Loading...
101-Draft Minutes 01-08-2013.pdf CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. January 8, 2013 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2013 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planner: George Schroeder Assistant City Attorney: MelissaTronquet Public Works Department: Timm Borden APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the December 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Vice Chair Sun, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Brophy abstain; to approve the December 11, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. DP-2012-05, ASA-2012-13, Development Permit to allow the demolition of EXC-2012-02, TR-2012-41 11,610 sq. ft. of existing commercial space and the Tom Purtell, Borelli Investment construction of 15,377 sq. ft. of new commercial space Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 2 Co. (Diana Taylor) consisting of two new commercial building pads; 7,000 sq. ft. and 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd. 8,377 sq. ft. respectively, Architectural and Site Approval Permit & 10033-10095 Saich Way to allow the demolition of 11,610 sq. ft. of existing commercial and the construction of 15,377 sq. ft. of new commercial space consisting of two new commercial building pads and associated site improvements; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a reduced street side setback (from the edge of the curb) is required; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 13 trees in conjunction with a proposed development project. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Exception to Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Tree Removal Permit relative to the demolition of existing commercial space and construction of new commercial space; and allowance for a reduced street side setback for two new commercial building pads and to allow removal and replacement of trees in conjunction with a proposed development project at 20803 Stevens Creel Blvd and 10033-10095 Saich Way, as outlined in the attached staff report. • He reviewed the video presentation including the following topics: Application Request; Heart of the City Street Side Setback Exception; Proposed Site Plan w/Diagonal Parking; Architectural Review Bldgs 1 and 2; Parking and Street Improvements; Saich Way Street Plan; Traffic, Circulation, Safety and Queuing; Proposed Street Removals; Tree Replacements/Protection; Key Conditions of Approval; Neighboring Property Owner Comments; Environmental Assessment. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the development permits, architectural and site application, and tree removal permit per the draft resolutions. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 calendar days. • Staff answered questions regarding parking; it was noted that all parking was provided onsite and none from Saich Way would count toward the parking requirement. In the past it has only been for the Main Street project. Gaylan Grant, FCGA Architecture, Danville: • Said their goal was to have a project that was safe, pedestrian and vehicular friendly, and a retail project that would survive. Relative to the roof style of the buildings, he noted that the style depends much on the location; the flat roof provides opportunity for rooftop equipment; a sloped roof is not a complete pitched roof; a mansard roof reduces the area allowable on the roof for rooftop equipment. In the project, they wanted a more contemporary center, have complementary colors to flow from Panera Bread along Stevens Creek to the street corner at Saich; wanted to provide more window space for display and view in; and they like to have variety of roof heights for horizontal and vertical articulation. • Relative to the possibility of recycling building materials, he said that it is not anticipated that there will be a lot of usable product to recycle but they would recycle materials whenever possible. Staff said that some of the project requirements are even stricter than Whole Foods had because of the newer C3 regulations. They would ensure that the water percolates on site; and Public Works would review details. • He reviewed the site plan; the goal was to bring the buildings closer to the street, with a strong street frontage and maintain the pedestrian flow and clear passage from in front of Panera Bread without any obstructions and make the passageway one they would want in an urban environment. Said the diagonal parking is a good solution; Given the fact that is not the condition on the east side, there is ve a large parking lot there; it makes sense to take advantage of that opportunity here; it helps to make the shops work. Initially there were not doors at both ends of the shop spaces, they were on the parking lot side, because that is where the park is; it was agreed that with the allowance of Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 3 diagonal parking on that side of the street, it would make sense to have doors on that sidewalk. That will be a meaningful pedestrian experience that currently doesn’t exist on that side of the street. • He reviewed the landscaping plans including special pavers, benches, awnings, grove of trees, and removal of landscape strips; in keeping with the desire to make it an urban pedestrian friendly walking space. He acknowledged that deliveries must take place before or after hours; trash enclosures are easily accessible and carry the architectural design theme and are set to the rear and off to the side so they are not highly visible. Bicycle parking is encouraged and exceeds the requirement; the bus stop requires relocation to the north, because of the addition of the diagonal parking; there is a distribution of handicapped parking spaces. Vice Chair Sun: • Said the issue was the concern about traffic; and asked the applicant if he felt it was a legitimate concern. Gaylan Grant: • Said the proposal is an improvement over what presently exists; it may not be perfect but is safer as proposed than the existing narrow drive; there is parking on the proposed site to help support the parking need for Panera and they all need to be good neighbors and work together to create a combined entry that is as safe as possible and it provides as much parking as possible. • He pointed out that the tenant in shop 7 which is on their corner would be adamant about retaining the parking; if there was no parking, they would not rent the space. He said they needed the parking; changing the direction will eliminate one space. The spaces are deeper when the parking is angled; it makes it easier to pull in; it does confine the backout to the lane in the northbound lane; there is a safety factor there that is an improvement over 90 degree parking. • Said they are seeking approval; and it would be ideal to have conditions of approval to work with staff on the entry condition. They are willing to work with staff further; there is a possibility of using the southern-most space as a handicapped space. Vice Chair Sun: • Relative to solving the traffic issues including Chair Miller’s concern about the intersection of Stevens Creek and Saich, is it possible for the entry from Stevens Creek to still maintain the one-way entry and change the first parking entry between building 1 and 2 into one way and move the double direction. He asked if there was a better way to solve the traffic issue. Gaylan Grant: • Said there was not a better way to solve the traffic issue; they have studied every imaginable way of easing the traffic concerns, entering and flowing thru the site and have reached the conclusion with the city, staff, Public Works, and the traffic consultant that what they have now is the safest possible solution. Tom Purtell, Borelli Investment Co.: • Said his contact with Target about their plans was about 18 months ago, at which time their intent was to try and close down Saich Way and have parking on each side. He said nothing has been submitted and they need to move their project along. Chair Miller: • Relative to the angled parking on Saich Way, there was mention that it would make sense to have angled parking on the other side, but there is not enough footage there to do angled parking on both sides; but there is enough footage to do parallel parking on both sides. If there was parallel parking instead of angled parking, how much of a difference does that make in terms of the retail value. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 4 Tom Purtell: • There is an alternative in the package that shows parallel parking; they prefer the angled parking because they feel it creates a presence for their site that is more attractive both to the pedestrians walking along the sidewalk in front and the cars that are pulling in because there are entrances off Saich. The parallel parking works for now but they would prefer angled parking. Gaylan Grant: • Referred to a diagram of a fire truck exiting the Target parking lot where there was concern from Target’s management that if a fire truck exited at that particular entry, it is within the area of the diagonal or angled parking, and it would be difficult for the fire truck to exit. That is a truism, the reality is a fire truck exiting the Target site has other opportunities for exit and they take whatever path of travel works best for them. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Steven Carlson, Co-Owner of Target Center: • Said they have been in contact with Planning staff and conveyed concerns to them with respect to the diagonal parking. In reviewing the study exhibits and third party reports provided by staff, they found that the traffic engineer did not evaluate the changes to Saich Way with respect to turning movements, stacking, and a number of changes in capacity. The proposed diagonal parking plan at first eliminates 9 stalls from the existing configuration on site with the movement of the bus stop which takes 6 stalls to the north, and with the introduction of the angled parking. • The turn movements existing on their project were not evaluated; their project is approximately ten times the size of this property; it generates approximately 20,000 daily trips to and from the site; these trips are served out of three primary driveways, one on Saich, one on Bandley and one on Stevens Creek. Because of the restricted movements on Stevens Creek, all customers coming from the west make the turn on Saich Way to come onto the property and it is estimated that a third of all the customers who go into and out of that center go in thru that driveway. • Exhibits are in staff report relative to fire department equipment apparatus access into the three driveways and they illustrate entries and exits of any possible combinations. What they have ignored is that we have the same movements that we have to maintain on our side; it is not just getting out, it is getting in. Outside radius for fire truck equipment is 36 feet; you cannot make a 36 foot turn in 24 feet of lane; the exhibit provided in letters to staff illustrates by overlaying those same templates on their existing driveway in showing they cross well into the angled parking and that is a big problem. • He said they applaud the project, but would recommend the project be approved with the parallel parking option included in the packet, not the angled parking which would obliterate the movements in their driveways. Ty Bash, Owner, Happy Days Child Development Center: • Addressed the issue of the setbacks. In 1999 he went before the Planning Commission for approval of his preschool, at which time he was instructed to provide a 10-foot setback for the project; measured from the property line. • Discussed the setback with staff and agreed to disagree on how the code is read. If looking at setbacks that are established from Stevens Creek, there is a 26 foot setback plus a 9 foot setback from the curb; along Saich Way since the 20 foot setback is not required, staff is measuring setback from the curb. The size of the public right-of-way is 10 feet, so if were measure a 9 foot setback from the public right-of-way the applicant can build their building all the way on the public right-of-way, a foot into the public right-of-way. He said he felt it was an incorrect interpretation. If looking at the code from the side setback, then the side setback requirement is either 10 feet or half the height of the Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 5 building. It is difficult to believe that the intention of the code was that the setbacks measured either from the property line or from the edge of the curb intended to provide a zero setback from the property line as the project has now been proposed. • The second issue is the impact of angled parking; while it provides excellent opportunities to the proposed project, it damages access to their site. Saich Way in addition to providing 30% of their traffic, provides 95% of our traffic and it also provides a vast majority of the traffic to the YMCA, narrowing that drive aisle to 24 feet which is the width of a drive aisle on a parking lot. • In addition to the angled parking, if most people do access Saich Way from Stevens Creek, angled parking is spaced the wrong way; people who drive into Saich are going to have to make a U-turn in order to enter the angled parking. As more people do that, traffic will back up into Stevens Creek. Said that their highest traffic is between 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Parking is also in demand from the YMCA at that point; overflow parking from the YMCA impacts their parking lot and parking along Saich Way and Alves. • He said the project from the design point is excellent, and they are excited to see a new project, but would ask that the Planning Commission consider not allowing angled parking; allowing them to maintain the width of the street as it is with parallel parking and seriously look at the interpretation of the setback to make sure that it fulfills the requirements, as he was not familiar with setbacks measured from the edge of the curb not the property line. It is unusual and should be looked at relative to the interpretation of the Code. Barry Watkins, Co-Owner Target Center: • Said they were pleased to see the project move forward but have some reservations about its intensity and other problems. They have concerns on how it is going to impact their property, their future development and their major tenant. • Relative to the project design, it is unlikely that anyone would lease the corner building if they cannot park there; Panera Bread will likely park there most of the time and that tenant will have a difficult time finding parking spaces with the limited amount due to the business next door. The building calculations were made based upon the interior square footage of the premises excluding the exterior walls; there is a difference of several hundred square feet. He said he has not seen that before and was not sure the city code allowed for that. • He discussed the truck loading situation, stating that it was difficult to regulate the delivery times from independent truckers, and parking in the street if other spaces are already filled. He suggested that the truck loading have its own dedicated parking area and posting signs for no truck parking. • The bus duckout can be easily located onto Alves Drive; a red zone is east of the Target property; it was mentioned that fire trucks can go another way; other trucks also have to go through the driveway and if angled parking is there, the truck deliveries cannot occur. • Recommend that the project be approved subject to the limitations. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Riconada resident: • Asked that the following be discussed/explained: the side setback exception; comment on what is current or future reciprocal parking agreement between Panera Bread and the Borelli property; make certain that the two restaurants install odor abatement equipment. She said she was pleased that Heart of the City has been respected; and wished them success. Blair Volkmann, representing office development to the west of the Saich Way development: • Supports the redevelopment and is looking forward to working with the city as well as the ownership; one of major concerns is relative to the current/future parking agreement. As it currently stands they are in opposition to the reciprocal ingress/egress agreement. • Pointed out there is no current easement agreement; when the Peets and Panera redevelopment was done they approached the Borelli and Saich Way ownership in order to get an easement, but it was Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 6 declined. The city granted a covenant for easement agreement to grant future reciprocal ingress and egress. Concerned that the future redevelopment of the property would provide an adverse affect, and backing up the points mentioned regarding the entry off Stevens Creek Blvd, there has already been existing issues and there is concern with the parking spaces adjacent to Stevens Creek and so close when they back up it is going to further impact traffic going in and out of both properties. Darrel Lum: • Said initially he supported the project if the applicant presented adequate information for an exception to the Heart of the City Plan (HOC); however, there appears to be a major change since the decision of the ERC, mainly that exception to the HOCSP is not required. The Planning Commission report states that according to HOC the required building setback along the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage is 35 feet; the actual language in the HOC is minimum setback for new development shall be 35 feet from the edge of the curb. Also according to that same section B2, the corner parcel setback requirement applies to both frontages. Main Street on both Tantau and Stevens Creek, on Tantau there is a 35 foot setback; on the recent Biltmore project even though they don’t have a corner parcel, they are set back at 35 feet. • Recommended that the project be resubmitted with exception to HOC included. There are some other factors not disclosed at this point, but he said he felt the city should seriously consider including the exception to the HOC. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: • Asked staff to address questions raised by speakers, including exception to HOC; setback from the property line on Saich Way; the angled parking and the impact it has on turning movements for fire trucks; traffic; delivery vehicles during the daytime and how to ensure it doesn’t happen and impact vehicular movements and parking; relocation of bus stop; reciprocal parking agreement between Borelli and Panera site; and odor abatement equipment for restaurants. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Addressed setbacks; there are comments regarding the way HOC prescribed setback requirements. It is unique in that HOC does work for this area; it does require setbacks to be measured from the curb as opposed to the property line. The setback exception is not required and the applicant is not requesting for one; as proposed it meets the letter of the HOC. • There is mention of Tantau Main Street project; he clarified that in the General Plan for the Vallco Park South area, it specifically calls out unique setbacks for those areas in which case it has to do with the height of the building slope line; and again it is measured from the curb in those areas. The project Main Street where it relates to Tantau is different than this area; there is a special callout in the General Plan. • Other questions regarding fire truck or diagonal parking, the safety of that and the logistics of getting in and out; the diagonal parking is not meant for people if you are traveling northbound to make an illegal U-turn to enter into it the other way around; it is a violation of the vehicle code. It was mentioned previously that the fire dept. has looked at this project from the perspective of getting in, out and around the project area; and there is a reason why they are okay with the diagonal parking because there is multiple access points to the project as well as multiple access and exits points to the Target center as well. • With regards to delivery hours and areas, there is a condition that the delivery hours occur outside of the hours of operation; the applicant has confirmed that they will comply. • Relative to the bus stop locations, staff has had conversations with the VTA about the location; they are open to relocate the bus stop if warranted by the Planning Commission. Staff will discuss with Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 7 them about potentially relocating the bus stop to Alves; it is less desirable from staff’s perspective because there are pros and cons; it may be more convenient for the apartment residents to get to the bus stop with natural direct access and there may be merits, but there may be some impact or disturbances to them as well since it is closer to the apartment units, but VTA is open to that if the Commission want to explore it. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: • Relative to the comment about reciprocal access easement, she said the applicant was referring to an easement they had recorded on their property in 2005 as part of the Peets and Panera project; which is not for discussion today; they are not being asked for reciprocal access easement. She said she felt they supported the current site plan, although Mr. Volkman did discuss some concerns about where the parking was located,, but that access is not in question as part of this hearing; nothing is required of the adjacent property. The only easement is the driveway entrance into and out of the property and not anything past that. Gary Chao: • Regarding odor abatement, the standard practice is to require odor abatement systems for restaurants if they are in close proximity to residential. This project’s location is not the case; there is not a concern with odor abatement, although there is a condition that covers odor abatement mitigation in the event complaints are received. The applicant would be obligated to address the issue at that time, although they are encouraged to implement it at the beginning since it is more cost effective Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to delivery trucks, there are a number of tight sites; they are given the conditions of approval and are managed well in most cases. Where there are instances, Code Enforcement makes certain the businesses know what they need to do; the tenants do much of the policing themselves because they don’t want their spaces blocked. She said they have not experienced problems with Peets and Panera Bread. Gary Chao: • Relative to travel lane along Saich Way, the comment about the travel lane being reduced or modified to less than currently there is untrue; the current existing travel lane is 12 feet for each lane which consists of 24 feet total; the proximity of where it exists is going to shift a little; but the total vehicle travel lane the width itself is not being reduced by this project; it is being maintained and preserved. The parking adjacent to it is going to be redesigned; the total parking on Saich Way is being reduced. Historically the city has had problems with Saich Way with vehicles travelling at a fast speed as well as 18 wheelers and large trucks parked along the east side of Saich. Even with or without this project Public Works was contemplating some plan to address that, possibly eliminating parking on the east side of the street. That may or may not happen outside the context of the project; it is an issue that the city would like to address. He confirmed that by taking out parking along that side of the street there is a net reduction; there are some potential options to explore if the Commission is interested in adding more diagonal parking further down north of Saich which could potentially make up the net difference. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to eco issues, several speakers raised the question about the exception of the setback. The 35 foot setback is required along Stevens Creek Blvd; it is not required on the side street; the 9 feet is required the minimum and the landscape setback is encouraged but not required. That is why it does not require an exception. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 8 Com. Brophy: • Said he was interested in input about the diagonal parking on Saich, and concerned about the entry way off Stevens Creek into the combined entry way that would be into the Saich project and the Panera Peets site. Said he did not feel the parking spaces could be so close to the entry way and even with a widened driveway it wouldn’t work; and he did not support the site plan as is; it would trigger the need for some adjustments to the site plan. • Relative to the relocation of the bus stop, it is a bus layover location for the lines 25 and 51and there is another stop on the backside of Target on Alves and Park Circle East. Given that there is more traffic on Saich than on Alves, and more parking, the logical thing would be to look into the possibility of relocating the bus layover to that location instead. He said the architecture was appropriate. Gary Chao: • If the bus stop was relocated to Alves that would potentially free up some additional parallel parking. Vice Chair Sun: • The biggest concern is understanding the Saich Way parking; changing the current parallel parking into diagonal parking doesn’t benefit entire community. Narrowing down Saich is the only benefit for the property owner but that’s not a significant benefit compared with causing negative impact on the neighbors. Said he preferred not to narrow Saich Way. • In favor of parallel parking on Saich Way; supports moving the bus stop; still concerned about parking at the entrance on Stevens Creek. Concur with Com. Brophy on that; architecture appropriate. Com. Lee: • Said she had some concerns but supported the entry into the parking lot from Stevens Creek; the possibility of a car rear ending another existed. Said along Saich Way she would like to see angled parking; it will help the businesses and will slow down traffic and make for a better pedestrian experience. Said there were two adjacent property owners who support keeping the parallel parking. • Said she would like to have more discussion about the bus stop relocation and angled vs. parallel parking. She would prefer to move the bus stop next to retail where it wouldn’t disturb residents. The architectural design is okay; it is a good sized building; she hoped to hear some elements of green building design; tree removal no issues; setbacks okay. The goal is to have successful new retail and have a good pedestrian experience; the site has some constraints; it is narrow, they had to put in 80 parking spaces, they had to make the storefronts attractive and deep enough so they would work. Staff did a good job with the applicant. Com. Brownley: • Concurred with Com. Lee’s comments; approved architecture; great pedestrian friendly project; said he supported moving the bus stop as there were benefits to moving it out of the proposed location. Said he likes the angled parking on Saich; it is pedestrian friendly, is easier and safer to pull into and out of on that side of the street. There were positive options proposed for the entryway off Stevens Creek; there were comments that the angled parking retains the majority of the spaces and can improve safety along that route; another option is making one of the end spaces a handicapped space. • Both staff and traffic consultant say that everything proposed is acceptable; he supported the proposed solution, but was open to discussing possible options. Com. Brophy: • Relative to the bus stop, there is already a bus stop at Alves and Park Circle; the concern would be if the buses are sitting idling; which could be clarified by VTA. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 9 Chair Miller: • It is a good addition to the project and a complement to the development that is in the area in terms of Panera and the Target center; it is hoped that Target comes in with their project and improves the site even more. He noted that the developer did the best they could with what they had and did pack a lot into a relatively small space. Said he had the same issue with the parking spaces on the entrance from Stevens Creek; the first parking space is a concern because when backing out of that parking space you are going to be backing almost into the street and maybe the traffic engineer doesn’t think it is a problem; but it looks like a blind spot; it may be a safety issue. • Eliminating the parking spot or doing some angled parking may make it easier to back out without backing so far out into the street may solve the problem. Given all the parking spaces on Saich Way it should not be an issue in terms of meeting the parking requirements for the project. • Supports moving the bus stop to allow more parking on the street; also leaning toward the parallel parking option because at some point in time; if that is an issue now, it is going to be more of an issue when the other side of the street is developed because they will not have any parking on that side of the street if there is angled parking. They could try the angled parking initially and then when a project comes in on the other side of the street go back to parallel parking or just do parallel parking now. Given that there may be a potential loss of spaces by going to angled parking, he said he was inclined to favor the parallel parking as an overall solution. Com. Brophy: • Said he preferred parallel parking, and noted for the record that he would vote against it because the traffic consultants hired by the city said that they needed a 50 foot throat there and even eliminating one or two parking spaces in the entryway would not be sufficient. He suggested going closer to 50 feet of no parking, lose potentially 5 spaces which would require some modification on the design. • There is a safety issue at the entrance point with the parking so close to it; is there an issue if it is reduced by one, two or three that they still meet their parking requirement based on the excess parking on Saich Way. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they usually like to get the parking on site; but this is a planned development and will not specifically require a parking exception; the Commission can circumscribe what they want staff to look at and how many spaces they are willing to lose. Com. Brophy: • Said it is supposedly solved by parking elsewhere in the office complex but that is not the way it works; he said they should not be counting spaces on the public right-of-way as part of the commercial project. Com. Lee: • Said she did not support counting spaces on Saich Way as part of the project. The first two spaces in front of shop 7 close to Stevens Creek would be the last ones. It is tight, but the circulation is adequate that they will find other parking spots. If there is no other parking, someone will try to park in those spaces and there will be some risk they will get rear ended. Does not want to set a precedent and allow parking spaces to be on Saich; it is best to ensure that all required parking is onsite otherwise people will say you let that development slide by last time, why not let another slide by and it just gets more difficult. Motion: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Brownley, to approve Application DP-2012-05, ASA-2012-13, EA-212-09, and TR-2012-41 per the model resolutions Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 10 Friendly Amendment by Vince Chair Sun: to make it parallel parking instead of angled parking; accepted by Com. Lee. Com. Brophy: • Said something has to be done there as he could not support it in its current parking arrangement on the entry off Stevens Creek. The architecture is attractive; supports parallel parking; staff has to work on the bus site. The project is a good replacement for what has been sitting for 4 or 5 years, but it is a step too far in terms of the amount of square footage being squeezed onto a site and still meet the city’s parking requirements. The motion was carried 4-1-0, Com. Brophy voted No. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 days. Chair Miller declared a recess. 3. GPA-2012-01, Z-2012-02 General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land EA-2012-07, Use designation from “Medium High Density Residential City of Cupertino (10-20 dwellings/gross acre)” to “Park & Open Space” for A 0.51 net acre vacant parcel located at the corner of Villa Real and Mary Ave., Rezoning of a 0.83 –acre vacant parcel and its fronting half street from “P(RIC)- Planned Development, Single-Family Residential Cluster Intent” to “PR-Park and Recreation Zone” located at the corner of Villa Road and Mary Avenue. Colin Jung, Senior Planner: • Clarified that the item was for General Plan and zoning designation; it is part of the entitlements required in order for a dog park to proceed on the property. The City Council will make the decision regarding the dog park. Chair Miller: • Clarified that comments would be received, but the decision is not whether or not to go ahead with the dog park; the decision is to change the land use designation so that a dog park could be approved at some future date. Colin Jung presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Map designation, and rezoning of an 0.83-acre vacant parcel, APN 326-27-030, as outlined in the staff report. The vacant parcel is residual land from the Highway 85 right-of-way acquisition and development which was deeded to the City by CALTRANS. • On June 19, 2012 the City Council adopted its 5-year fiscal year 2012/13 – 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program which funded the planning, design and construction of a dog park at the project location on Mary Avenue. The scope of the project heard tonight is review of the environmental documents and development of General Plan Land Use and zoning consistency with the proposed use. The proposed land use designation, Park & Open Space is applied to land owned by the public and used for recreation or open space purposes. Public meetings were held, notices were sent out and a notice board was erected on the proposed site. • Relative to the environmental review, an initial study for the dog park was prepared by the City’s Environmental Consultant The Planning Center – DCE; which included specialized studies on air quality, noise, trees soil contamination, and it looked at scope of the project not only from the Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 11 construction end but also the operation phase of the park as well. Noise and dust impacts which were a significant concern will be mitigated to Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards to less than significant levels. It was noted in the soils analysis that the soil is contaminated with lead which is not unusual because the parcel is close to a major freeway. Soil remediation work is required and one of the project objectives is to remove the contaminated soil or remediate in certain ways and backfilling it with clean soil. At least 16 trees will be removed by the remediation work because the full extent of the contamination is not known. Additional soil testing will need to be done as cleanup occurs and if more lead is found, up to an additional 16 trees may need to be removed including 5 trees on adjoining private property because the root structures extend into city land. The ERC reviewed environmental documents and recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the project. • Comments have been received about the proposed project, and concerns included air quality from both park construction and removal of trees; noise concerns from park visitors and barking dogs; the potential traffic impacts; pathogens and odors associated with dog waste; the potential for aggressive dogs, which could present a safety issue for the neighborhood; property size too small and wrongly shaped for a dog park use. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for the project, approval of the General Plan Amendment request per the draft resolution and approval of the rezoning request per the draft resolution. If a recommendation is given tonight, the project will be noticed and will be heard by City Council on February 5th. Said he would do the staff report for the rezoning and General Plan Amendment; any other issues would be handled by the Public Works Department. Timm Borden, Director of Public Works: • Said staff will ask that City Council give the City Manager authority to award the two projects; the first project will be the lead removal that will occur followed by the construction of the dog park. It will be the General Plan Amendment, rezoning along with the authority for the City Manager to award a construction contract. Chair Miller: • Clarified again the Planning Commission was not ruling for or against the dog park, only for or against the rezoning and General Plan Amendment which would lead to the ability to do a dog park or some other park or recreation facility there. • If the Planning Commission approves rezoning tonight and City Council approves moving forward with remediation, and it turns out remediation is much more expensive than initially anticipated, does that engender a re-evaluation of the decision. Colin Jung: • Staff feels confident that the ground contamination can be contained or removed satisfactorily to ensure the safety of the residents using the area. If the land is used for any other use, it will have to be cleaned up. He said the worst case scenario would be that the entire site would have to be remediated. Timm Borden: • Relative to the remediation cost, he said it could engender a re-evaluation of the decision, which is the reason construction is done in two contracts; cleanup first so that they know how much budget remains to complete the scope for the dog park. Obviously anything to do with the environmental mitigations will need to be included in that scope but some of the amenities may diminish. • Responding to a question if the proximity to the highway may be a continuing source of contamination, he said that it is likely that the contamination came from an earlier day when there Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 12 was lead based gas lines and now with unleaded fuels, that is not as much of a risk. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. The following Cupertino residents provided input on the rezoning and potential dog park: Shahla Ehsasi: • Opposed to project because of limited space; contamination; lots of kids in our complex who play in the playgrounds. Will people coming from out of the area use their play area which is close. Concerned about children’s safety. Nirmala (no last name given): • Opposed to dog park because it’s too close to the neighbors; don’t want to cut trees; leave space as is; trees will provide enough oxygen to reduce air pollution. Residents exposed to unpleasant odors. Chair Miller: • Reiterated that they were discussing to change the zoning from 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre of residential development to parks and recreation. The property has had two previous proposals for residential housing on the site; if zoning is not changed there is a possibility of more projects being proposed for residential; urged speakers to consider which option they would prefer when making comments. Sudbaker Reddy: • If no dog park is proposed for the site, would the Planning Commission still rezone the area; what prompted the rezoning. Chair Miller: • Responded that the rezoning is prompted by the desire of the City Council to put a dog park there. Sudbaker Reddy: • Opposition to a dog park is based on the comments mentioned before; the piece of land is too small; loss of trees; unpleasant odors; have to remove soil to get rid of contamination; find a larger area for a dog park. Pushparaj Shanmugam: • Said he would prefer to leave the zoning as residential and not rezone for a dog park. Sandesh Anncar: • Said he would prefer to have the zoning remain as residential; is opposed to a dog park. Hyungkeun Hong: • Opposed to dog park; supports rezoning but not for dog park; plant more trees on parcel Sheetal Devidasani: • Said she did not feel it was really a choice; either they approved zoning for residential or rezoning for dog park; and they don’t want anything done with the small piece of land. If there is a dog park she likely would not be able to bring her child with her; now she can walk with her dog and child. As a dog owner, would appreciate a dog park, but as a taxpayer does not want a make-do dog park; would prefer a full scale dog park with facilities similar to Los Gatos Creek Park. Suggested the city find a site in the downtown area. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 13 Ranjith Prabu: • Keep area as it is; narrow space of land; good walking area; turning it to a dog park or residential not beneficial to residents; concerned about number of children in the neighborhood and their safety. Thyagorajan Radhakrishnan: • Opposed to dog park; it will bring public crowd into small space; 1/10th size of some dog parks; too many dogs in confined space; lots of noise. Resides only 10 feet across street; will negatively affect his family’s life; children’s safety a concern; no place for neighborhood children to play. Having a public attraction in the small neighborhood will cause problems for residents. Will there be a security guard to help with security of the area and provide safety for the children. A dog park will negatively affect the value of the homes in the immediate area. Mehdi Mortazavi: • Same concerns as previous speakers; if given the choice between rezoning and dog park, would support rezoning and oppose dog park in that area. Rambabu Pyapali: • The narrow strip of land is best left as is for nearby residents; trees on the site are better than crowding the space with a dog park; more traffic will be a safety factor. The contaminated soil is a safety concern because of people walking in the area. Remove the soill and plant more trees, no dog park. Maya Reddy: • Opposed to dog park; agrees with previous speakers’ objections; don’t think dog park will be useful because it is so small; the proposal is to make it into two parks, one for small dog and one for large dogs. Not many people would go to such a small park. Should not rezoning into residential or dog park; it is too small. Leave as is; area is too small to be used for residential or a dog park; use for walking area. Sai Yerraguhtla: • Agrees with previous speakers; land should be left as is; there is a small trail, not a big enough space for a dog park or residential. Memorial park and Garden Gate are close to allocate space in one of the parks. Building a dog park in that area is an intrusion on residents; Mary Avenue is a busy street; leave it as it is. A park or public attraction would cause noise pollution, trespassing and the location is not idea and more community members would benefit if left as is. Sudha Andra: • Has concerns about safety, security, health issues, noise, and property value decreasing. Dog park is causing too much stress on residents, with noise, odor, and children playing; traffic and strangers coming into the area to the park. More greenery is needed in the neighborhood. Is there any negative affect on neighbors when doing the soil cleanup? Venkatch Subramanyam: • Agrees with previous speakers’ concerns; opposes the dog park, but ok with rezoning; if it can be a park with more trees it will help the environment. Dixie Taylor: • Opposed to rezoning for park which is too small and there are other parks close by. Leave as is. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 14 Rakesh Srivastava: • There will be loss of revenue for the city because of house prices decreasing; more loss of money for city because property taxes will decrease also; agree with other speakers; supports rezoning and removing the contaminated soil. What is the other option other than a dog park; leave the parcel of land as is. Chair Miller: • Said he was not sure there was another choice; and reiterated that if rezoning is done there will not be more applications for housing there; there have been other applications for housing when zoned residential. The object of the rezoning now is to move ahead with a dog park, with the side effect of eliminating the possibility of residential projects there. Panbumalai Sivarajan Thiruvadi: • Oppose dog park and rezoning; would prefer to leave the area as it presently is. Sivarajan Thiruvadi: • Opposed to dog park; not a big enough space for a dog park. Would prefer residential use for the parcel. What is the standard for a dog park, space between residential area and dog park. Duleep Pillai: • Said he opposed the rezoning; the existing piece of land will not accommodate more than two or three housing units; the previous plan was to build a housing unit on the road, cutting down the street. The rezoning will bring a dog park; none of the neighbors want the dog park. Please recommend to the city Council no rezoning. Devendran Rethinavel: • Opposes the project and the dog park. Leave park area as it is; it is going to cause environmental issues when cleaning up the lead contamination; plant more trees in the area. Gopal Parakuvan: • Oppose dog park; agree to rezone as a park with more trees. David Hollister: • Asked if the zoning changes went to the City Council. If the dog park is not approved, does the zoning change stay 9r revert back to what it presently is. Chair Miller: • The City Council is going to first approve or deny the rezoning; assuming they approve the rezoning, then they will approve or deny the dog park as well as the land use change. There is the possibility they can approve the land use change and rezoning and not approve the dog park. Raghupathi Subbiah: • Support rezoning but not the dog park; leave park as is. Manasi Pimplaskar: • Supports rezoning but not for the dog park. Prasad Pimplaskar: • Don’t like the two things getting mixed; supports rezoning but not for the dog park; Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 15 Ted Hattan, Avery Construction, Regional Property Manager: • Acco Management has always been in favor of the residential projects that have gone on across the street; and they are usually further down towards the Oaks and not where the dog park is proposed. He said he was surprised to say he was against rezoning residential to park lands, because the dog park would negatively affect Glenbrook Apartments without a doubt. The Parks and Recreation Commission stated in a previous meeting that they would never make the parcel into anything but a dog park because of the vicinity to Memorial Park; that it is not big enough to justify anything else but what is being there. • He asked if it would be possible to revisit the dog park in a year if one was put in, similar to revisiting the Farmers Market that was in the Oaks Shopping Center, to keep track of any problems encountered or complaints received to ascertain if the dog park should be abandoned,. Chair Miller: • Said it was a good suggestion; if the City Council votes to make it a dog park, they can revisit it after a year. Staff added that it could be revisited any time. Ted Hattan: • Said that there were many concerns about the Farmers Market but it turned out well. John Lee: • Opposes the rezoning because it may lead to the dog park; not a feasible location; negates what he is trying to teach his children about being green in California, and the removal of 32 trees. Also concerned about health and safety regarding his children. Appala Patnala: • Opposed to amendment for rezoning; opposes dog park; questioned why rezoning it if not for a dog park? Why do an environmental assessment of the parcel? There is a lot of confusion about the rezoning and the future use the parcel of land. Chair Miller: • Apologized to speakers and stated it was not his intent to mislead anyone about the rezoning and proposed dog park. The intent of the meeting is to rezone with the intention of making the space into a dog park; however, they are not for or against a dog park. Melissa Tronquet, Assistant City Attorney: • Explained that there are many components to getting a project done in a city, such as funding, different sorts of approvals; and the project being discussed has been through years of discussion and debate. There are only certain things that are within the purview of different bodies; the Parks and Rec Commission looked at the question of whether to make this a park. What’s within the Planning Commission’s purview tonight is the question of rezoning and the General Plan Amendment; what the California Environmental Quality Act requires is that if a city is going to move forward with a project all of the potential aspects of the project have to be evaluated in an environmental document; the aspect of this project involving the dog park was included in the environmental document, which is before you tonight. What the Commission is looking at are the impacts identified in the environmental document but its purview is limited only to the General Plan Amendment and the rezone. Different bodies within the city have different levels of approval and the Planning Commission approval does not include approving the park use of an off-leash dog park. That is within the Council’s purview; but it was included on the agenda tonight because the environmental document had to include the dog park as a consideration. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 16 Chair Miller: • Summarized the attorney’s statement: To get to a dog park is a two step process, one to change the zoning and land use, and requires a General Plan Amendment; and the second is to vote for or against a dog park; before a dog park can be voted on there has to be a change to the zoning and the land use; that is what we are here tonight to do, just to change the zoning and the land use. Nitya Yerraguntla: • Opposes park for many reasons; many trees will be cut down which will increase pollution; also the dog waste will smell unpleasant and dogs will constantly be barking. Said she and other children will no longer be able to play outside because strangers and dogs will come. Opposes rezoning; leave the property as is. Lisa Lee: • Agreed with previous speakers on reasons for not having a dog park at that location; residents need more information because of the confusion about the rezoning and the dog park; if the dog park is not approved what will be at that location? Ranjan Desai: • Opposed to the dog park. • Said that all speakers were against the dog park. Said he understood the process; if the Commission approves the rezoning, it is going to go to the City Council and they will approve the dog park. He said the Parks and Rec meeting was also misleading; it was supposed to go back in time and then say that the City Council would accept the dog park; then they would accept the rezoning also. Said all the speakers were opposed to the dog park and he felt it was outrageous that the residents were misled. Chair Miller • Stated again that it was not his intention to mislead anyone, and repeated his apology. Vasanthan Sivergan Thiruvudi: • When you are taking out the soil which is lead contaminated, there is obviously going to be water runoff and the fact that there are only 5 feet dividing Casa DeAnza from the potential dog park, the runoff is going to take the lead and accumulate it under the soil in the guest parking lot. When that happens, you are already cutting down 16 trees, but you are also cutting down 2 extra trees in the private property. What that really tells you is that when lead accumulates there are going to be no more trees growing in that area for a long time unless you spend moiré money taking out the lead. • Commented that they lived in another home close to the freeway and in their five year residency there, they were not able to sit on their balcony because there was so much dust from the freeway. He said a dog park would have a lot of dust and pathogens; asked how it would be kept clean; it would be harmful to people and animals. Yun Fan: • Opposed to dog park; too close to the community; Said she was worried about dogs spreading viruses to children; suggested using the land for a community garden, rent the space to people wanting to grow food. Megan Lee: • Opposed to changing rezoning. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 17 Madeleine Lee: • Opposed to rezoning. Senthil Pandurangram: • Said he was opposed to the dog park; and opposed to rezoning for dog park Jean Schwab: • Said she would prefer the residential zoning rather than the rezoning for park. If rezoning for park use, it is clear that it will be used for a dog park and she agrees with the neighbors that it is not a good use for the parcel. • If the property was not rezoned and remained residential, and land not touched, would the environmental mitigation have to go forward or stay as is? • If rezoned as park, it was indicated that the soil mitigation would take place, which would involve the removal of trees and possible replanting of trees which would not be as large as those there now. The city seems determined to use the small piece of land for something other than what it is. She said the residents have successfully battled different things, and stated for the record that she opposed rezoning for park use. Li _____no last name given: • Opposed to rezoning; if the trees are removed from the property, there will be more pollution from the freeway; keep the area as is. Maneesh Pawar: • Said he was opposed to the rezoning as it appears the city has decided on a dog park. • He is opposed to the dog park. Unidentified female speaker: • Sounds to me that the city is going to spend taxpayers’ money into looking into soil contamination for a project that may or may not be viable in the end; so it seems that a reverse process was being followed. It would be great if you would be able to defer the decision until a decision is made as to what is to be done with the piece of land. Why put out so much money and effort into deciding whether the strip of land … is it going to be viable or not; at this point you don’t know that. Tell us what you intend to do with that strip of land and then use the money to do all the groundwork or research that you have to do. Chair Miller: • Staff will clarify that; but I thought that was exactly the intention; exactly what you said and that is the city went thru the environmental review to determine the feasibility of going ahead with the dog park on that site. • The plan is to put a dog park there assuming that the Council votes on it. The point of the public hearing on February 5th is for the City Council to hear the testimony again and make a decision whether to go ahead or not. That is a more appropriate meeting for people to come and express their opposition or support of the dog park; your comments would be better addressed at that hearing as opposed to this one. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller summarized speakers’ questions and concerns for staff to respond to: • The issue is the order of the process; someone asked if there was a defined distance between a dog park and a residential area; they weren’t clear that the lead was going to be removed or not; now that Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 18 the area has been identified as having contaminants, specifically lead; if the city doesn’t approve the dog park, would they go ahead and remove those contaminants. Staff responded to speakers’ questions: • Would they clean up the lead if there was no additional use? If there is no additional public contact brought on by a different use other than now where there is no use; they would not clean it up. • Is there a prescribed distance from the dog park to the residential? None that I know of. • There was some confusion about the process; are we doing it backwards? Originally it was stated in the presentation there was a process that went on for several years, a debate about alternative locations for a dog park -- In 2009, Mary Avenue was determined to be the preferred alternative within the city for a dog park. After that, there were certain land use decisions and environmental review that had to happen in order to facilitate that decision; that decision couldn’t happen unless everything lined up from the land use standpoint. The project was also included in the capital improvement program budget, so not only has it been voted on by the Council, but the construction of the park and the cleanup of the soil has been included in the city’s capital improvement program budget. However, all that is still subject to the land use being set up so that the General Plan is aligned to this use, the zoning is aligned to this use and an environmental review is conducted. It still could be that whatever the Planning Commission recommends will go to Council, Council could still find with all the analysis that has been done and the testimony made that the site is still not appropriate. They may choose to go forward and with their original decision to do the dog park. • The council has already voted on this being the preferred alternative location - they still could decide not to go forward with the dog park. Melissa Tronquet: • California law requires that the city look at the environmental impacts of a proposed project before it decides to approve the project. The mitigated negative declaration before the Planning Commission is that document; the city can’t approve a dog park before it looks at those environmental impacts. Similarly, the city also has administrative processes that it needs to go through to make sure that appropriate zoning and land uses are designated for that site before it can say to put a park there. That is what is before the Planning Commission and what will be before the Council before it makes a decision. Staff: • Said the project is funded in the capital improvement program; if they decide to go ahead and approve the rezoning and the General Plan Amendment and certify the mitigated negative declaration, then we would also follow on that decision and ask them if they want to give the authority to the city manager to award a construction contract once the design is completed. If they don’t rezone it, they won’t take an action on construction contract. • In 2010 there was a capital improvement project after Council made the decision that this was the preferred alternative; subject to all the land use changes and the environmental review. There was a budget item to do the construction, after that was when the lead contamination was found. In Spring of 2012 additional money was put into the budget to support the lead remediation. Both are estimates; one for construction, one for lead remediation. If more lead is found, the budget may increase and the construction budget may be reduced for some of the amenities on the site. If it is not rezoned, whoever develops the site is responsible. Chair Miller: • Clarified that the process of cleanup is to remove the contaminants, remove the lead from the site; it is not to contain them on the site. After the cleanup there will be no more contaminants on the site. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 19 Staff: • The environmental document says that when removing the contaminants, no lead will be released into the air; however, all these chemicals are non-volatile and there would be no exposure to offsite residents via the inhalation pathway. The chemical compounds adhere to particular soil particles and will not become airborne. In additional the removal action work plan will require dust monitoring abatement and adherence to all Bay Area Air Quality Management district dust control regulations; therefore there will be no health risk to neighbors from this removal action. • Relative to the tree removal, there is no specified mitigation measure; however, it is staff’s desire to save as many trees as possible and then the ones removed would be replaced. Com. Brownley: • Said that the process has been a multi-year process; the issues included soil contaminations, tree removal, air and water. Said he supported changing the land use designation given the report that the mitigated negative declaration would allow them to move forward with the environmental changes necessary for the project in the future. Com. Lee: • Said she carefully reviewed the removal action work plan prepared by the professional geologist and understands why the residents are so concerned; during construction there will be 41 days inconvenience. She visited the site today; commented that it is underutilized at this time. Thanked residents for their input and comments. Said it was reasonable to rezone it for park use. Chair Miller: • Asked if the process of cleaning up the site would release toxins into the air or the environment in general. Vice Chair Sun: • Said he was aware his colleagues and staff support the rezoning, but changing from the current zone to the Parks and Rec didn’t change the opposition. If a developer proposes to build housing, people would oppose it. He said he did not support the rezoning but the dog park is the only thing they will have. The rezoning looks arbitrary but it’s particularly for the dog park; if they split the dog park into a different park or into the current park this may be more suitable for the dog park with all the entertainment together, that is his intention for the dog park. That discussion has been reviewed by City Council already. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could not go there and clean it up until the project is approved; they cannot start a project until the environmental review has been completed and certified. Com. Brophy: • The City Council and Park and Rec Commission in the last several years have put in a great deal of time, great deal of difficulty in dealing with a very emotional issue that can’t easily dealt with in an analytical way. When a dog park was being considered in the past in his Linda Vista neighborhood, residents sent in postcards supporting it, but the majority felt otherwise, which was the case with all parks considered at that time. Part of the frustration is the question of what the rezoning means; you cannot separate the concept of rezoning and General Plan amendments from the dog park; they are intrinsically combined. • The City Council a couple of years ago decided to go ahead with this site; on Feb. 5th they will have to decide whether or not to approve it. He said he thought it would be best if the agenda could be structured so that they can deal with them in one package. To the extent that he feels this site does Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 20 not make sense as a dog park, he feels he cannot vote for the General Plan rezoning. He said he appreciates the hard work and the difficulties that the Council and Parks and Rec Commission have had to deal with, but to the extent that the issues are so tightly tied together that the small site doesn’t make sense; he will vote against it. Chair Miller: • Said he did not feel it was a good site for a dog park; however they have gone thru several years of testimony and looking for a location for a dog park; there are a large number of residents who have dogs who have voted for a dog park; who feel that this town needs a dog park; the neighboring towns all have them. Residents who have dogs have rights just as residents who are not dog owners have rights. Presently residents with dogs who cannot drive to another city’s dog park tend not to follow the rules and leave their dogs unleashed in the streets. • There is benefit to a dog park; the city has looked at many sites and even though this is not a good site, the city has decided that this is the least objectionable site. It is a relatively small site and is going to be fenced in; the noise from the highway would overshadow any noise from the dogs themselves; so while it is not a good location for a dog park, he said he was inclined to support it for the reason that the city needs a dog park and they haven’t come to the conclusion that there is any other place in town to put it. • Said the other issue important to him is the one of continually holding out the promise that there could be housing there; this is not a good site for housing either. It is not an ideal site for anything; and he agrees with many residents here that the site should just be left alone; it is fine the way it is and it’s not really good for redevelopment. However, he does not want to see another housing project come forward for this site either and have everyone go through the same thing over and over again. • Said he would vote for the rezoning just to preclude the possibility of another housing project there and allow the city Council to go ahead and make the final determination as to whether or not it is the right place to put a dog park or just to leave it alone and move on with something else. Motion: Motion Com. Brownley, second by Com. Lee and carried 3-2-0, Chair Miller and Com. Brophy voted No, to approve of GPA-2012-01, Z-2012-02 and EA-2012-07 Application will be heard at City Council meeting on February 5, 2013. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: • Chair Miller reported that the Saich Way application was discussed. Housing Commission: • Com. Brophy reported that discussion included next year’s plans for the committee. Com. Brophy: • Thanked Chair Miller for his years of service on the Planning Commission particularly in his role as Chair. He thanked him for his leadership and expertise while working together on the commission. Cupertino Planning Commission January 8, 2013 21 Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting Economic Development Committee: • Com. Lee provided a matrix on upcoming development activities; talked about General Plan update. Stakeholders would like to engage the community so that in the future they could build more intensity and height. Staff and City Council want some developers to pay before the process; Aarti Shrivastava and developers will meet with General Plan consultants, EIR consultants and stakeholders and talk about master plan in that area. The new Economic Development Manager for the city is Angela Tsui. Com. Lee expressed appreciation to Chair Miller for his many years of community service and contribution to the Planning Commission. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted. • Said how much she appreciated Chair Miller’s tenure on the Planning Commission, his interest in researching projects, service on the DRC and contribution to the community since the 1980s. She thanked him for his many years of service and wished him success • Chair Miller said that he enjoyed his decade of service on the Planning Commission and would miss it. He appreciated the kind comments and was happy that his expertise was beneficial to someone else as it is a complement to know that one can make a contribution to colleagues and fellow commissioners. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the next meeting scheduled on January 22, 2013. Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary