Loading...
PC 01-26-10CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. January 226, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2010, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Plarm er: Leslie Gross APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Correction: Page 1, Design Review Committee representation: Com. Miller should be noted as a second member, not alternate. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0, to approve the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR 3. GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05) General Plan Amendment for 2007 -2014 Housing City of Cupertino Element update. Applicant has requested a Citywide Location postponement to the March 9, 2010 meeting. Tentative City Council date: March 16, 2010. Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Giefer, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0, to postpone Application GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05) to the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission January 26, 2010 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING 1. U- 2009 -07, ASA- 2009 -07 Use Permit and Architectural & Site Approval to construct TM- 2009 -05, Terry Brown two, two -story, single - family residences with two new (D &B Legacy, LLQ detached granny units in Planned Development District; 10216 Pasadena Ave. Tentative Map to subdivide a .29 acre parcel into two 6,200 square foot parcels. Postponed from the January 12, 2010 meeting. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Use Permit and Architectural & Site Approval to construct two single- family residences with detached granny units in a Planned Development district, and a Tentative Map to subdivide a .29 acre parcel into two 6,200 square foot parcels as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the site location, project description, subdivision pattern, architectural and site design, and landscape plan. Although there are no trees currently existing on site that require removal, as part of the proposal, the applicant is proposing to construct a detached sidewalk with park strip and new front yard street trees along the street frontage and several privacy protection screening shrubs and front yard trees as indicated on the drawing. • Staff recommends that the application be approved in accordance with the model resolution. • Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application. Terry Brown, representing property owners: • Said that relative to drainage, they are working with the Public Works Dept.; all of the storm water will stay on site; calculations have been given with respect to runoff, so that the drainage is not going to impact any other property. The driveways will be pervious pavers which will take all of the moisture that comes onto those. • With respect to the second units, the concept was for a development pattern that would not build too large a house out front; the lots are 130 feet deep, the back property line abuts a vertical concrete wall that is part of a zero lot line building in the light industrial section. The concept was that the second units would be affordable in the context of what is affordable in the Monta Vista High School area; but would be available for rentals to teachers, fire fighters and other community people. It would be an �Lffordable piece of real estate they could occupy. • Relative to the green issue, they have agreed to build the units according to the city's green standards. • They did not propose a flag lot; the first proposals were at three units and some different configurations, such as townhouse units. They worked with staff to improve the original proposal, and are satisfied with the final development pattern. Gary Chao: • Regarding Com. Giefer's question about lot coverage, lot coverage is 33 %, the square footage of the proposed ground floor space includes 1,021 square feet first floor, plus 424 square feet of garage, plus 640 square feet of secondary dwelling unit, totaling 2,085 square feet, divided into lot size of 6,240, square feet, equaling 33%. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 26, 2010 Terry Brown: • Said that in addition to pervious pavers, there will be French drains, dry wells and other percolation pits. The only provision in the current plan to put water onto the public right of way is in the event of a failure of the system there; but it is designed for retention of the water on the site. That is something Public Works staff requested and they have agreed to do. Gary Chao: • Said that staff was satisfied with the current firoposed privacy screening planting; the adjacent sites are not the typical R1 property; but more apartment and higher density. Technically the applicant is not required to provide any privacy protection unless they are next to R1 lots; it is already above and beyond what is required, but in good practice they have been asked to incorporate that feature into the plans. The applicant is not required to provide landscape between the two units. Terry Brown: • Said that in the future the granny units in the back will not be coming before the Planning Commission for a future re- subdivision or con do minimizing of them. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she felt the project was attractive and would be a benefit to Monta Vista. She discussed the potential uses of the granny units, over the lifetime of the units, they could potentially be used for family members or rental units. She expressed concern about metering the units separately for PG &E and water usage:, which might indicate that the usage is intended for rental and income property. She asked what the minimum lot size is for granny units and how the parking is calculated. The public hearing was closed. Gary Chao: • Responded that there was not a minimum lot size for granny units; all R1 lots have the ability to take advantage of the granny unit clause in the ordinance. A larger lot size of 10,000 square feet would allow a granny unit of 800 square feet; anything less would be 640 square feet for the granny unit; the square footage allocated to the granny unit is counted toward the total FAR of the project. The option exists to have separate PG &E and water usage hookups for the granny unit; the granny unit cannot be sold, but can be rented. Relative to parking, the R1 ordinance states that if you can facilitate the :regular two covered parking stalls in addition to open stalls, four total off - street, you do not have to provide additional parking for the granny unit; it is accounted for on the street. Each lot requires four off - street parking. Coin. Miller: • Given the constraints of the lot, it is a good design, fits into Monta Vista theme and the applicant has done a good job. • Supports the project. Coin. Kaneda: • Questioned what the sustainability requirements were. Cupertino Planning Commission Z. January 26, 2010 Gary Chao: • Said there was presently no requirement, but is on a voluntary basis. If the applicant wishes to voluntarily build the units to Build A Green or LEEDS standard, they are free to do so. In the past, there could be the ability to memorialize; what the applicant has offered, so that everyone is clear what the expectation is, but it is at the Planning Commission's discretion. Terry Brown: • Said that the property owner has expressed the desire to build the project according to the green standards and they are compelled to meet the requirements of the checklist, and are willing to meet the 60 point threshold. Gary Chao: • Said that the city offsets some of the costs of the certification process. Com. Giefer: • Suggested additions to the model resolution: That the applicant must meet Build A Green minimum point level of 60 points; add language prohibiting further subdivision rights associated with the project; it is the choice of the applicant whether or not to have the buildings rated. Chair Brophy: • Said it was not a major issue since Terry Brown indicated a willingness to meet the 60 point minimum. • Voiced his dissent and said that he did not feel they should put the requirements in the actual resolutions until there is a Green Building Ordinance. Com. Miller: • Concurred with Chair Brophy. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve with the following additions: that it be memorialized that the applicant intends to meet the Build It Green Checklist and achieve the minimum 60 points on that; if they choose to have the building officially rated as well, it is to their discretion. Aarti Shrivastava: • It is R1, each lot will allow one unit with a second unit which cannot be subdivided, unless they come in with a completely different project that looks very different. It would not be possible to subdivide under the current zoning; it is Planned Residential. Chair Brophy: • Said he was concerned that a future owner could come in and ask for the main house and granny unit to be either subdivided or converted to condominiums. Gary Chao: • Said they do have the density to allow for up to about four units; but they would have to go through a process to do that. There are some technical difficulties that they would have to address; staff would not support a condominium plan. Cupertino Planning Commission January 26, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it only worked as a second unit; anything beyond that, the threshold of having to meet that to create new lots is something that staff would not support; nor would they support condos. It could be memorialized so that that anybody who purchases it in the future, understands that. Com. Giefer: • Said she did not have a preference; she felt it was unlikely that someone would want to further subdivide. She acknowledged what staff said but said it was just something that came up. Chair Brophy: • Said he was willing to let it slide unless there is a strong feeling otherwise. Whether or not to put in the clause on the green building, should they do a count or a formal vote. Vice Chair Lee: • Leave as is. Vote: Motion failed: 2 -3 -0. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4 -1 -0, Com. Giefer voted No; to approve Application 17- 2009 -07, ASA- 2009 -07, TM- 2009 -05 per the model resolution. 2. U- 2009 -09 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility Cindy Cheng (Cupertino to operate at an existing commercial building. The Investment Partners, LLQ application also includes a new outdoor play area in the 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd existing rear parking lot. Tentative City Council date: February 16, 2010. Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to operate in an existing commercial building, including a new outdoor play area in the existing rear parking lot; as outlined in the staff report. • She reviewed the proposed daycare use, parking lot connectivity, drop off/pick up area; key site improvements; outdoor play area; and noise. Staff recommends that the hours be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in accordance with other daycares in the city. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council. • Answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application. • A discussion ensued regarding the parking, traffic circulation and drop off/pick up. Com. Miller expressed concern about the potential traffic generated from the proposed daycare center through neighbors' parking lots. Staff' said the ideal solution would be to merge the driveway and have one driveway, so that there is not a fence in between; which is the most efficient way of maximizing space for setback and landscaping and efficiency purposes. • Said in this case, they are fixed with the situation; they have the project site to deal with the circulation and cannot presently touch any of the other infrastructures currently there without consent from the adjacent property owners. Both the Fire Department and Public Works Department looked at those concerns. Similar to the other school project, there can be a condition to ensure that certain features are addressed or that some circulation be re- evaluated; Public Works and the Fire Department can provide feedback and make sure that it is on solid ground before the project is approved and the building permit is issued. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 26, 2010 Cindy Cheng, Applicant: • Said she felt the day care facility would be an asset to the City of Cupertino. • Responded to Com. Miller's concern about traffic circulation. She said that leaving the opening time at 6:30 a.m. would help the circulation because the earlier operations begin, the earlier the parents can drop off and the retailers don't open until much later. Com. Miller: • Said that there would need to be very clear signage to make sure people are going in the right direction, and starting earlier would help in the morning. The main issue is the pick up in the afternoon; will there be staggered hours; what is the potential for a large number of people coming by to pick up children all in the same half hour or hour period? • In terms of the driveway on the west side to get to the rear parking area; would it be one way or two way? (Response: two way). Cindy Cheng: • Said that the original plan to subdivide and leasing the space in the back to single tenants with rear entries to the site, was no longer being considered because of the economy and construction costs. They chose to go with bigger tenants and dividing it into two -three maximum tenants with Stevens Creek frontage and back exit. Chris Camarada, Kiddy Academy: • With regard to the drop off, parents generally start dropping off children about 6:30 a.m.; it differs from a school in that the program does not start at 6:30 a.m. and 148 cars will not be coming to the building. The parents will came in about 10 minute increments of time and somewhere between 7 and 12 parents will come at that time. In terms of the stacking issue, it is not really a drop off where a teacher walks out to a car, gets the child and brings him into the building; parents are required to park and escort their child into the building and enter a PIN code into a security lock so that they can bring their child into the classroom. That time takes about 7 to 10 minutes; the parent then leaves the building, gets back into their car. Pick up is the same type of scenario. Com. Miller: • Is there a pick up place in the back for the afternoon? • Said that potentially there may be a problem with the parent and child walking in the driveway to get to the front of the house, while cars are also driving in the driveway. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Catherine Sprinkles, representing property owners on east side of owners of the office building, the Trainas: • Spoke in support of the masonry wall that was suggested between the child play area and their building. The play area is immediately adjacent to the property line and the play structures are closer to their property line and are at the center of the play area. The property owners are concerned about the noise that will be generated. The operational plan indicates that at least 24 children will be in the play area from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. with the exception of 12 to 1:30 lunch time. The property owners feel that it will generate steady noise that could be mitigated by the masonry wall. • She addressed the concerns about the reciprocal access through the client's property. The concern is a stacking concern if there is drop off in the back, which may result in stacking across their parking/driveway area, preventing their customers from getting to their parking. Cupertino Planning Commission January 26, 2010 She said according to the plan presented, it may not be a major issue. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said they owned a residential property behind the furniture store and had been there when the two adjoining office buildings were both orchards and as the properties have been developed, have had some interaction with the businesses. Said they had concerns with the sound wall on the north side was not in the model resolution; and noted privacy screening plants on the east side but not noted on the north side. • The current lighting plan shows luminaries in various locations adjacent to the residential property. On the properties to the east and viest, they do not have lighting located there, and does not shine lighting against the residential property. He illustrated on the lighting plan map where the lighting would reflect back onto the residential property, even with the 8 foot wall or at least until the screening plants grow taller than the 8 foot wall to screen the property. • Said they have not been contacted by the current property owners regarding the project. Louise Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Asked that if the project is approved, the masonry wall be constructed first, so that they could avoid the noise, dirt and dust. • She expressed concern about the lighting. During a recent drive through the property she noticed that up against the wall on the west side there was no lighting against the wall until you got to the apartments, and then huge lights shone into the bedrooms. She requested that the lighting be limited and softened. She also expressed concern about the trees being cut down as they did soften the lighting. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Lee: • Asked staff to address the lighting, if shields can be placed, can the amount of lighting on the residents be decreased? Gary Chao: • Said that commercial properties per the general commercial zone, have rather prescriptive lighting limitations or criteria. It has to be curt off so basically there has to be shields, and is designed that the source of the light will not be seen from the adjacent residential property. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that shows that the projection of the lights will be completely contained within the property so that they don't spill over into the adjacent residential properties. (Site plan E -0, 2 -26) Reminded that they are going to construct a new 8 foot sound wall on the back which is going to further offset some of the visual implications that one of the residents brought up. In addition, there is going to be row of Coast Redwood trees along the back that should screen views onto the site. • Between that and the condition in the resolution that covers the conditions addressing lighting implications, staff will ask the applicant to provide a final lighting plan to demonstrate that they met the ordinance before issuance of the building permit. • Relative to the construction management plan, a condition and part of the resolution addresses that, requiring that a plan be prepared for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. It includes construction hours, staging areas, dust and dust control, the sequence of construction, noise considerations, proper contact information disclosed to the adjacent property owners in the event there is a complaint, they can find somebody on site 24/7 to report instances; and the Planning Commission can add specific things such as the fence. The construction management plan will have to be outlined and prepared prior to issuance of building permits. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 26, 2010 Com. Kaneda: • What are the requirements of trespass going off the edge of the property. Gary Chao: • Said it cannot go beyond the commercial property; the lights that are going to be installed along the north property boundary would have to be designed so that it would cast light only toward the interior of the lot and not toward the opposite side, and that the property be cut off in design so that it doesn't have any light pollutions. Once the light plan is further detailed staff will ask that a final plan be prepared b:y a lighting engineer with the precise specs and with the height and lights and cut out shields for staff to review. Chair Brophy: • Said he was also concerned about the issue of the cars coming in; the daycare center is unlike an elementary school, in that the cars are spread out both in morning and evening hours. As long as the remainder of the building is unoccupied there shouldn't be a problem, but Ms. Cheng is likely to find other tenants to fill that space. He said he was concerned about the busiest times of 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. when cars may be backed up in the parking lot trying to get out/in, cars hanging out onto Stevens Creek. He said he was not comfortable seeing any calculations reassuring that the problem won't: exist. Gary Chao: • What you can do as an option is to require that a drop off or circulation parking plan related to the daycare be provided for further scrutiny that will show queuing, staging or stacking vehicles and also the schedule breakdown of any overlap use. • He said they would have a condition relating to that, and if it means that based on the plan there is a deficiency, that due to the peak hour there is going to be too much conflict, it would be reviewed by the traffic engineer; and if it means that they have to reduce the number of children or curtail their hours, that would be a necessary part of their review. He said without a detailed plan, he could not answer any addil.ional questions relating to that until such plan is prepared. Com. Miller: • There will likely be the need for parents to park in the rear and then go pick up their child and possibly even park in the rear and drop their child off. Does staff have any concerns that there will be two -way traffic on that west side driveway, and also pedestrians walking there. Gary Chao: • Staff would have concerns for children walking around the 18 foot driveway with no curbing. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the approval was based on the premise that the majority of the people most all of the time would park in the front and there are enough spaces in the front to manage the demand. There may be the odd situation that is different, but the assumption is that they will park in the front, and the operation is set up for that. Com. Miller: • Said there were 26 parking spaces out front; it requires 67 parking spaces; they may be empty at 6:30 a.m., but in the afternoon when there is pickup, there is going to be potentially a situation where they are all full and that the only choice for the parking is to park in back and walk the children around front. Cupertino Planning Commission c� January 26, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said there were a number of solutions but they are not shown here. Gary Chao: • Said the Commission has the ability to provide staff with directions or staff can explore alternative locations; in this case along the back if access is available, that they could potentially pick up children and provide some of the relief from the back. Com. Miller: • The staff report states that they don't see an issue with noise on the east side, does staff want to add that the noise level the children will generate should not be an issue for the east side office building. Gary Chao: • The noise analysis is attached to the staff report, showing the maximum outside noise level would be approximately 55 -60 decibels, below the city's ordinance level. The emphasis of this report is that the noise generated is more :intermittent; the children are not always out there all the time, they have different schedules. • The noise consultant surveyed similar daycare uses to get at the real life accounts of how the noise would perform. Chair Brophy: • To the extent that there are many unknowns including their exact schedule, Kiddy Academy would have a good sense of what the typical peaks are; it is not known what will happen, what the parking demand will be from the remainder of this building down the road; presently it is a furniture store which is a low parking generation use. Given the history of this building with one furniture store after another, it should be assumed that there may be different types of commercial uses down the road; and given that layout, and the narrow driveway to the back spots, he said he was not comfortable moving ahead without some sort of allowance for the issue that might exist. Gary Chao: • The Planning Commission has the ability to continue the project; either for staff to return with analysis with regards to that; or a consultant may have to be hired by the applicant to provide a factual basis to bring the Commission to the comfort level where they can approve the project, or it can be conditioned to be administered by staff, making sure that issue would be addressed. I think it is clear that concerns have been expressed about the circulation and also the peak hour demand and queuing of vehicles and people dropping off children. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could do a stacking analysis to see what can be expected, which is an analysis that certain assumptions will be made. They can also look at something more typical and see if it can support it; and if it doesn't support it, what reduction in number of children would they have to do in order to support it. It could lock at both ends and it can be put in the condition stating they would do a stacking analysis, or it can come back to the Planning Commission. Com. Giefer: • Said that they had shared concerns and discussed some of the project attributes, but she was not sure that the site was the right location for a daycare facility; it is a continuous area both with business, offices and restaurants. The project across the street that was approved was Cupertino Planning Commission 11) January 26, 2010 somewhat of a mixed use area where there was intertwined residential backed up to a parking garage as opposed to traditional R1 housing. The proposed site is problematic because it is not set up for this type of operation in mind. She said taking a higher level view of it, it doesn't in her mind look like the right type of site for this sort of function; it is being forced; they are looking at how to improve circulation. There will be other retail operations in there that at this point they do not know what they may be, and they may or may not have competition for those parking places both in front and back. The site is fraught with issues that staff can study more and provide further recommendations, but in summary it doesn't appear to be the right site for a daycare operation. Aarti Shrivastava: Commented on the site for daycare, stating that they were always difficult to put in; there is a requirement for outdoor space which is primarily the problem as well as the stacking issue. With that and tutorial schools, staff is always trying to see how they can fit into these areas. If it is absolutely something that staff felt would never work, they would have said so. She said staff felt the project had a chance of working primarily because they worked with Public Works and they were comfortable with the assumptions of stacking. Staff felt it could be overcome with the requirements set forth. It is always an issue, because where do you put the outdoor space, how does this juxtapose with any uses that are existing or desired features; staff tries to limit it to a small percentage of the center. Com. Miller: • Said that the applicant has gone through some expense, time and effort; but he was not satisfied to approve it tonight; however, was not opposed, if they are so inclined, to provide them an opportunity to demonstrate how it would work to allay their concerns and effectively continue the item until such time as they are prepared to come back. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed that it should be continued until they can analyze the pick up /drop off and parking issues. Vice Chair Lee: • Said that the issues were narrow driveway and the fact that it was difficult for people to walk to the front to pick up their child and drop them off; and the fate of the furniture store in the future. She said there was still work to be done and she would support them working on it further; however, it would be difficult given what they working with; and they probably know that it is not the best place for a daycare facility. Com. Giefer: • Expressed her opinion of the project earlier in the meeting. Chair Brophy: • Said that normally he would not do a continuance, because if it was purely a traffic engineering issue, they are not the correct body to deal with that, and it would be a technical question for staff, and they would work in changing the language. • He said he understood that the site was attractive to a daycare operator because of the unused land in the back, which could be used for an outdoor play area. He said he was inclined to agree with Com. Giefer that the site just isn't e. workable site for a daycare center. • Said they approved a number of educational uses in the last year that had some technical issues, but not the type of the issue at hand. The combination of the shortage of parking in the front, the narrow driveway to the back, and - the uncertainty as to what the remainder of the Cupertino Planning Commission l l January 26, 2010 building will be used for in the future, makes him question whether or not the issues can be resolved through work on the part of the city traffic engineer with the applicant. Com. Miller: • Said that the applicant should be allowed to decide, since it would take more time, money and effort to move it forward, and if they were willing to do so, he was willing to listen to what they have to offer. Someone with some creativity and expertise might come up with a solution that works. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed, and he did not want to be the designer on this project. He said there were potential solutions if they want to move forward, that their designer needs to look at it and see if they can solve the problem. If the problem is solvable, it may just be an issue of being the wrong location for a daycare facility. Chair Brophy: • He said he did not think that is was necessarily the wrong location, although not an ideal one. The issues of the narrow driveway, the limited amount of parking in the front may not be inherently unsolvable. Com. Giefer: • Said those are finite details; they will not make the driveway any wider and are not going to add additional parking in front, and as pointed out, the front parking spaces are handicapped already. She asked how much access those spaces will provide. Chair Brophy: • Explained to the applicant that there was not consensus to move forward with the application tonight; and asked if she felt it was worth continuing it to look at what the traffic issues are, to see if they can be solved. Cindy Cheng: • Said she felt that continuing the application would be appropriate. She said they were considering adding a drop off in the back because of the PIN they have to enter in order to get in the facility, there could be two monitors, one in the front and one in the back area. If the front drop off is full, the parents can drop off or pick up in the back, which would alleviate some of the circulation problems. The rear entrance would not be a main drop off; it would be an alternative drop off and pick up, so there wouldn't be a back up going through the neighbors' parking lot. Com. Giefer: • She raised the issue of what type of businesses they want to have frontage along Stevens Creek; do they want daycare facilities to greet people to the shopping district? The one approved near Chili's was in the back and did not have street frontage. She said she had an issue with daycare on Stevens Creek as part of the overall street frontage, in an area that had been earmarked for shopping, office and planned residential; and it would not change for her if they figure out how to seamlessly drop off and pick up and get all the ingress and egress from every neighbor. She said conceptually she had an issue with this type of business on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 26, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Said that to the extent a daycare center is being proposed for this site, it illustrates that it is very difficult to fill up space on Stevens Creel: because daycare centers are not high rent uses. The building has turned over many times; and in the future if they are able to get a stronger Stevens Creek Boulevard, the daycare center may not be the type of use that will be able to last there. If the property owner at some future date has a user, whether it be residential, commercial, or retail, the space could easily be replaced. He said he understood the concern, but felt it is a reflection of the realities of the real estate market. Com. Giefer: • Said she appreciated Chair Brophy's input and experience and helping the applicant with that answer; but she pointed out that they have to provide some vision and direction for the community; and it was an issue for her. Cindy Cheng: • She said that the way the building is situated, with more parking in the back, most retailers want the parking in the front, just like the adjacent building. The daycare center can utilize the valuable land in the back; it is safer for the children. It is also very difficult to lease out to retailers when most of the parking is in the back. Com. Miller: • Said that Com. Giefer had a good point; however, it is clear that there is more demand for daycare in Cupertino than there is daycare available, and Cupertino is not serving that need adequately. There are daycare centers in Cupertino, one on DeAnza Boulevard which seems to work fine in the middle of a commercial district. This daycare center is taking a relatively small percentage of the frontage of the building and it is a function that needs to be served and this is not the ideal spot; but if the applicant can resolve some of the key issues including the circulation and safety issue, it is worth considering. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4 -1 -0, Com. Giefer voted No; to continue Application U- 2009 -09 to the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO Environmental Review Committee Meeting cancelled. Housing Commission Com. Kaneda reported that there was a presentation of some interesting online application software for managing the Federal application process for Funtrack ?? Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioner No meeting held. Economic Development Committee No meeting; held. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMM"aTY DEVELOPMENT Cupertino Planning Commission 1.3 January 26, 2010 • Written report submitted. • Aarti Shrivastava reported they were preparing to begin the Green Building Ordinance process using the alternative lower cost strategy; that had a simplified process looking at the Phase 2 recommendations at the Santa Clara Cities and Counties Green Building Collaborative. It will be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future. • The City Council will be considering the MO'U for the Mary Avenue Senior Housing proposal. Staff will not have a specific recommendation other than the Council making a decision on whether they would like to move forward with the MOU. • Air Quality Management District threshold: Chair Brophy asked for an update on the issue raised by residents in the past about putting development next to major highway corridors. Aarti Shrivastava reported that an air quality consultant attended the Mary Avenue meeting and said that there are additional requirements to study and model any residential within 1,000 feet. It is not completely out of the picture;, the requirements are higher and depend on a number of conditions including the way the wind blows and climatic conditions and how close they are to which kinds of freeways before they can determine that. He also reported that there are other ways, likely more costly, of having, air handling units that can remove some of the pollutants. The deadline has been extended to give agencies time to comment and understand it better, and staff plans to monitor that. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for bruary 23, 2011), at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth I, Vi, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 23,20-10