Said that if they moved forward with the concept, the driver should be the City Councilor Housing Commission, not the Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff would provide the infonnation to the Commission, · He said they may want to decide in conjunction with the fees charged that they want to make a recommendation on the fees relating to work force housing. Chair Miller: · He said obvious criteria is the value of the project to the city, and if it is known that a developer is coming into a particular area, it would be of high value to the city, · Weight would also be given if it is a high profile area that needs planning, · The sign ordinance is on the Council's list and is compatible with the Council's objective of revitalizing retail. He suggested that the Planning Commission address the sign ordinance, Com. Saadati: · Suggested that staff review the list and provide feedback on the projects, taking into consideration the amount of time to prepare the infonnation for the meetings, · Said that proactive planning should be at the top of the list. Other items in green building that been discussed in detail before may not take as much effort; the sign ordinance would be take a couple of meetings. Ms. Wordell: · Explained that the projects listed as possible priorities were the projects staff felt they could handle, She said some additions could be made and some projects dropped off the list according to the Commission's preference. Com. Wong: · Relative to the Review RI ordinance regarding RHS, he suggested limiting it to discussion of the slope only, and not reopen the entire process. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the projects and provided timelines: · The City Council accepted the Nexus study last night and will now look at the actual fee allocations, It will not come back to Commission at this point. · Cleo Avenue will come to the Commission as a development application; and will likely take one meeting to look at the development application, · The Crossroads streetscape will likely take two meetings. It is done, and has to go back to the Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 7 February 28, 2006 commission to check it against the General Plan work that was done. It complies with the General Plan; there is no housing component in the streetscape plan; the condo plan was removed, · Heart of the City Plan will likely take three to four meetings because there is a lot to discuss, It is a priority for the Council. · The sign ordinance may be three to four meetings. · Green buildings program will take six to ten meetings, A consultant will be hired in next year's budget · Annexation of small, unincorporated pockets will come to the Commission as they occur, · The obsolete research and development projects would require a lot of outside input and would take about three to four meetings. The time includes talking to property owners and gathering data, · Homestead and North Vallco, are of equal interests based on the number of calls they get They would require three to four meetings for each; the Council has study sessions scheduled to discuss the issue. · Said he did not object to adding more projects that were suggested, but they would have to be prioritized, Chair Miller opened the public hearing Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · She asked for the definition of "functionally obsolete" · Said it has been an issue since 1989 whether the buildings are up to code, · She said she understood there were state and federal funds to retrofit buildings if there is evidence of earthquake damage. · Expressed concern about the Taylor Woodrow project Is a lack of earthquake retrofitting being used as a reason to take a building down? Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that there may be state and federal funds for retrofitting education buildings; however it does not mean the funds are available to private property owners for retrofitting, · That alone is not what they would interpret as "functionally obsolete" in and of itself unless you can demonstrate that the building cannot reasonably be marketed within reason, That is why the improvement cost is so high that you could not reasonably install the improvements and then charge for them in the marketplace and then expect to lease the building. Some of the buildings have been vacant and unleased for five years, · The property owners argue to the Council that there is no market interest and that is something that has to be demonstrated, The public interest is the only reasonable use of property industrial or office and is there another use that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. That is where the focus has been with cohesive office centers and commercial centers, · He cautioned the Commission about the risk of rreeze rraming to the 1970s to say that Cupertino will look like the land use pattern rrom the 70s forever. There are opportunities to take advantage of the market force; if the land in the 70s was always going to be orchard, there would never have been a Vallco Park mall. It produced most of the housing that is in Cupertino today. Chair MiUer: · Said it was rare for a developer to say that a building is obsolete because it would be too expensive to retrofit for earthquakes, They provide a myriad of reasons it may not work, such as the lack of windows, it has high ceilings, the air conditioning and heating systems are Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 8 February 28, 2006 obsolete, and many types of things that may have worked in the 60s or 70s that are no longer used. Chair Miller closed the public hearing, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Asked for clarification of definition of North and South Vallco. · Said the residents of that end of town need a better generalization of terms pertaining to that area, To them it is not North Vallco and South Vallco, but is Ridgeview, tech buildings near Homestead Road, Hewlett Packard, Toll Brothers, and former Tandem buildings, etc, Shilpa Joshi, resident: · Shared a recent article rrom the San Jose Mercury newspaper, about the trend of business condominium ownership, which is ownership of a condominium to run a business out of. · She said it was a new trend in the area and was popular in the AsianlIndian community since they value owning their property rather than renting, · She suggested that Cupertino become involved as there is land available and no buildings would have to be torn down. · She said that Cupertino would have an excellent chance of success as other cities were not involved except San Jose, and there is a demand for it. Chair Miller: · Clarified that Cupertino has already set a precedent for supporting the concept, and noted there was a building across from city hall with an office condominium. · He said it is the developer's decision to build an office condo, CONSENT CALENDAR: None 2. TM-2005-14 V -2006-01 Jitka Cymbal Jing and Roger Low, 21988 McClellan Road Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two parcels (11,385 and 10,418 square feet in size) in a RI-7.5 zoning district. (The revised square footage ofthe lots is 10,197 and 11,807 due to the reconfiguration), Variance to allow two lots that are 58 feet wide on a proposed subdivision instead of the required 60-foot width. Continued from the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission decision final unless appealed, Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot into two parcels in a RI-7,5 zoning district, and variance to allow two lots on a proposed subdivision instead of the required 60-foot width, At the time it was discussed previously, it was a proposed flag lot and the Planning Commission was interested in looking at two conventional lots where the rrontage was on the street, which required a variance because the required 60 Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 9 February 28, 2006 foot lot width could not be met with that type oflot pattern. · The lots confonn to the density of the zoning minimum lot size and to the density in the General Plan, · At the last meeting, the city arborist identified three 1rees for protection. · The applicant provided an outline of possible footprints for the single family residences to be built on the lots, · Staff is recommending the approval of the tentative map and the variance, Jitka Cymbal, Applicant: · Said she did not have additional comments on the staff report, · Stated that the variance was a viable alternative and asked the commission to approve the project. Chair Miller opened public hearing: Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Said she is proud of Cupertino for taking the effort to protect the 1rees, The 1rees have value to the property, and provide screening for the properties, · She said it will be an attractive subdivision for the neighborhood. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM-2005-14 and V-2006-01. (Vote: 5-0-0) 3. MCA-2005-01 City of Cnpertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences) Tentative City Council date: March 7, 2006 Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · The item is a continuation of the Planning Commission study session on the amendment to the fence ordinance held on December 13,2005, At that meeting, the Planning Commission provided comments and recommendations on the fence ordinance regarding fence height, elec1ronic gates, fence post caps and fence materials as outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council enact the Municipal Code Amendment based on the draft model resolution, Com. Giefer: · Suggested that the language be changed on Page 3-6, to broaden it so that it is not just a residential fence policy, Ms. Honda: · Said it was it was listed in the fence ordinance; and would pertain to commercial as well. If the commission would like to further clarifY it, they could add more language. · Staff will make the change, · Stated there was not a separate fence ordinance for commercial. Com. Wong: · Said that commercial properties will differ from residential and he was not in favor of reinventing the work to have it commercial. Ms. WordeD: · Said there were situations where residential abuts to commercial and that commercial may incorrectly use barbed wire and razor wire over a residential fence. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 10 February 28, 2006 Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Chris Draper, Government Affairs Coordinator for the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors: · Thanked the commission for their outreach in the process, and said they were pleased with the fence ordinance. · Expressed appreciation for the commission's decision to put parity between electronic and non electronic gates. · He asked that the definition of safety and security be addressed, Safety encompasses a wide range of issues not limited to vehicles, but included familial situations and children. There is a wider definition to take into account. · Relative to the definition of security, he said he understood the commission's desire to limit security to those who have experienced crime, vandalism, and theft. He said however that it seems counterintuitive to only people who have experienced those after the fact to put gates into place as opposed to those who may be at risk · He thanked the commission for not taking up design review for fence post caps as they are artistic in nature, · He requested they consider allowing flexibility for lattices, Chair Miller: · Asked staff to clarifY the definition; is it meant to imply that an individual in order to get a fence exception had to have experienced vandalism on their property or is it just in the general neighborhood? Ms. Honda: · Said in the past it has been policy that it has to be shown that it has been demonstrated on the property rather than within the neighborhood, · There have been past fence exception applications for gates and they had to prove that there was a demonstrated security problem on that property, Ms. Wordell: · Confinned that was the precedent; it they wanted to do otherwise, it would need to be otherwise stated, Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Expressed concern about the safety factor of electronic gates if there was a power failure or a fire on the property, · She cited incidents when a resident was unable to remove her car £Tom a garage because of a power failure, and a resident who was unable to get through her property gate because of a power failure. · She suggested that there be a backup plan in the event of a power outage. Chair Miller closed the public hearing, Com. Saadati: · Supports staff recommendation, · The manual override of the electronic gate is a good idea. Ms. Honda: · Said that the draft ordinance contained the language recommended that they comply with the Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 11 February 28, 2006 fire department requirements, · The electronic gates would have to be approved by the fire department before installation, Com. Wong: · Supports staff recommendation, · He said that one of his concerns related to the defmition of security and safety for electronic gates, He said he felt they should be more proactive about security, rather than reactive. By stating there was a documented burglary, theft, vandalism, or trespassing incident, it is not being proactive; it is reacting to something that has already occurred, · He said security is in the eye of the beholder of the person living in the dwelling, He felt that by having it demonstrated would defeat the purpose of having an electronic gate, · Said that it needs to be clarified in the document that the gate will be set back from the house, and not toward the front of the house. The safety definition as written is rather narrow, and does not allow for any flexibility, He said he would re-interpret the safety definition to ensure that the premises are secure for that purpose. It is not acceptable to have demonstrated experience. He added that there should be another criteria on security, · He referred to the issue of fence lattice, Currently the ordinance allows a height of up to 8 feet; if you want to exceed 6 feet, the owner of the adjacent lot has to agree, Ifthe adjacent owner objects, it could go through DRC. He suggested that the wording be revised in the ordinance, Page 3-716,28.040, Paragraph A, "with an option of one foot lattice in addition to the six feel without going through the DRC." · He said the electronic gate was an important issue, as he heard through many different applications that security and safety were concerns. He said he understood the concern that it not be a gated community, As written, the gate has to be set back to the house, and it meets the fire standard details. · He suggested a separate paragraph regarding backyard and side fencing, Vice Chair Giefer: · Complimented staff on the excellent work on the fence ordinance. · She illustrated slides showing a variety of electronic gates throughout the city, · She said she did not want to have people put electronic gates across their driveway and not have fences around the property. · Expressed concern about taking a suburban neighborhood with tract homes and people 'mansionizing' the homes in different ways, · Recommended changing the language to stipulate only one electronic gate per family, · Said she did not want to see gates; if they have to have them, she recommended that they open and close themselves. · Said most of the people with homes on the hillside have one electronic and one manual gate, · Suggested correction to Page 3-7, last line, change "from property owners" to "from adjacent property owners," Com. Saadati: · He suggested requiring that a gate be an exception; property owners would not be able to put up a gate unless they apply for it and get an exception, · He said they would have some control in the ordinance by making it an exception, Vice Chair Giefer: · Concurred with Com, Saadati, and noted that there were many electronic gates in the city that do not have pennits. · When they come to the commission they can be regulated. · Said that she supported the ordinance language; however, she felt they were headed down a Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 12 February 28, 2006 dangerous path, · Said she felt that with Cupertino's low crime rate, gates are not needed. Com. Wong: · Asked Com. Giefer's opinion about having more than one gate on larger properties, He said he felt on a larger property it would defeat the purpose of having only one gate if the other side of the property was not secure. · Said he felt gates and fences were positive, · Noted that Cupertino's crime rate had increased lately, Vice Chair Giefer: · Supports staffs language on security and safety. · Suggested language for the 8 foot fence "eight foot fences should only be approved to ensure adequate screening and/or privacy." · If they are coming to DRC, it would be helpful for DRC to have some basis for approval or denial. · Generally if someone wants a higher fence the two neighbors have already got together because they are both paying for the fence. She suggested that they not charge a fee for applicants coming in where there is a neighborhood dispute. Request the neighbor bring photos because there may not be access to the yard, and they need to know what the potential privacy invasion is, · Supports no fee for fence exceptions to DRC for height. · Does not support the section on electronic gates. · Her recollection was that they were coming to the commission because of their concerns about their safety since their car was on hill. · Said you do not need a three foot fence and an electronic gate to make your lot secure. · She suggested that minimum fence setbacks be 20 feet, 30 would be better. She said the further the electronic gate was from the street so that it was not visible, the better it would be. · Said she did not visualize why only one extra foot oflattice would be needed on the side and back fence rather than two feet. Com. Wong: · Said he felt a two foot lattice defeated the purpose of being neighborly, It provides privacy, yet you can still see through it. · No requirement to go to the DRC. Vice Chair Giefer: · Said she does not have a strong preference; but would support it if the majority ofthe commissioners did, Com. Chien: · Supports what has been presented; is satisfied with the definitions of security and safety. · He supports the lattice, he is supportive of it not being counted as being excluded from the fence height requirements, It is artistic and adds value to the property and the home, · Opposed to having a fee for individuals going to the DRC for a fence exception in regards to the height. · Cupertino should not be a gated community, He is optimistic that what is written in the ordinance will help the cause, · If they want an electronic gate they should come before the commission and apply for an exception, Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 13 February 28, 2006 Com. Wong: · He asked Commissioner Chien if he was open to the applicant coming to the ORC for an exception for the electronic gate. · Suggested allowing flexibility in the definition in the event it goes to the ORC. · Said he wanted to be more proactive in security and safety, Com. Saadati: · Said they could put an alann in their residence. · Random theft does not necessarily mean the gate would be approved, Com. Chien: · Said that if a resident detennines for whatever reason they need to install a gate, they should be able to go to the Commission and ask for consideration of the gate installation, They should not have to wait until something negative has occurred to warrant it · With respect to the ordinance, it is clear that it includes, but is not limited to, those situations, All reasons presented should be considered; and there would be the flexibility to do so. Com. Wong: · Asked staff how they arrived at the definitions, because after a robbery, what is the reason for putting up a security gate, The whole idea of putting up security is to protect the residence, · He would rather have an electronic gate versus a security alann. · Recalled that residents came before the commission to override this section of the ORC and no finding could be made, The fmding was denied because they could not document there was a burglary, vandalism, theft or trespassing within the vicinity of what staff recommended, · The electronic gate was denied and brought forward to the commission, He said it was time to amend the fence ordinance, Chair MiUer: · Agreed that no fee should be charged, · Questioned why make a distinction between electronic and manual gates; it remedies the issue and makes it more consistent · Is supportive of the other language. · Supports the definitions of demonstrating security and safety, · Said he was not opposed to going to eight feet as an exception, He does feel that it is a good neighbor fence and the neighbor who wants the fence should get agreement ITom his neighbor and apply for the exception, · If it just lattice and they don't have to go through the ORC, both neighbors should agree on it Ms. Wordell: · If they do decide to go above the six foot height, even with the lattice, building code would still require that they obtain a building pennit Vice Chair Giefer: · Asked if the majority felt it needed to go to the ORC for over six feet if there is not agreement? Com. Saadati: · Ooes not have to go through ORC if the neighbors agree, · If it is a situation that cannot be resolved, it may have to go to the ORe. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session and Regular Meeting 14 February 28, 2006 Ms. Honda: · Said the definitions would have to be demonstrated in order to request the electronic gate,' Com. Wong: · Limit of two gates. · Relative to having no fees, is there a fiscal impact on the city's budget? Chair Miller: · Said he supported Com, Wong's concern, and would change his vote, Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application MCA-200S-01. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Wong voted No.) REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: · No meeting was held. HousiDl! Committee: · No meeting was held, Mavors Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: · Meeting is scheduled for 7 a.m. Wednesday, March I", Economic Development Committee: · No meeting was held. Report of the Director of Community Development: · No additional report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m, on March 14,2006. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary