Loading...
PC 02-23-10 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. February 23, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 5-0 -0, to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2010 as presented. February 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0 -0, to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2010 as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 1. U- 2009 -09 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 sq. ft. daycare facility to Cindy Cheng (Cupertino operate at an existing commercial building. The application Investment Partners, also includes a new outdoor play area in the existing rear LLC) 19875 Stevens parking lot. Continued from the January 26, 2010 Planning Creek Boulevard. Commission meeting; Postponed to the March 23, 2010 meeting. Tentative City Council date: April 6, 2010. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 February 23, 2010 Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Lee, unanimously carried 5 -0 -0, to postpone Application U- 2009 -09 to March 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: (None — Item 1 Postponed;) OLD BUSINESS: 2. Discussion/update of the 2009 -2010 Planning Commission Work Program. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Noted a correction that the Work Program was for the 2010 -2011. • The 2009 -2010 Work Program is included in the staff report with the most recent City Council direction from previous meetings. Comments and updates will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Diirector: • Reported the action from the City Council on moving forward with the Green Building Ordinance, with an allocation of $25,000 towards costs. Staff will be coming back to the Planning Commission with the start of it shortly; a focus group will be formed, similar to that of the Sign Ordinance. Staff will inform the Planning Commission of the schedule of focus group meetings. Chair Brophy: • Said that based on the discussions on the issue, he would prefer hiring someone less on the facilitation side and more on the technical knowledge side. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that would be staffs focus. Chair Brophy: • Staff said that the Green Building Ordinance is already established as an existing priority; are we considering sustainable land use policy and green building ordinance as one in the same? Aarti Shrivastava: • No, the land use policy was somewhat different; it was a type of 30,000 foot view of what the city should be doing in terms of land use and transportation connections, which was Com. Miller's suggestion. They did not get the desired funding to do so, and when the Council reviewed it, they said it was a good ideas but they were not putting any money into the project. The Planning Commission can continue to prioritize their work program the way they would like to and staff will forward this recommendation to the City Council as a Consent Calendar item for the next meeting. When they do review their budget and their priorities, they will have that information. Com. Kaneda: • If it doesn't get funded, what does that mean; does it mean that with that without funding we really cannot do anything for the sustainable land use. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 23, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • The lack of funding and it not being on a Council work program has implications for how much we can do as well as the amount of staff time we can spend on it, but in the past commissioners have formed subcommittees to review things, and to bring forward some things for discussion; so staff time is limited on this, but we will be available for discussion at your meetings and that is something you can do as well. The Council can always add it. Com. Miller: • Said that in a previous meeting, there was discussion about canceling meetings because of lack of projects to work on. He asked if the free staff time could be used to work on the issue at hand. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said staff did not have any large projects that typically come to the Commission and Council, but were working on many small ones at staff level. Staff is busy, but would agendize any of the items for Planning Commission discussion. Com. Giefer: • In the document provided dated July 28 2009, under High Priority, it was indicated that Council agreed that the development of a Green Building Policy was a high priority and Council authorized the Planning Commission to move forward with the Green Building Policy and parallel with environmental stewardship. She said it implied that there is staff commitment as well. Aarti Shrivastava: • The Green Building program is on the work program with the allocation of $25,000 to be used for consultant costs and pre -and post - informational material and literature. The land use sustainability plan is not something that is on the Council's work program and it not funded. The Green Building Ordinance is funded, and is definitely something that staff will move forward on. • Relative to moving forward on the Land Use Policy, she said that staff typically looks at time and funding to move forward to engage the community on a meaningful scale, and for consultant help because they are the experts arid staffs goal is to move this forward as quickly as possible. Staff time is also examined to see what projects are being worked on presently and how they can position this project to get it done. • Both Erin and the Planning staff are seeking projects for funding to see if any of this can be funded, and if we do find that, we will definitely bring back information; at this point there aren't any that fit this category. From what we are told, much of the grant funding is going for projects that can create some immediate impact, not much is being given to planning projects at this time. Com. Miller: • We can still hope that perhaps the City Council will find some resources or maybe in discussions with the Council we can find some other way of getting some of this done. I would still propose that we agendize some of these for discussion and perhaps among us here we could come up with some ideas worth pursuing and staff can participate, time permitting. Aarti Shrivastava: • Added that Item 3 will be going to the Planning Commission shortly. No. 1 (Green Building Policy) and No. 3 (Process Improvement Evaluation) are currently on the work program. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 23, 2010 Com. Kaneda: • Referring to Sustainable Land Use Policy, is there legislation that is related to land use planning at the State level that could potentially force our hand on this issue, that we are going to have to have some policy; and if we don't, we are going to have problems at the State level because we don't; or is this something at this point it is not an issue, but may become an issue in the future. Aarti Shrivastava: • She said there is AB32 and SB375; AB32 has a mandate for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and SB375 for the first time links land use and transportation to that. No city at this point is individually required to come up with a plan; although both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as well. as ABAG are putting together a plan, the transportation plan, and what they call a sustainable community's plan; that is something they are required to do every 8 years. They are putting one together for the Bay Area and we understand it will take the place of their regular housing element allocation process; at some point cities are going to have to deal with, at least broadly those numbers. How the city wants to deal with the details of how they are going to accomplish some of those numbers is something that cities are not yet engaged in., but this particular sustainable land use policy would really help to put it into context about how this policy could really fit in well into the broader things that are happening at the State level. • The Air Resources Board is providing guidelines; OPR is looking at CEQA; there are a number of agencies that fit into the process. This is ideal for a city to look at primarily because; this is not something we need to do immediately, but if we follow what is going on and understand what it could mean for our city and then plan for it and have community input and some general agreement about how we can achieve it, it helps projects that come up. Staff will monitor this at the State level and the AI3AG and MTC level and will bring you updates as we get them; we will keep the Commission and Council involved in what is going on. Com. Kaneda: • Said there is a change going on starting with AB32 and then there is a raft of follow on legislation that ties back to it that is gradually being built up over the past year; there is about to be this year's set of legislation that is going to try to work its way through the assembly and the senate. Those bills are going to be looked at in the next month; do we as a city try to look at it and get ahead of it which Com. Miller Las said we need on certain items to think about this and think it through and get ahead of it rather than react to everything, which generally is very sound, astute advice. On some things if something is going to happen at the State level, it is going to turn out that with whatever good planning you are going to have, the State will come in and dictate how to do it, in which case you could plan all you want and it is all going to be for naught because the State is going to come in with a set of parameters that you have to work within. He said he did not have a deep enough understanding to know what is the proper course in this case. Aarti Shrivastava: • If you were to move forward on any of these things, and there was funding available, it would help to at least follow along those lines because State legislation is an ongoing thing. There are some critical points; what ABAG and MTC are working on are going to be critical to what we will be required to do as a city for the housing element at least; therefore following along and planning along with that would be a good idea. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 23, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said at the State level, they tend to set broad goals and they leave the specifics for the localities to deal with. In general, we have an idea of what the broader goals are and our job here is to make them more specific to Cupertino. Com. Giefer: • If we wanted to hold study sessions, where we could better educate ourselves and the public on sustainable land use policy, we could go ahead and hold those meetings. Where would we get the experts to come in and help us understand exactly to Com. Kaneda's and Com. Miller's point; how do we track that and make sure we are knowledgeable about what the end objectives are and what types of things we need to look to move forward on. Aarti Shrivastava: • Since funding is limited, we can ask agencies such as the Silicon Valley Leadership group or ABAG or MTC staff to come in; VTA staff are trying to work with ABAG and MTC on this to talk to us about some of these things. We can tailor some of these based on the availability of some of those representatives. Com. Giefer: • There is nothing that would stop us from mov ing forward on that and invite speakers and have a placeholder on the agenda if that is an agreed upon agenda item, where we begin that process for sustainable land use. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the Planning Commission can start talking about it. Chair Brophy: • How do we move forward on this; should we work off the list of July 28 items and see if we are going to make any changes, given the limitations that staff has expressed. Com. Miller: • When can we expect they are going to review our request for work items and get back to us. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that staff plans to forward it to the next rneeting as a Consent Calendar agenda item. She said she was not aware of when they have scheduled the next discussion of the work program and will request that they look at this to consider the item. As soon as staff knows, they will let the Planning Commission know. • There is funding for the Green Building Ordinance and staff will move forward on that using the work program to be used for the light version. The process improvement evaluation will be brought to the Planning Commission in late March for discussion. For the sustainability land use policy, staff will contact the agencies to get a sense of when they can come to speak with us and we can agendize it accordingly. Gary Chao: • Noted that the next few meetings would have a slight pick up of activities toward March and April; also have the water efficiency ordinance coming online; the historic preservation policy, the Green Building Ordinance and the matrix. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 23, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Our priorities would be the Green Building Policy and the process improvement since they are ready to go. I would like to look at the Sustainable Land Use Policy, but am concerned that it sounds like unless we can get our hands around that and define it, we would be spinning our wheels. Said he was anxious to hear ideas on how to act productively on that given the lack of outside resources. Com. Kaneda: • Asked staff to provide an overview of the issues. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there was interest in finding out what is happening in the broader realm of the State and region and staff can help in that area by keeping the Commission posted on what is going on, bring people from those agencies to come and talk to them. The Planning Commission might consider creating subcommittees to determine if they are interested in one topic vs. another; doing some research and having commissioners come back with some of their findings. Staff will keep the Commission posted on the process that ABAG and MTC is going through for their sustainable community strategy which is a real term for what the plan is going to need to be; that way you will keep abreast. Staff wil l also keep abreast of any available funding; the idea being to get the background information together and start putting a list of best practices together so that at least when they have the time and money to engage in it for the future, they have some of those. Staff can also research some communities that actually have put in considerable amounts of money in their General Plans and what consultants are looking at in terms of best practices. Staff can provide a list; they will all have very general policies. Com. Giefer: • Said there are communities such as Santa Monica and Pasadena that have sustainable land use policies as part of their General Plans that could be reviewed. Staff said the point was well taken, but they were considering staying more local. • Recalled that the Commission agreed to send a Minute Order to Council with regards to R1 which somewhat relates to both priorities and things that are approved. She asked if there was anything to review with the residential housing ordinance. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that given that they just finished up with it in April of last year, first to second floor, she might request some time to see how it is going before they look at it again, but it is ultimately the decision of the Planning Commission. Chair Brophy: • Recalled that the Planning Commission was unanimously in favor of looking at FAR; the City Council was unanimously opposed to it. Said he did not see any reason to open it up. Aarti Shrivastava: • Added, that they might find things on the Council's work program for the Planning Commission to do. Said she was not certain at this point, but once the Council works on their priorities, staff will inform the Commission cf any items they should look at. Vice Chair Lee: • Suggested moving No. 4 to low priority and moving something else up. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 23, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said that in these difficult economic times, anything done to improve the business environment and provide incentives for the businesses to come to town, would be a financial benefit to the city. It is not clear that we are going to get past Item 2, but if we did, it seems like the Council, the city is very focused on generating revenue and that is the one potential project that could result in additional revenues for the city. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they would be looking at streamlining the process; as it was one of the first questions asked by businesses when there were big tenants wanting to come into buildings; how long will it take to get into the buildings. It is something that No. 3 can play a big part in helping Item 4. Some of them are connected. Chair Brophy: • No. 3 as currently listed could be an important area; the construction area for bringing tenants in and possibly some environmental issues that may appear in the process improvement area that may play a role there also. Com. Kaneda: • Suggested moving No. 3 to high priority; keep No. 2 as a high priority; Do 1 and 3; Item 4, agree with Com. Miller's point that there is value in it, trying to stimulate business in the city. No strong feelings on Nos. 5, 6 or 7; suggest keeping No. 2 as a high priority because we feel it is something we should look at; if we don't get funding we don't get funding, if we can make it happen it becomes the third item. It is important and would be ideal if it could be tackled this year. Aarti Shrivastava: • What we plan to do is reflect some of this discussion when it goes back to the Council. Item 1 we are planning to work as our work program indicates; Item 2 there are three things we are going to do; one is follow the regional process in terms of how it might affect us; the second thing is to look at best practices for some other communities and get some speakers and have study sessions. Item 3 we are moving forward on; Item 4 should we say that the Commission acknowledges that Item 3 will go a long way in helping Item 4; and leave it at that. Com. Giefer: • Relative to Item 3, once we get the report from Matrix, what type of sub action items should we expect. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the report was forwarded to the Planning Commission a few weeks ago; they are already making some internal changes in terms of looking at the way the handouts are written up. The Planning Department counter is open during lunch hour, and we are going to bring the process improvement section to the Planning Commission and the Council will look at that as a recommendation from the Planning Commission and also looking at possibly funding online permitting software which is formed 50% of the recommendation from Matrix. The current software is very limited. Com. Giefer: • Agreed that Nos. 1 through 3 would get done in some fashion; perhaps three priority levels are not needed; just have high priorities and everything else. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 February 23, 2010 Chair Brophy: • On the process improvement area, can we identify possible changes to the ordinance that we noticed over the last year or two; things that shouldn't be going to the Planning Commission; it should be done by staff or shouldn't be going to City Council, and making those recommendations. Aarti Shrivastava: • Matrix gave a general idea with examples; they don't understand the processes as well as the Commission might or staff might, the plan when it is brought back to the Commission will be to talk specifically about some of those processes with staff recommendations. At that time we will look at the Planning Commission's thoughts on our recommendations as well as any new ones you might have and package those together and bring them to the Council. Com. Miller: • Suggested changing the title on Item 4; it really isn't for startups and the original title created a strategic plan for commercial; office or retai f uses is more to the intent. He said his original thought was that the broader goal was to create a strategic plan for commercial, office and retail uses; and within that a sub -goal was looking at startups. Chair Brophy opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was pleased to see that the Planning Commission is taking a proactive approach to planning their agendas. • Expressed concern about ABAG; said that since the annexation of Rancho Rinconada into the city of Cupertino, ABAG has presented enormous problems and now ABAG is changing strategy on their housing issues. She said it was important that everyone stays abreast of what is going on statewide for this because Cupertino has many things at stake. • She said there were also issues with light rail going on, the fast trains coming in; there are battles for the Cahill station in San Jose; and a number of issues that are coming up where neighborhoods are pushed up against areas where they are trying to bring in the fast trains; there is not enough room and not enough land. She said as a citizen of Cupertino she was concerned about where the city is headed and many other residents are also. • She said they need to have smart land use and need to stay abreast of what the State is doing to make sure the decisions that are made locally are the best for the future of the city. The idea of trying to promote startups is a good one; there is still a 10 to 12% unemployment rate in Silicon Valley; startups are generally the bright idea of two or three people and I think it is a good idea to try to bring them into the city; they need space and the companies come up with big things. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Miller: • Said that staff should present the prioritized list to City Council; they know that the Commission is suggesting good things to do, and wait and hear the best word that the Council can provide. Com. Giefer: • Said they discussed moving No. 3 up to the realistic higher priority level; does it need a vote or just indicate agreement on that. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 February 23, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Suggested they call them high priority items, items that the Planning Commission will be working on for the coming year and the remainder of the items will remain on hold pursuant to funding and time availability or similar language. Said they planned to narrow it down to the six final ones; so 4, 5 and 6 will be the ones. Chair Brophy: • Suggested deleting No. 7 since he proposed it; include the first three as high priority and Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as "stretch goals." He noted there was consensus, and no formal vote was required. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: • Com. Giefer reported an application coming up at the end of March for a parcel of land adjacent to the freeway along Highway 280 where they are proposing things on the cul de sac to make it accessible as a residential subdivision; it received a Negative Declaration with mitigation. Aarti Shrivastava added that since it does have some interesting features, the Commission may want to visit the area. Staff will speak with the applicant about making it available; it is not immediately accessed off the public street. Housing Commission: • Chair Brophy reported that the four -unit Habitat for Humanity project on Cleo was moving forward; second discussion was relative to agreeing on a point system for rating applications for community Development Block Grant. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners; Chair Brophy reported on topics covered at the meeting: • A Commissioner Appreciation Dinner will be held in September or October. • A Town Hall meeting will be scheduled for May /June; tentative agenda Green Initiatives of the City. • A Community Services Fair to be held in May, with emphasis on social services, such as EDD, job training NOVA. • Telecommunications Committee: has taken a brief respite from working on cell phone issues and is looking at green energy questions. WDrking with Erin and Siemens to look at energy efficiency within the city. Mayor suggested updating the Master Plan for cell towers; discussed some of the recent applications. • Parks and Recreation is organizing into subgroups to work on a number of issues; Sterling Barnhart Park currently under development; there is a current plan for another Kaboom Build It playgrounds; working on Stocklmeir property; looking to reach out to Teen Commission to work on areas of mutual interest; Mayor suggested either Parks and Rec or Planning would need to take a look at the recommendation on what to do with the Simms property. The pool at Cupertino Sports Center will be removed; patio behind Quinlan Center is being renovated and will reopen June 10 • Public Safety reported receiving one or two complaints per month regarding serious bike accidents at the intersection of Foothill and Homestead. They are looking at what can be done; looking at issues of speed signs near the schools, continuing program to encourage students to walk, bike or be carpooled to school. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 February 23, 2010 • Library Commission reported an annual circulation of 1.5 million items; looking to create an adult study room. There are a number of issues dealing with parking, foot traffic, cleanliness, noise. Economic Development Committee Meeting: Com. Giefer reported: • Budget was reviewed; the city has adopted a balanced budget for the past 15 years and has decreased spending significantly over past several years, to adjust for the economy; the hotel occupancy and sales tax are low and continue to be low over the past several years. • Several new businesses were reviewed including Wing Stop, Blue Light Cinema, refurbishing restaurant pad at the Oaks as an event center with caterer onsite; Hamasushi at Loree Center, Akea Aqui to open in early March. LEED building on Tantau tenanted by Panasonic. There is a 13% overall vacancy rate for commercial and R &D property. • Mike Rohde presented an update on Vallco Shopping Mall. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the written report. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for ar h 10, 2010 at 6:45 p. . Respectfully Submitted: i Elizabeth ., Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: March 9, 2010