Loading...
draft minutes 05-12-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. MAY 12,2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 12,2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Paul Brophy David Kaneda Winnie Lee Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: Heather Phillips APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections suggested: Page 31, 7 lines from bottom of page: Vote to read: "(Vote: 3-0-1; Chair Giefer voted No; Vice Chair Brophy absent)" Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Lee, to approve the Minutes of the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Vice Chair Brophy abstained) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Giefer noted receipt of items regarding agenda items. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 1. M-2009-02 Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) 1 Results Way Major Amendment modifying the Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2008-05), Use Permit Modification (DIR-2008-32) and Tree Removal Permit (TR-2008-06) for the purpose of extending the expiration date of these approvals for six years, phasing construction, clarifying conditions of approval, and modifying the traffic and signal improvement condition. Applicant has requested a postponement to the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: June 16, 2009 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 12, 2009 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to postpone Application M-2009-02 to the June 9, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. (The cancellation of the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting is on the current agenda). (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. M-2009-03 Suna Lai (Cupertino Stevens, LLC) 20100 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 160 Modification of a Use Permit (49-U-87) to allow for a 4,900 sq. ft. daycare, preschool, and learning center in an existing office building located along the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard Tentative City Council Date: June 16, 2009 Heather Phillips, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for modification of a Use Permit to allow a 4,900 sq. ft. daycare preschool and learning center in an existing office building location on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, as outlined in the staff report. . She reviewed the background, site location, hours of operation, noise impacts, parking, trash enclosure and landscaping as outlined in the staff report. Applicant wishes to change the closing time to 6:30 p.m. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council with modifications to the hours of operation; Director's approval for the play area/parking lot, striping, landscaping, trash enclosure, and the lobby modifications, rather than DRC approval. Gary Chao, City Planner: . Clarified that the applicant's preference is not to reconfigure the lobby because it makes their floor plan inefficient; they are prepared to speak about alternative ways of encouraging people to park in the rear and also they have indicated that there are multiple access points from the south. Staff is not married to that revised lobby area and are open to other mitigation measures. Vice Chair Brophy . Expressed concern about the possibility of Chili's Restaurant patrons parking in the Chicago Title lot creating a safety problem with small children walking out and the cars corning in to use that lot. Gary Chao: . Said they could suggest to the applicant adding enforcement signage, towaway signage and better delineate that there not be any offsite or restaurant parking in the Chicago Title lot. Staff answered questions regarding the parking, play area, and chemicals used in the pressure treated wood in the play area. Janet Tsai, representing the applicant: . Presented the history and background of the school; and illustrated the multiple points of entry onto the site. She reviewed the three solutions to encourage parents to park in the back parking Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 12, 2009 lot: during orientation at the beginning of each semester, parents are explained the procedure for dropping off the children, parking in the back, coming in and signing in children. Secondly, they are proposing to install signs near the front entrances with directional arrows; and in the parking lot, reserved signs for drop offwill be placed in some of the spaces. . She illustrated the proposed floor plan including office space, classrooms, and lobby area; and discussed recess times when children are out in the playground area. She answered Commissioners' questions about the center and programs. . There was a discussion about access to the site, parking in the back area, placement of safety bollards, and constricted driveway. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Com. Kaneda: . Said he approved the project, although he had concerns about how the eastern edge of the property is being handled. He suggested that if the gate is not required, the gate either be removed or if there is a concern about safety, at least not be the main entry gate. He recommended a 6 inch curb be put in and wrap around the building; if a car does drift, it cannot drift through the fence. . He proposed minor modifications along the side. Since the modifications to the building appear to be minimal, he said he did not have any comments about the interior work proposed. Vice Chair Brophy: . Said he did not think there was a problem with the project, and it would be an excellent improvement over the current space, which has been a problem space for many years, excluding the Chicago Title use. . He suggested that rather than trying to make some detailed design issues, he would support approving the project subject to staff review and approval. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed with Com. Brophy that they should not try to design the project. Com. Miller: . Said it was a good project; although he had concerns about auto and pedestrian traffic. There are minimal reasons for people to be walking down that road since they can access the front lobby from a rear door and other things are being done to discourage people from walking down that road. If it should become a problem, it could come back for review at that time. . Said he was not certain there would be a parking issue; but addressing a potential parking issue could be done by the two owners asking their employees to park in the back so there was more parking available for customers in the front area. . Said he supports the project. Com. Lee: . Said she supported the project. . She was concerned about parking, noise, but it looks like if there are any noise problems, there might be additional measures if people complain, and also in the parking management plan it says that just as long as there are going to be spaces, and signage to make sure that parents know where to park. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 12, 2009 Chair Giefer: · The parking information shows that about half of the spaces will be taken up by either Chicago Title or by the preschool employees who may not all be there at the same time. Realistically there will be overflow with Chili's Restaurant; people will park in the back of the Chili's lot, walk over through the back, pick up their children. Said her colleagues have not identified that as an issue and she would not make a point of that. . Said she felt they needed to protect the play area more than it currently is, and agreed with Vice Chair Brophy that staff should make the decisions; and give them some general direction if they feel that a 6 inch wrap around curb or bollards along the drive path is the best way to protect the area. In the past bollards were required between the parking area and the fenceline for the protection of the children. . Said she supported the project and would give staff direction for fmal review to ensure the safety and maximum protection of the children. Closing the side gate is an appropriate way to discourage the pedestrian access through the driveway. . On Page 2-8 of staffs initial report, staff is no longer recommending that this go to the DRC; they are recommending that staff be the final review of the plans. She suggested removing No. 10, and give staff the verbal direction to be the final reviewers and to ensure the safety of the children in the play yard. Gary Chao: . Also Condition 6, reference to DRC, same thing, that the trash enclosure final design be reviewed by staff. . Asked for clarification on the request for change in hours of operation, asking that the closing time be changed to 6:30 p.m. to allow more time for the children to be picked up; and regarding the lobby area, whether they were still inclined to require reconfiguration from their previous design. Chair Giefer: . Asked for comments on the lobby issue, whether or not staff should be responsible for solving the issue provided that the safety of the children is the number one concern. Vice Chair Brophy: . Said he was comfortable with staff talking with the applicant; and assumed that both staff and the applicant would be reasonable and were looking for a mutually agreeable solution. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed. Com. Miller: . Said the last configuration shown was acceptable because it had access to the lobby from the rear. Chair Giefer: . Condition II will be deleted. It will be covered by No. 10, final approval by staff. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Miller, to recommend approval of Application M-2009-03 as drafted, with the following changes: Condition No.2 second line, 5:30 p.m. be changed to 6:30 p.m., Condition No.6, the words "Design Review Committee" be deleted and replaced by "Director of Community Development"; Condition No. 10, be retitled "Final Design Review" and the phrase "Design Review Committee" be deleted and replaced by "Director of Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 12,2009 Community Development" and that Condition No. 11 be removed and the succeeding paragraphs be renumbered. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None Chair Giefer declared a short recess. NEW BUSINESS: 3. 2009 Planning Commission Work Program Discussion Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: . Explained that in putting together the Council work program, staff reviews last year's work items, what issues might need to be continued to the next year, and looks at other initiatives that the Council and Planning Commission may have begun. The Council has authorized staff to add to the list; Council will review it, makes the changes and then it is adopted. The work program provides a road map of what projects are coming down the pike for the upcoming fiscal year and how much staff time and/or resources will be needed. Many of the items are projects that the Planning Commission has been working on; in addition, if the Commission has some other recommendations, vote as a Commission to add them in and staff will consider timing, staff resources, what are some of the circumstances under which we think it is important to review, and will forward that up with that additional level of review to the Council. It is the Council's work program that they expect Commissions to work on. Com. Miller: · Said he would like to suggest a different process. He said he felt the Council could benefit from a bottom-up process instead of a top-down process. If the Commission has some suggestions that the Council hasn't thought about, that would give them the benefit of hearing from the Commission before their work program is set in place. In addition, if they have suggestions that require some budgetary approvals, they would have the ability to include it in the budget as opposed stating that the budget is already set and it would have to wait until next year. It may be too late to do that process this year, but next year we should recommend that it really would be of benefit to the Council if they heard from the Commissions in terms of what the Commissions thought was important before they began deliberating on what their work program and budget should be. Chair Giefer: . Said in essence the feedback that they provide on this could certainly include some of that feedback because they are already half way through the year, and the impact of anything suggested would actually be more pertinent for next year. With that in mind there are some things on other groups' work programs that should be accelerated or the Planning Commission should be involved in as well. In that spirit of change and trying to provide input to Council on things we are hearing from the community and important programs and kind of a reality check with some of the external things they are referencing, I think we should provide some input to them. Some of the things may be added this year but perhaps they are items that would work on next year. Vice Chair Brophy: . Said he felt they should at least offer ideas for them to accept or ignore as they see fit. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 12, 2009 Chair Giefer: · Suggested that they focus on the plan, and if there are any questions or comments about the things currently in the plan, review those first and ask for clarification. Additionally, suggest other ideas and see if they can build a consensus around some of those ideas and determine the best way of bubbling those up to Council. . Asked for clarification on "F: update the General Plan with respect to hotel allocation ..... Special Plan." She said she did not understand what their contributions would be. Aarti Shrivastava: . Said the original intent of Heart of the City was to update the Heart of the City with the 2005 General Plan; the Council is looking at some changes; one is to expand the boundaries of Heart of the City back to the old boundaries that included DeAnza College and the South Vallco area and that technically needs a General Plan change because the General Plan does not add those properties into Heart of the City. Chair Giefer: · In terms of action from us, Council will further define that and we will hold whatever public hearings are necessary to gather input and define once those goals are determined by Council. Aarti Shrivastava: · Referring to Item F, the intent wasn't to bring it back to the Planning Commission, it was to include the areas and there will be no net change to the current Heart of the City Plan. If they are more extensive, we don't know what that will be, and will be a matter for discussion. Com. Miller: · Said he felt it would be appropriate if the Council is going to be reviewing the BMR program, and he assumed housing has something to do with that. He said he felt they could also add value to that program. Chair Giefer: . Referred to Page 28 comments (LEED) where it indicates that Council is waiting for the standard space on the Santa Clara County Green Building Collaborative recommendations. Both Com. Kaneda and Chair Giefer sit on the task force and recommendations that they are moving forward with at this time will again be mandatory. She suggested that Council get some greater insight from either Shiloh Ballard or part of the leadership group on that task force to understand what is coming their way because she did not feel it would be as strong as they are anticipating and would be a policy they could implement. She said she felt they could adopt it as a voluntary program. Com. Kaneda: . The other related issue to that on the LEED certification piece for private, for commercial offices, it appears what is going to get adopted will be a choice of either going to a LEED certified standard or alternatively to go to a LEED equivalent certified standard of which there is a lot of discussion around. . It appears that they are not going to come out with a clear recommendation A or B; or here are the pros and cons of A or B, which based on the discussions that we have sat in on, was probably the correct thing to do; it then becomes an issue for the cities to decide which way they want to jump. Vice Chair Brophy: . Asked Corns. Kaneda and Giefer if they had a sense of how long the process is going to Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 12, 2009 continue before there is a formal recommendation to go to municipalities. Com. Kaneda: . Said he would be at the Santa Clara County Cities Assoc. meeting this month to help present it to the associations. Chair Giefer: . I don't think you will have a clear policy on that one; I think it will be the beginning of the discussions. I don't know what Council's expectation is; but I know when we did the residential one, it was clear what the recommendation was. . When something like that comes up when we see that there may be a disconnect between what they think is coming their way and what actually is, what is the best way for us to make them aware of that. Aarti Shrivastava: . Said she would talk to the Green Coordinator at the city and determine the best way to provide an update to the Council in a report of items of interest to keep them apprised of what is happening. Chair Giefer: . If the recommendation was to have the Planning Commission get involved in holding hearings on what would be the appropriate level of program, what would be the right way to make that recommendation as well as other new items that would bubble up on our agenda tonight. Aarti Shrivastava: . Said the Planning Commission could have a list of recommendations and staff would look at it and ascertain the best way to navigate through; to the extent I know now I can give you an idea of how much work can we do this year, how much work we might need to take on next year. Some of it is staff's capacity; some of it is looking at who in the city is going to be working through this issue. Vice Chair Brophy: . Said he would like the Commission to have the opportunity to have a clear cut set of rules that the community can comment on, and that they can apply impartially to any application. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed. Com. Miller: . When we were going through the updated housing element, some things came to mind; the first one was that when we were looking at commercial sites to convert to housing or mixed housing/commercial sites; my thought was that there could be some benefit to us having a corporate or office space or some combination of strategy or plan for the city, particularly not only from the standpoint, we spend a lot of time talking about housing, we spend a fair amount of time talking about commercial; we spend very little time talking about corporations and office space, and it just sort of happens in the city and maybe it makes sense to have thought it through and have some kind of strategy. . For example, we talked about eliminating buildings on Bubb Road and we talked about eliminating or reconfiguring buildings on Bandley. Those buildings are used a lot by startups and the reason for that is they are low rent buildings. We mayor may not want to encourage startups to come to Cupertino; I would suggest that we do; Apple Computer is one of the more Cupertino Planning Commission 8 May 12, 2009 famous startups and has been a very successful business for and they generate a lot of sales tax revenue. I would expect that other startups that come to town who are successful would do the same and that would benefit us in the long run; and would increase the city's tax revenues which is not a bad thing in the coming years because budgets will be very tight given the physical problems we are having in the state. . My suggestion is that we include in our work program some kind of discussions and involvement with the staff in terms of should we have a corporate policy and an office policy in town and what should it be, and how should it fit in with the other things we are doing with housing and commercial space and other things that relate. . He clarified that he would like to have a discussion to see if it makes sense and if so, to propose what the city would like to see from a strategy standpoint. He said there were no other cities in the area with a comprehensive strategy; and he was suggesting a strategy that encourages startups to come to Cupertino or encourage clean tech to come to town. It involves doing certain things and setting certain land use policies that we may not do otherwise. He said he did not have any answers tonight, but was merely suggesting that they engage in that activity. Com. Kaneda: · Said he saw some value in doing that also, but did not know the mechanics of how it gets done. Aarti Shrivastava: . Said that different cities have done different things; she did not know Mayor Reed's issue on clean tech and green tech or incentives, but can look at those if that ends up being a work item. In terms of policies, San Jose did one a long time ago where they looked at industrial land and tried to have a policy of how they look at conversion of that; Mountain View has also done that to set policies, but it may be different from what Com. Miller is talking about, which is more towards how to provide incentives to new industries to come to town. Vice Chair Brophy: . He said they could consider that, but pointed out that the 30 year old tilt-up buildings on Bubb and Bandley in their current condition, get higher rents than Class A office space on North First Street. There is not a whole lot you can do to change that unless you are planning to propose commercial rent control or something like that. Said he was willing to look at it, but was not quite sure where their efforts would lead them. Aarti Shrivastava: . Said it may be something they could combine with a whole green, whatever the city is looking at in terms of doing something green. Com. Miller: . From a land use standpoint, I think it is a good idea to explore land use policies that reduce greenhouse gases, more than just how a building is built, what additions are made, or whether they meet LEEDs or not, but actually looking at solving this issue from a land use standpoint. I recognize that may get us into some controversial areas, but the State is going to impose these things upon us and we should be exploring all opportunities to address some and land use is certainly one of them. Aarti Shrivastava: . Referring to Page 28 of 29, working with ICLEI, said she did not have a timeframe but would follow up and provide an update. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 12, 2009 Com. Kaneda: . Pointed out that his understanding ofICLEI carbon inventory was they were looking at the city facilities carbon inventory, not the city as a whole carbon inventory, and would argue that if they reduce that, the city is setting the right example. Chair Giefer: . Under comments, the fIrst phase of it is municipal, and the next phase is for us to commence data collection and assess the citywide greenhouse gas emissions. Once it is understood that it will be late summer before they would have the data, it would help identifY areas that might need attention to look at land use policy in certain areas and it would be a very fInite way to review that process after that inventory is completed. That might be something where we could add value in helping understand a little bit more about that once the complete inventory is complete. Com. Miller: . Said he heard at the Planners Institute that there would be a focus on reducing auto traffic and that is a land use issue. . It would be ideal to have alternative transportation here; it not going to happen in the near term, but there are other land use alternatives that will help reduce auto traffic that we can discuss. Chair Giefer: . It covers many different things; it is not just land use, it is alternative transportation. Rather than just saying land use, I would like to open the discussion to what can we do through planning to reduce our greenhouse gases, because I think they all work together and there are multi-faceted components to that. . We have somebody who is an expert in this area on staff and who has been tasked on trying to help identifY what our current carbon footprint is as a city because once we understand that then we will understand what areas we can address of it. Then I think we need to help address that and identifY whatever areas we can make a contribution in, if it is land use, alternative transportation, something like more bike lanes; whatever that is, but I think that any areas that are identifIed that we have the expertise to assist in, certainly we should. Aarti Shrivastava: . Referring to Page 29, Form a Green Ribbon Program to propose policies, she said they would speak with Erin Cook about the process and provide an update about how the process is supposed to work. Chair Giefer: . Said if it is still the plan to go through with that, they could work with them. Com. Kaneda: . Said he may be able to assist Erin Cooke on some of the issues related to greenhouse gas emissions. There are the CCPUC recommendations of getting all new residential construction down to net zero energy by 2020; and all new commercial construction down to net zero energy by 2030. He said he was recently involved in presentations to the National AlA at the National Conference and some of the calculations presented related to getting carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions levels down were borderline frightening. He said they need to focus on specifIcs of what needs to be done in 2009 and how much they need to reduce in 2009 to come close to meeting some of the goals. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 12, 2009 Aarti Shrivastava: . In addition, there is AB32 and SB375, on a planning level there are the Offices of Planning Research for the State as well as the California Air Resources Board that are putting out draft documents on how to calculate the greenhouse gas impacts of specific projects. When CEQA is done for the project, the calculations have to be done. She said she would provide an update. In addition, ABAG is putting together their projections, is looking at alternatives of how to model their projections in the best way possible to meet those as well. We will get an update on where they are going with that as well. We just are looking preliminarily at all of their draft information. One of them does include focus feature which is focusing growth in and around areas that have transit. Com. Kaneda: . Hopefully Erin Cooke can help us out with this; but my concern is there is a huge disconnect between what we are talking about with Santa Clara County Cities Association which is this much of a change, and AB32 and the zero energy policy board, zero carbon policies which is this much of a change. A little bit of background information to flush out these things that are right now are alphabet soup to us would really be helpful to give us a framework to evaluate some of these issues. Com. Miller: . The housing element update also suggested to me that there is some value in getting ahead of the curve for the next go around; and having some kind of policy in terms of how we address a continuing imbalance in jobs and housing which the consultant said we will continue to have and it will as he saw it, continue to exacerbate over the years. . We went through this process with just four of us each time we met and it would be good to revisit it with all five of us, and see if we can't come up with some kind of recommendation that would move that process forward in a smooth fashion. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed on one hand, but on the other hand, the one issue made him stop and pause at least to think about it is he thought the rules were going to change in the next go around; but it is not clear how that is going to change. He said that kind of housing and business need to have some kind of balance otherwise there will soon be a huge population commuting into Cupertino from Modesto, which will exacerbate the greenhouse gas emissions. Com. Miller: . Said he was more proactive rather than reactive. Every time we are reactive, we fmd ourselves behind the curve and we don't have enough time to do it properly, and so I would invoke the name of our Planning Commission, and suggest that we spend some time planning what would happen or we could just call the contingency plan in case the next change go around makes it worse for us than better; because the bottom line is that if the region or city is not keeping pace, then the state is going to come down on us to fix the problem. I think we all agree that the problem affects not only the jobslhousing issue but also the greenhouse gas issue and probably a few others as well. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed. Com. Miller: . Said the last item is to revisit process improvements; which staff has already started on. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 12, 2009 Aarti Shrivastava: . Said a fIrm has been hired to review the development review process and they have fInished talking to internal city staff; have completed some interviews with people from the outside who have gone through city processes and there will a document for review that gives suggestions for improvement, what they like and don't like. . Said the focus groups they recently talked to were customers who went through the building process, the planning process, or the public works process, so were all people from the outside have gone through the city's process. They include large and small groups, consultants, single family applicants, architects, large developers, commercial and mixed use residential. Com. Miller: . Suggested that if time permits, choose another area in town that is likely for near term further development and spend some time doing a specifIc plan or at least some kind of strategy. He said the Crossroads area would be appropriate; Mervyns has moved out, and there is a burned out section of town over there, with some under-utilized space that could be fIlled in. Chair Giefer: . How would that differ from Heart of the City which envelopes that area. Com. Miller: · It would be an extension of the Heart of the City. The Crossroads has been defmed between DeAnza and Stelling. Aarti Shrivastava: . That is correct; the one item the city was supposed to look at was the streetscape plan once the Heart of the City was adopted. That might be a starting point once we know what Heart of the City is going to be. Chair Giefer: . With regards to specifIc plans, are there any thoughts from any other commissioners of areas that need a specifIc plan or that we might consider a specifIc plan for. Com. Miller: . Said they would likely review North Vallco again when someone submits an application, because that plan was positioned as just a preliminary look. Vice Chair Brophy: . Said he was skeptical on doing a specifIc area plan for the Crossroads because they have just done the Heart of the City. The shopping center is under one or two separate ownerships and I have a problem with us trying to do the plans for a single owner; at least in the case of South Vall co we had a developer who had a large parcel and was willing to, as a condition of approval, look at the broader area, but I don't see that we have that situation here. Said he did not see it as a high priority unless and until it changes. Com. Miller: . Said he was referring to the whole Crossroads center, from DeAnza to Stelling. Vice Chair Brophy: . Are we doing a streetscape plan; during the Heart of the City we already raised the possibility of shrinking down Stevens Creek from six lanes to four and the Council made it clear they Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 12,2009 weren't interested in that; so given that I am not sure what it is that we would be studying in the Crossroads. Com. Miller: . Said he did not know that he could answer that question tonight either; I know that we have tried to study this in the past. What I suggested is that it is likely area in town for near term future, but near future development and as such, my feelings is that I would like to be ahead of the developers coming in with applications; I would like to have us have thought about it in advance. One of my concerns, one of the things I have noticed, is that there is a lot of concern on the part of residents that developers drive the city; and to some extent that is true, but not because that is necessarily the way the Council wants it; I think that is true because the Council and the city tend to be reactive; they tend to be passive and developers come in when they want to do something and they have already set the agenda; they have set the table. The city is then scurrying around trying to figure out that is the part of town we are going to be looking at next; what do we want to do there or not do there. As a result of that approach, we tend to get things done in a piecemeal fashion; and so I and just looking at why don't we try getting ahead ofthat process by doing a little planning and see if we can't get some ideas out on the table that put us in a better position when the development actually occurs. I find it interesting that we are called a Planning Commission here in Cupertino, but most of what we do is application review. In Mountain View, the Planning Commission only does long range planning; they don't do application review, they just do planning. I am suggesting that we could meld the two, particularly if we have some time this year because our agendas are light. Vice Chair Brophy: . Said he agreed philosophically, but in the case of Crossroads, the property is already broken up into small pieces; it is all well committed; it is possible that in the future something may be done with the Crossroads Shopping Center, but I don't know where to begin in terms of analyzing the Crossroads area from a long range planning perspective. Com. Miller: . Said he could not provide an answer tonight; his suggestion is that someone else come in and help them; a consultant to provide advice and direction. He said it may be that there is nothing they can do productively there and they shouldn't be looking at it anymore than just discussion tonight. He said he was merely making the observation that it is likely for future development. Aarti Shrivastava: . The Heart of the City states that they will work on the streetscape plan. My idea may be different from the community's idea but I don't think the intent was that; I think the community has spoken loudly about not doing any lane reductions. I think the idea was more to look at the streetscape in terms of how does the curb to the building area, how does that get treated. Today, the Plan requires about 26 feet of lawn in front of buildings up to 35 feet depending on where they are built and if you look at the area between Stelling and DeAnza, there isn't one property that has that; so to some extent all of those properties have exceptions to that. I think the idea was, if this area was intended for retail, then what kind of frontage works best for retail; that would be one way to look at it. Talk to retailers, talk to people about how does this work. An example of taking an older shopping center like Crossroads and trying to give it a little more liveliness might be the Marketplace where you have a combination of parking spaces and buildings that go back and forth and you get a little more life in the street, and what does the streetscape look like. One example is what was done in front of Peet's Coffee. These projects as they have been approved have been approved as exceptions to the Heart of the City and the intent is not let's do exceptions, let's look at what Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 12, 2009 we want this to look like in the future and figure out what that is. That was my understanding of the streetscape plan; it wasn't to increase heights or intensity or density or reduce lanes; it was more to look at what is that area between the curb and the building look like and how does it work best for retail. Com. Kaneda: . Would just looking at the streetscape plan allow us to address some of those issues or would you need to do something more comprehensive than that. Aarti Shrivastava: . As far as it is circumscribed in Heart of the City and a discussion in the General Plan, you could do it by addressing the space between the curb and the building; and to some extent saying we want buildings to have the look and feel of whatever it is. Com. Miller: · Some people thought at one time a potential downtown area might have been the Crossroads area, and whether that makes sense or not; Com. Brophy pointed out most of it is under single ownership. Looking at that and making it more desirable from a shopping standpoint, looking at potential reconfiguring of that space there, now that Mervyns is gone, mayor may not make sense. I suggest that it is an area of potential near term development, and as such we should put some thought and discussion into it. Vice Chair Brophy: . Suggested looking at the parking standards in general for restaurants and general retail because he felt they did not require enough parking for restaurants. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she wanted to put in a pitch for the two parks in the eastern end of Cupertino; the Sterling Barnhart park which has been purchased by Cupertino recently which will be receiving some improvements soon. The community is excited that they will also be getting a play structure and basketball courts. . She said it appears the city is attempting to purchase the Lawrence/Mitty corridor park and she was pleased to see there had been a recommendation by the Board of Supervisors for a trailhead there. The property along Lawrence Expressway is a critical and important a piece of property which is under-utilized, and could become an incredible riparian park, tremendous asset for the neighborhoods for San Jose across the street and a source of pride for the entire city. She recommended that the city purchase more pocket parks; there is a need for more community parks in Cupertino; there are tremendous areas of suburban neighborhoods that have no parks near them. People are using the schools as parkland which is sad. There should be a concentrated stepped up effort in the city to look at ways of purchasing empty lots, and lots that have homes on them that could in the future be turned into neighborhood parks . She expressed concern about prezoning commercial areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard for housing; the city can come in and take the property for housing. Also make sure that there is good use of the land, get public input, and if they want to have startups in this city, identify sources of venture capital; we have never talked about that. Menlo Park up in Sandhill has tremendous venture capital, lots of new startups come out of there. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 12, 2009 Vice Chair Brophy: . Said they also needed to plan for the Simms parcel in the workload. Aarti Shrivastava: . Noted that there was going to be a Planning Commission and City Council discussion of the Simms parcel. (Page 26 under Parks and Rec) Chair Giefer summarized the seven items for discussion: . Working on the BMR policy with the Housing Commission . Green building policy; trying to get more involved in that and advising Councilor running hearings with regards to what we should be doing in our city . Strategy plan for corporations to encourage certain types of businesses . Housing element policy to address housing/jobs imbalance . Additional process improvements . Specific plan, such as one recommended for Crossroads . Re-evaluate parking policies specifically the parking ratios for restaurants vs. non-restaurant businesses. 1. Affordable Housin!! Policv Com. Lee: . Currently it is supposed to be 15%; San Jose has 20%; do we want ot change it? . Medium priority. Aarti Shrivastava: . Some areas have it and some areas don't; don't know if it is 20% in San Jose. It is a little different; but we do BMR in different ways; one is to get a percentage of housing units as affordable housing; the other is we collect a per square footage amount for non-residential buildings that goes into a pot that we can use to fund affordable housing projects. A third is for projects that are under the 7 unit mark where the 15% threshold starts kicking in, we have in-lieu fees that they provide for fractions of units, there are a couple of funding sources and fees that are involved with that. Chair Giefer: . Com. Miller's recommendation is to help develop affordable housing policy. Medium Drioritv Com. Miller: . Expanding it, yes; I think that if you look at the BMR program in place for many years and the amount of affordable housing it has provided, it is relatively small compared to the housing stock. There are other ways of going about it; which other cities have implemented to some success, and I would propose that we look at some of the other ways, for example, San Jose has a limited BMR program, most of the city is not under it. But they seem to put a considerable amount of affordable housing in place; they use other avenues to do it through combinations of city funding, through grants, through density policies and other ways, and I suggest the Council is going to be looking at this item and perhaps we could provide some input, not just to the BMR program but perhaps to expanding to other ways of providing affordable housing that are more in line with providing an incentive for the development of affordable housing as opposed to this program which is just the opposite. The BMR program is not an incentive to build affordable housing in any way; if anything it discourages it. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 12, 2009 Chair Giefer: · Said she felt it was clearly the jurisdiction of the Housing Commission and they should be the ones reviewing other more creative ways to expand and deliver increased affordable housing within our city. If that was on their work program, and one of their objectives, I would support it and do whatever we need to do with regards to zoning, but we have inclusionary housing policies currently and we also have density bonuses for affordable housing. I feel we would be stepping on the Housing Commission's toes, though I agree they should be looking at that. Com. Miller: · We can recommend that we work with the Housing Commission to look at it together. Vice Chair Brophy: · Said that unless they received direction from Council, he considered it a lower priority item. Com. Kaneda: · Said he supported it; and would be interested in hearing Council's opinion. Com. Miller: . What I suggest is we could prioritize them and send them up; but I don't know that you want to limit any of these items at this point in time. The Council is going to decide or not, and why not give them the opportunity to turn us down. Chair Giefer: · Minimally we need to send them a prioritized list of what we think we should do. Com. Lee: · Said she supported it. Chair Giefer: · Summarized at least three for supporting. She did not feel it was in their purview, and felt it was a low priority. (In summary later in meeting, said it was overall LOW priority.) 2. Green Buildine: Policv and trvine: to helD understand what they need to do to e:et to the State mandates and how the Leae:ue of Cities will imDact that objective. Hie:h Priority Vice Chair Brophy . Said he would put it as a high priority, not necessarily sure he was willing to support all aspects of it. He made it clear the last year that they and the Council need to decide what the rules are so that it is not a "let's make a deal" type of arrangement as each application comes in and they react to it. Com. Kaneda . Said he agreed; he was uncomfortable with each time trying to create policy as you go and seeing if they were being consistent with the previous time, and how to handle mitigating circumstances, and making decisions in a vacuum. It is not a good way to make decisions. Com. Lee Chair Giefer Com. Miller Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 12, 2009 3. More strate!!ic olannine: on how to offer incentives to coroorations to move into our city. Hie:h Priority Com. Kaneda (good idea; not certain the Commission is right group to be doing it) Medium Priority Com. Lee Com. Miller Chair Giefer (is a vision thing that Council needs to do) Low to Medium Priority Vice Chair Brophy (more of a staff issue) 4. Housine: Element Policv to address housine:/iobs imbalance. Hie:h Priority Com. Miller Com. Lee (important and is tied to the green building) Medium Priority Com. Kaneda Low to Medium Priority Vice Chair Brophy (Low to Medium priority until the housing element is approved by the City Council and gets approved by the State) Low Priority Chair Giefer (we have already visited that decision and made a recommendation for it; don't see the urgency) 5. Process Imorovements Chair Giefer: . I am not sure what specific process improvements we would need to address, besides the ones that are already under way. That is a comment rather than an opinion. Com. Miller: . He said that he heard complaints about the length of time the process takes and the high costs involved; one applicant recently mentioned that the cost of having the city review his geotechnical reports was more than the cost for the reports themselves; in addition to the amount of money he spent on arguing the issue for an extended period of time. He said it was those types of issues in terms of process that he would like to see addressed sooner rather than later. Medium Priority Vice Chair Brophy (depending on outcome of consultant study; may move it up in the future) Com. Kaneda (almost an non-issue until we get a report back. If the report says it is a problem, then it becomes a high priority. Low Priority Com. Lee (interested in consultant's report) Vice Chair Brophy: . While I don't think there is anything we can do until we see the study, I do think it is important that we get involved and pass on our opinions/recommendations to the staff and Council because I think this is a great concern in terms of the cost and time burdens on individuals. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 May 12, 2009 Chair Giefer: . Interested in outcome of consultant's report; once completed what is indicated by that would set different types of priorities for us. Suggest we agendize the item for staff to report out with the findings of the study. If there is further action on our part, we make the recommendation at that time. 6. Specific Plan for the Crossroads or other areas. Medium Priority Com. Lee Com. Miller Com. Kaneda Low Priority Vice Chair Brophy Chair Giefer (is amply covered by current areas) 7. ParkiD!! ratios specifically for restaurants vs. non-restaurant businesses Hi!!h Priority Vice Chair Brophy Medium Priority Chair Giefer Low Priority Com. Miller: It is a noble enterprise; not sure where we are going Com. Kaneda Com. Lee Chair Giefer summarized the priorities to forward to City Council. No. 1 - Green building policy- Unanimous for High Priority No.2 - Affordable Housing Policy - overall Low No.3 - Strategy planning - Medium No.4 - Housing Element Policy - Medium No.5 - Process Improvements - Medium; but may bubble up or down depending upon the results of current study No.6 - Specific plan for Crossroads or other areas - Low No. 7 - Parking ratios - Low Aarti Shrivastava: . Said that staff was looking at doing some type of update for the Commissions and would discuss with the City Manager the most appropriate way to forward recommendations and suggestions from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Com. Miller: . Said it has been different than past years; typically we have our own written work program and I think, I like the idea of having a road map in front of us; I am suggesting that we add the ones that are specifically ours which were the planning page, including the sign ordinance, whatever else was on that page, and we recommend that we add these others to it and that is what we are proposing as our work program, that implements what the Council is trying to do as well as some other opportunities for work here at the Planning Commission. Chair Giefer: . One issue I see with that is every year we have had a reality check with staff and we have had a discussion of what we would like to do and what other priorities we have; staff has had an Cupertino Planning Commission 18 May 12, 2009 opportunity to provide input on that and say yes we can work this out, no we cannot work that one out. Do a reality check, to say this is our work program is committing staff and financial resources for the city which we currently do not have that agreement for. I don't think we can just say we are going to tackle all this onto the plan and that is what we want to do. Com. Miller: . Asked for staff's input on bringing back what was discussed at the meeting and providing the Planning Commission with their input. Aarti Shrivastava: · We could do some of that; the other thing I might add is our time is also a function of private projects that come in; and people have talked to us; we don't know; we are hearing there is a little more comfort level in the development community; don't know what that means and what that might mean for us; so we can certainly; some of these might need input from the Council and might need other reports to come through; so what we could start with is see if there is anything worth bringing back to the Planning Commission or we could just forward it to the Council and say the recommendations are to work on as a time and resources are available basis; so you have the priorities; if the Council has other thoughts, they can choose to put it to the next year's work program or let us know, you can work on these as time permits. Staff will provide an update to the Commission at the next meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to forward the priorities to City Council (Vote: 5-0-0) 4. Discuss cancelinl! the Mav 26. 2009 Planninl! Commission meetinl!. Aarti Shrivastava: · Said there was not sufficient time for staff to work on items discussed during the work program item for the next meeting. She noted that staff was also preparing for a budget session with the City Council on May 27th. Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Brophy, to cancel the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Lee voted No) REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: · Chair Giefer noted that she was unable to attend the meeting as she was out of town on business. · Aarti Shrivastava attended the meeting and provided a report. There was a short discussion on the draft CIP program that staff was going to forward to the Council. Most of the items were CEQA exempt items and/or had previous review. The ERC voted to accept that and move that recommendation forward to Council. Housinl! Commission: No report. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 12,2009 Mavor's Monthlv Meetin2 With Commissioners: Com. Miller summarized various reports given: · Parks and Rec -June 6 is a Create a Park Day, or opportunity to work at Blackberry Farm to help move process along for getting in shape for July 4th opening. Also working on an Adopt a Park Program and are seeking volunteers for labor for maintenance; talked about passing the Dog Park item to City Council. · Pedestrian Commission - discussed success of Mary Bridge opening; Bike to Work Day program; trying to encourage kids to bike to school; public safety is also working on a program to walk, bike and carpool; also looking at recommending installing permanent radar speed signs around schools. · TIC looking at putting LED or induction lighting systems for street lights; looking at a distributed cell phone system. . Teen Commission, planning teen lounge night and ice cream social June 2 · Library Commission reported that job search activity is at an all time high; remodeling teen section of library; parking is huge issue; concerned that soccer field next to library has been designated as official cricket field, which will exacerbate the parking problem; issue with fixing fountains; reported that the library has largest circulation in entire system. Economic Develooment Committee: Com. Miller reported: . Rosebowl is moving ahead. . As a result of sale of Ranch 99 Center, and because of the high selling price, it caused property taxes to take a huge leap; average cost to a small tenant is $20K in additional property taxes. . Cupertino Square is involved in a deal to provide IMAX. · Hoffbrau and Hoffbrau Express has moved out and Hoffbrau contingency is on hold pending resolution of the current lawsuits . Semantek moving HQ out of town; however, they are leaving a significant amount of employees behind and they are going to leave sales tax office behind · Kelly reported that things are more optimistic; people are more interested in getting back to a normal pace; also mention of new commercial enterprise; combo spa/restaurant, Japanese hair salon · Ballywood movies will be shown at the Oaks Shopping Center . Kelly discussed vacancy rates; vacancy rate on office space is 12%, lowest in County. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava: · Reported that the City Council reviewed the Heart of the City; made some revisions to the report, adopted mostly everything; decided to put Heart of the City on hold until housing element is complete in order to have discussion on densities. Two items were revised, one was the recommendation in their packet on non-retail uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard to limit those in the front but allow them in the back; the revision they made was to allow 25% of such uses in the front and only allow 50% of such uses in the back of buildings; other change was to consider adding So. DeAnza Boulevard to Heart of the City and to look at what staff might recommend in terms of that. Com. Kaneda: . Asked staff to comment on reclamation plan for Hansen Permanente Cement. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 May 12,2009 Aarti Shrivastava: · There was a reclamation plan done some time ago, to include a small piece that was left out. It didn't appear to have any significant issues but we did have some comments about looking at using some fill from another project instead of using natural soil as fill because we felt it would help any plant material that was planted to grow better than aggregate, a high percentage of which was planned to put in. · There was also a reclamation plan being prepared for a small portion of the Stevens Creek Quarry in keeping with the MOD adopted by the Council last year. Com. Kaneda: . Asked for an update on the discussion of climate control. Aarti Shrivastava: . The "we" is not planning staff; I think it is the city manager's office; so it was more to bring the community into looking at ways to improve; No significant policies came out of it; it was just a discussion. The public was invited to participate. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary