Loading...
PC 05-11-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. May 11, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA, by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Marty Miller Commissioner absent: Commissioner: David Kaneda Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Senior Planner: Piu Ghosh APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Apri113, 2010 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0 -0, Com. Kaneda absent; to approve the April 13, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Minutes of the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Coin. Miller, and carried 3 -0 -1, Chair Brophy abstained, Com. Kaneda absent; ito approve the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 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 also Investment Partners, LLC) includes a new outdoor play area in the existing rear parking 19870 Stevens parking lot. Requested postponement to the May 11, 2010 Creek Boulevard. meeting; Postponed from April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council date: June 1, 2010. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 11, 2010 Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background of the application for proposed daycare use, which was discussed on January 26, 2010 and continued with directives for staff and the applicant to address traffic related issues. The City Council has the final decision on the application because the proposed daycare exceeds 5,000 square feet in size. E noted that the applicant is proposing that the facility open at 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., however, staff's recommendation is that the hours be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., in order to respect and address the residents' concerns to the north. Parking and drop -off will be discussed at the meeting. • The site plan has been revised by the applicant proposing a secondary entrance to the operation from the rear of the property. At the last meeting concerns were expressed whether a daycare facility was the appropriate use for the site given its proximity to the adjacent retail space and also that it fronts off Stevens Creek; there were concerns that the lighting not have a negative impact on adjacent property owners, in particular the residents to the north. Applicant was asked to address having an ancillary or secondary entrance to the facility which has been done. • The Planning Commission was concerned about general site circulation., parking, stacking concerns of the daycare and directed that a parking analysis and traffic analysis be prepared. Relative to a lighting plan, there is a condition that addresses that, where the project is required to adhere to the general commercial lighting requirements, that there not be any light spillover to the adjacent residential properties; that appropriate cutoff shields be designed and that the final lighting plan be prepared by a lighting engineer and submitted to staff for review prior to issuance of the building permit. • Relative to public comments from the last meeting, there is a request from residents to the north that a masonry wall along the northerly property boundary be built first as a matter of construction management plan. The lighting impacts on the adjacent homes to the north needs to be addressed and people are concerned about traffic and circulation as it relates to the proposed daycare. Also the owner's representative raised issues about wanting the traffic study to look at queuing, stacking, potentially on their property to the east; and they have made a request that a new masonry wall be constructed along the easterly boundary to help mitigate any potential visual impact or noise impact. • He reviewed the transportation/parking analysis performed by Fehr and Peers as outlined in the staff report. The conclusion of the report indicates the peak hour trips are within acceptable range and that parking supply being provided by project is adequate to meet the city code at one space per six children as well as the observed parking rate which is one space per 5.5 children. There are minimum impacts on adjacent intersections in that the general circulation access are adequate. • He reviewed the five recommended conditions from the traffic consultant, including: • Applicant to provide delineated pick -up and drop -off spaces during peak hours; • Driveway aisle along the westerly side of the existing retail building currently is a two - way driveway, to be striped for one -way northbound only; • A pedestrian path be delineated along the westerly driveway aisle to facilitate pedestrian activities to and from the front to the back of the parking lots; • Employees shall park in the rear of the parking lot; • The southbound left turn pocket on Portal be extended to allow sufficient queuing vehicles as they make their way out onto Portal and attempt to make a left turn onto Stevens Creek. • Staff recommends that all daycare users park in the rear parking lot and appropriate signs be posted at the entrance driveway; and daycare hours be limited from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed project; and provide decisions regarding the construction timing of the 8- Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 11, 2010 foot masonry wall on the northerly boundary should be constructed first; and also whether there should be an 8 -foot masonry wall on the easterly property boundary. • Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the project. Eric Shanower, Land Use Consultant, representing property owner and proposed daycare tenant: • Said there was a shortage of daycare spots in Cupertino; there are 35,000 children, aged 4 and under in a 5.5 mile radius around Cupertino; and the existing daycare centers do not fill the need of the 35,000 children in the area. • Explained the project improvements: vehicle circulation and parking: reiterated understanding and support of the traffic engineer's conclusions; showed where the vehicles would enter, signage showing parking for daycare and drop -off for daycare is in the rear, people could continue down the one -way pathway into the parking lot and there would be the designated drop -off spots for parents. The parents have been educated about the procedures for drop -off and pick -up. He said they concur with the traffic engineer's conclusions and with city staff's conclusions; it is clear the work of the traffic and parking consultant was conservative estimations. • Relative to Vice Chair Lee's questions about the parking, the parking consultant went beyond applying the City's code standard to this use; they went out and observed an existing facility; then added 9% onto what they observed to prepare for a peak use and added 5% demand for circulation, because if there is no empty spot in a parking lot, it functionally doesn't work. • From a vehicle circulation and traffic standpoint and drop -off, it is improved and will function very well for the parents, and will function very well for adjacent retail use and community. • Relative to the interface with the residential neighbors, the recommendation is for an 8 foot masonry wall. In addition, landscape plans call for coast redwood trees to be planted along the boundary which will create a significant screening; they agree to build a masonry wall at the outset prior to any other improvements on the site which was the specific request of the residential neighbors. • Another concern of residential neighbors was the lighting overflow, there cannot be a lighting overflow; the lights must be shielded and applicant has to ensure that the lighting plan will not result in any light being shone beyond the property lines. He showed an example of the type of light fixture which fully shields and complies with the city policy and should not impact the adjacent neighbors. • The last remaining area is the interface with the adjacent office use to the east which is along this boundary line; we are hopeful that you will support our planned fencing along that route; we are proposing a 6 foot tubular fencing with vines growing on it; we believe it is a superior interface between the properties. • The noise report conducted showed that there is no noise issue relating to the play yard and adjacent dental office; it concludes that the interior noise is well below the standard. In addition there are some challenges to constructing a masonry wall that attempts to address noise attenuation; the building has parking underneath it and the finished floor of the offices is elevated; in terms of line of sight, they are not going to be looking directly onto the play area, they are going to be elevated. In terms of sound attenuation, it would need a 13 foot wall that would possibly block the windows which are elevated; a 13 foot masonry wall would be incredibly oppressive from an aesthetic standpoint, and generate lots of heat on the playground. He said in environmental times they shouldn't be adding more hard surfaces if they can prevent it; and the cost is significant to engineer a 13 foot high wall that isn't called for under the noise report or the noise policies of the city. • He requested support for the staff recommendations; relative to the wall along the easterly property line, he solicited support of a heavily landscaped fence approach for screening, and Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 11, 2010 with the approval of the project, help to solve the child care needs in Cupertino which fits into this center and the neighborhood. • Said they agreed with staff's recommendation for hours 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., 5 days a week. • He answered questions relating to the proposed project. He said they would work with staff regarding the appropriate water tolerant trees to provide screening. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Catherine Sprinkles, representing owner of office building located on Portal Drive located to the east of the applicant's property: • Said they did not agree that the project would not have a negative impact on the client's property. At the January meeting she expressed her clients' concerns relating to circulation and noise. They have had no contact from the applicant with regard to either of the issues; hence they haven't had any ability to discuss possible solutions. The current circulation proposal increases their concern about circulation on the property. Currently, all egress from the back of that property is going to be coming through their property, making their property a driveway for the other property. • Said it is not safe to assume that ingress to the property is going to be from Stevens Creek. Once you get to the traffic light at Portal and Stevens Creek, you are most likely to go down Portal and through that driveway into the property rather than between the two buildings on Stevens Creek, so it is possible during the peak hours that there will be 80 trips per hour over their property, both in and out, which they feel creates some serious concerns for their property, regarding safety and also compatibility. She said compatibility with their use is something to consider when approving or not an application for conditional use permit. • She said they have an agreement with the City which requires them to open their property as a driveway over which the adjacent property has rights, only when all of that area between Blaney and Portal is open at the same time. She said they feel they are not obligated to provide that access under the circumstances; a:nd with the amount of traffic being directed over their property, they would have to look very hard at enforcing that condition to their obligation to provide access. • With regard to the visibility and noise concerns, the windows in the building built in the 80s are single pane, floor to ceiling windows, so that the supposition that you don't actually reach window level until 10 feet is incorrect. If we thought that the noise generated from the daycare play area was in excess of what is permitted, we would have a different discussion than what we are now having. Our concern is not that there is an excess of what is permitted, but that it is going to be detrimental to our use.. • Said that Attachment 6 of the original staff report may contain erroneous information about the number of children and hours they will be in the play area per day. It presently indicates that the children will be in the play area from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. except during lunch from 12 to 1:30 p.m., and clarification needs to be given on the play yard times. The noise they make may not be compatible with the office uses next door. A masonry wall would enhance the appearance of the entire area, but they are not asking for a 13 foot wall. Paul Yeh, Office tenant next to daycare center: • Expressed concern about traffic and noise. Said that during the noise study, no one went into the office to assess the noise level of the office; it may have been based on the medical office on the other side. He said that presently one can hear people talking outside, and if no wall is erected, it will negatively affect his business; many of his employees have heavy phone usage in the office, and his customers can hear children's voices in the background. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 11, 2010 Ruby Elbogen, No. Portal Drive: • Opposed to the project. • Said the neighborhood was not informed of the project and the major impact it would have on their streets; it is the only way in and out for a huge neighborhood and will be a major detriment to the traffic flow. The traffic circle is in the middle of the street and the street from Wheaton to Stevens Creek is not a whole block and it has barriers in the middle. Said the • In the parking lot if people are coming through that parking lot to get to Portal, their dental patients and people coming to visit will not be able to get out. It is not a good location for the daycare to be, and it is not a good place to dump all the traffic into the neighborhood. She said more people would have attended the meeting in opposition if they had been noticed. Gary Chao: • Said notifications were sent to the neighbors within 500 feet radius of the project. The minimum requirement is 300 feet. Howard Trudeau, Merritt and Portal Drives: • Opposed to the project. • Expressed concern about the traffic at Stevens Creek and Portal; and in the neighborhood as the streets are heavily used. The peak hours for the daycare center pick up and drop off match the peak hours for traffic from people going tc and from work; adding the daycare center at the proposed location exacerbates the present traffic problems. Louise Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Expressed concern about the location of the trash enclosures. There is a bad rodent problem and Code had to be called who then called Vector. How would the trash collection truck get in there; would it come on Portal; the odors are bad. Also more lighting should be in the area where the trash is. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Recommended that the trash enclosure be relocated to its original site; and construct the wall before the development begins; the applicant has agreed to that and also the lighting plan. • Traffic will backflow onto Portal and through the neighborhood via the roundabout that the neighbors still have not figured out; perhaps th e roundabout should be removed. For employee parking they will take 22 of the 66 spaces; if there is another business with heavy parking, it will be very tight back there. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Miller: • Said that the ideal solution would be if there was a shared driveway with the property to the west, providing both ingress /egress through that shared driveway; there would be no need to dump out onto Portal. Gary Chao: • Said that was staffs desire as well; and they have talked with the real estate broker for the office complex to the west and they would have to eliminate some of their parking stalls. They said it may happen in the future, but not at present, as part of this project they are requiring a condition on this project site to give a covenant for reciprocal access for that in preparation for the future connection. The intent is that connection will be realized. (You wouldn't take down that whole barrier between the two properties; just have an opening so that you go in one and out the other); it is designed to connect. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 11, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said landscape screening was preferred over chain link fencing. If planning for the future, it would be a connected driveway with some landscaping. Com. Miller: • Suggested a possible solution of reversing the traffic flow so that it was only one way in off Portal, and one way out onto Stevens Creek, which would ensure that 50% of the traffic would be coming through Portal and the other 50% would have to go out onto Stevens Creek; it would inconvenience some of the people who would like to turn left onto Stevens Creek, a price to pay so that everybody else gets some relief. If the two -way was preserved, the issue would be pedestrian traffic and there can't be any pedestrian traffic. Gary Chao: • Said they had not considered reversing the traffic flow, and would have to discuss it with the traffic consultant. Com. Miller: • That would go a long way to mitigating the issue, keeping it two ways as opposed to one way. And eliminating the pedestrian walkway; as long as there was ingress /egress out of the building from both sides, there would not be the need to park in back and walk around to the front. You want to eliminate the pedestrian traffic, so that you allow the vehicular traffic and you solve the issue of everyone's concern about the traffic. Said he heard the concerns of the office complex to the east, but was not convinced; and asked the speakers for comment. Ms. Sprinkles: • Said they had not measured it, but according to the report in the applicant's materials, the grade differentials are 4 feet, so it would have to be at least 4; the windows are floor to ceiling, so it is between 4 and 5 • She said they felt an 8 foot wall would sufficiently baffle it so it was not problematic for their tenants; they are not asking for a total block, just some help in dealing with the noise that is going to be generated. Com. Miller: • Said he was not convinced an 8 foot wall would accomplish that for them; the noise will come over the top as it is above the ground, and also the attenuation factor in terms of how much noise is actually going to reach that window is significant. Ms. Sprinkles: • Said they were only 10.5 feet from the play area, and could not provide specific details as they had not done their own noise studies. She asked that the hours the children would be on the playground throughout the day be included in the final decision. Gary Chao: • Said they raised the issue that they believe that the agreement their client signed with the city providing egress did not come into effect until all the properties between Blaney and Portal were connected; is that correct. (Response from Ms. Sprinkles: Yes). From Ms. Sprinkles' client's perspective, wouldn't that make things even worse because there would be all of the office traffic from the office building immediately to the west; is that really something in the client's favor. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 11, 2010 Ms. Sprinkles: • Said they felt it would spread out the traffic among the various parcels more easily; if some of the people are going to Blaney and some are coming to their, in their opinion it would they would get a disproportionate number because the other property is closer to Blaney; people will keep using Blaney and some of the child care people would divide up. Chair Brophy: • Some of the daycare traffic would be going west towards Blaney through the back way, but on the other hand they would get their share of traffic from the fairly large office building and from the retail space at the corner of Blaney and Stevens Creek. Ms. Sprinkles: • Concurred, and said it was their opinion they would be less likely to come all the way down the back to get onto Portal. Aarti Shrivastava: • The agreements that we have and the ones that we will have, the existing property owner recorded is to provide parking and access, so it does not specify a condition under which it will be granted, but that it will be granted. It doesn't have to wait for a condition to happen before access will be granted. Com. Miller: • Other suggestions from the neighborhood included not allowing a left turn out of the office parking lot onto Portal, to force traffic to go toward Stevens Creek; also not allowing parking on the east side of Portal up against the shopping center to allow more room for cars to pass. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the left turn, based on the traffic consultant's estimation, they don't expect a huge number of people, in the entire hour they are looking at one car going that way; it is much easier to navigate Stevens Creek. Said staff did not have an opinion about not allowing parking on the east side of Portal; and noted that they hoped the traffic patterns are opposing. Gary Chao: • According to the applicant the most recent proposal for the trash enclosure is the one on 1A; we agree with the residents that it is not the ideal location given its proximity to the play structure and the residents. We are happy with the original location. Com. Miller: • Said that a speaker commented on the issue of rodents in the school area, and asked if it had been addressed. Gary Chao: • Said it had not been discussed previously; in cases where there are restaurants proposed in centers, there are conditions to require the applicant to provide a vector control plan. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they talked to the applicant about maintaining that back parking lot and believe that is part of this new development, especially with the daycare center, that the maintenance of the parking lot will be significantly improved, because it would be in the interest of the daycare to have a clean and safe parking area right next to the play area. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 May 11, 2010 • Relative to when the neighbor to the west might consider opening his barrier, she said the trigger for the city to require something would be if there is a project or a Use Permit proposed; so we don't know when that may happen; we have talked to the property owner about it, they seem reticent at this point, but they do understand that is the expectation. Mr. Shanower: • Clarified time that the children would be in the playground area; 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1 -1/2 hours in the afternoon. They are licensed by the State to not have the children out there all the time; there are other programs provided. • Referring to the traffic analysis he illustrated the intersection of Portal and Stevens Creek and discussed the directional turn movements and the additional number of cars at different hours during the day, and the impact on the neighborhood. • It is important that decisions be made on the expert's factual information not anecdotal information, and the traffic analysis is very clear that if the peak hour in the morning or afternoon, the number of cars coming to Portal and Stevens Creek and making their turn movements is extremely minimal, virtually negligible from a person's experience on the street. • He said the same case could be made for the noise analysis. Looking at the noise analysis according to the expert, the perceived noise in the building will be less than the HVAC system inside the building; which is insignificant. Gary Chao: • He said if they propose to have a two -way instead of a one -way to the rear, they can have the traffic consultant study it between the Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting; after a recommendation it would be validated with the traffic engineer if it is going to work or not and what the other options are. He clarified that going back to the original recommendation of one -way and northbound, staff acknowledges that there is going to be some incidental parking; people visiting the daycare for the first time, not necessarily parents. While the primary goal is to channel folks to parking in back, there are going to be occasions when they are going to be using the front parking lot. Com. Miller: • Despite the traffic study which suggests that there are no issues; the way it is presently designed where you can get entrance to the building from the front and also from the back; if they allow two -way traffic on the strip going on the west side of the building, there isn't a need for pedestrian movement along that side. He :recommended that in the future as soon as there is an opportunity to open access to the western building that they take advantage of that and allow the one -way traffic on one side and possibly the addition of pedestrian access and the traffic the other way on the other side. • Said it was a good idea to focus the drop -off just in the rear, which would likely free up the front spots for the retail; the first a parent may come there, but the next time they are going to know that if they park there in front they are going to have to walk around the back and that is a problem; they are not going to do that more than once. • Given the noise studies, he did not see that it would be an issue for the next door neighbor; it seems that you would have to build more than an 8 foot wall to satisfy any concerns over the noise. A suggested condition is to revisit it if the noise became a major issue; at this point it doesn't seem to be the case. It is not clear that should be addressed. • It is important to have the wall in the rear for the residents and everybody seems agreeable to that; the trash enclosure should be moved back to the location on 1A; the rear wall should be constructed first. Said he did not see the benefit of the masonry wall on the eastern wall; but if it operates as a daycare center, if noise becomes an issue, revisit it. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 11, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the traffic consultant said the drive on the western side was not perfect for two vehicles; it has been operating for two vehicles all this time and is 18 feet wide. It could accommodate two vehicles; typically it is 10 feet per lane; at the very least, it could alleviate a lot of the traffic on Portal. Com. Giefer: • Said it was an interesting project and she would welcome Kiddie Academy to Cupertino; however she felt the proposed location is the wrong location. She said that although the applicant did a good job in addressing their concerns, she still had concerns. • Site location is a major concern; having a daycare fronting Stevens Creek as the storefront sends the wrong message. If it was similar to some of the other sites in Cupertino where it is in the rear of the development and more isolated in the back of the lot, she would not object; however, one child was killed in a traffic accident at a daycare center in Cupertino, and they keep going back and forth with regards to the circulation for this facility. • Said she was uncomfortable with either having the business to the east, support 100% of the outbound traffic because we are only entering off Stevens Creek. Regardless of how many cars are passing on the west side on that one traffic lane, people will walk down it. She said she could not support a project that involves children when she is concerned about their safety. • Said her concerns with regard to the safety and traffic flow for this project have not been alleviated and they are the two primary concerns. Additionally, some times in the morning and the afternoon, there will be stacking up and queuing of vehicles either on Stevens Creek or on Portal; it may not be significant, perhaps it is only five minutes in the morning and afternoon, and they can learn to live with that. • She said because of her concerns, she would not support the project. Vice Chair Lee: • Said that the traffic and circulation study were helpful; now they know to have the pick -ups and drop -offs in the back and keep the retail parking in the front. It will help with circulation if they open up the drive aisle along the westerly side of the building to be 2A running the entire length of the building. • It would be helpful if Kiddie Academy can have the agreement, have the parents be educated on drop -off in the back. Parents going to the location several times a week would remember to use the rear parking. • Said she studied the noise study carefully, looked up the traffic and circulation study carefully, and the consultant said the dentist's office is not even open during the peak hour of trip generation; that is significant. She said as a dentist, she did not feel that the noise generated from 28 children would impact her dental office. She commented that Stevens Creek Boulevard is very loud and the only distraction during the day would be a fire truck's alarm. • Said she did not support the easterly boundary 8 foot masonry wall for those reasons. She does support the northern masonry wall to be constructed prior to any site improvements; hours of operation should be 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Said she was comfortable with the project as discussed, but having a two -way street from the front to the back. Chair Brophy: • Said he agreed that it was not an ideal location for a daycare center; but was not as concerned with the idea of having a daycare center on Stevens Creek. The reason why daycare uses are low paying commercial uses and the only reason they are discussing the issue tonight is that they have a structure that is not an attractive commercial use for most private businesses. The concern of trying to protect the remainder of this existing structure as a profitable retail use is wishful thinking on the part of the city. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 11, 2010 • Said he was concerned with the traffic flow; the applicant and traffic consultant have worked hard to come up with a method to solve the problem, but it does place a large burden on the property owner to the east. • Cars are coming through a driveway on someone else's property. However, the city has already required that the property owner provide an easement, and at some point some use could be put on this site that would generate traffic far in excess of the daycare center, which brings cars in for a couple of hours early in the morning and a couple of hours in the afternoon. • Said he would support the project; it is important that staff work with the applicant and make sure they are confident that the detailed design of the parking, the circulation, location of the traffic enclosure is such that it minimizes the risk to the children using the daycare center, and also to the adjoining neighbors. • Clarified that he was suggesting the original traffic pattern. Said he would prefer the one -way direction on the west side. • Said he would rely on the judgment of the traffic consultant and the Planning staff if they feel it can work it as a two -way road with appropriate signage and any appropriate adjustments. Com. Miller: • It is narrow; keep in mind two car garages are 16 feet wide; so this is 2 feet more; the normal street minimum width is 20 feet which is 10 feet on each side, so you are losing a foot on each side, but it still is doable and the history of the site has been always two way traffic there, so we do have experience to say that it is working now. Does that provide further concern? The other thing is we might want to put a sign up there saying 5 mph or something; would that make more sense. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -1 -0, Com. Giefer vioted No; Com. Kaneda absent; to approve U- 2009 -09 with the following changes to the model resolution: Allow two -way traffic in and out of the western ingress /egress area; trash enclosure be moved back to the site on Sheet 1A; construct the northern wall prior to site improvements; also the recommendation that there is no need at this time to build the masonry fence on the eastern wall. Chair Brophy declared a recess. 2. U- 2010 -01 Use Permit to erect a personal wireless service facility Bradley Head /Clearwire consisting of three panel antennas and three microwave dishes 20900 McClellan Road mounted and screened on the rooftop of an existing church with (Cupertino Church of the a grade level base equipment enclosure. Planning Commission Nazarene) decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to erect a wireless service facility on the rooftop of an existing church, as outlined in the staff report. • Reviewed the location/setback of the antennas and microwave dishes; and visibility and design, and noted that all the antennas and mounting equipment will be completely screened from view on the rooftop of the building. The equipment will be located on non - residential property, on an existing vertical structure, with antenna setback from the nearest residential property line of 180 feet, where 75 feet is the minimum. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 11, 2010 • He reviewed the radio frequency energy assessment provided by the applicant. Exposures were compared against Federal safety standards for such facilities. Ground level exposure is 0.67% of public limit; and 2n floor exposure is 0.40% of the public limit. • The Technology, Information & Communications Commission (TICC) provided comments in the staff report; and recommended approval of the project. • Notices were mailed to a 1,000 foot radius and two telephone calls and five emails were received from the public. Concerns were expressed about potential health effects and wireless communications interference. • Staff recommends approval of the facility per the model resolution. Bradley Head, NSA Wireless (for Clearwire): • Said they worked diligently to find a location suitable for Clearwire's radio frequency engineers along with the City's guidelines for the facilities. He requested approval of the project. • Said he would be agreeable to a condition regarding monitoring the emissions after installation. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Pastor, Cupertino Church of the Nazarene: • Explained the reasons for considering the use of the church facilities for the wireless service facility. As a lease deal it would provide money for the church, and part of the stewardship of the property is to make use of the property. Currently the church is having maintenance problems with the cross on top of the roof, and the skylight has been leaking for some time. Providing a tower would help solve the problems of the maintenance of the cross and the leaky skylight. A third reason is that there are a lot of technical people in the church with a high regard for the ability to communicate. The idea of having a city where there is wireless internet everywhere available in one form or another, is a good thing for residents and business. In order to do that with this technology requires many of these kinds of towers, but they all need to be in a place that has a high enough building far enough away from residential; and the church property can provide that. • He commended the Clearwire people and asked for consideration of approval of the project. Female resident: (Name not provided) • There is no question that children are more susceptible to radiation and other mutagenic forces. Bradley Heads has an application to set up a personal wireless facility that includes three panel antennas, three microwave dishes and they were very thorough in looking at the proposed amount of potential electromagnetic radiation. What has been ignored in this presentation, we need to search our souls as Com. Giefer said, there is a place for everything. What is not mentioned is that this church is also the home of a pre - school; children are present at the school for a maximum of 10 hours a day, 5 days a week; in addition it is also the site of a school for children of Cupertino who attend after school Chinese school. The personal wireless facility is being put on top of a pre school. • She said there is evidence in peer review journals of the significant risk to children. While not permitted to deny the application based on health, she asked the Pastor to explore his soul and see if this is the right thing to expose children to electromagnetic radiation. If the application is approved, there should be full disclosure to the parents who are sending their children to the school, that there is a potential risk and there is some evidence in the literature that there is concern that the current federal regulations may be lowered; that they are currently too high. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 11, 2010 Nina Kim, resident 200 feet behind the church: • Does not support the proposal. • Said she talked to the pastor before the meeting about his support of the proposal for the antennas and he stated the financial reasons and maintenance of the cross on top of the church. • She challenged the Pastor to think about the health issues first; and not to overlook the important factor of the small children who are present at the school all day; and not to put financial issues before the health of this generation and the future generations. She said if God is willing, there would be some other source of financial help to maintain the cross and the leaky skylight. She asked that Clearwire consider looking for another location; she realized that it is difficult to find the right location, but the proposed area is mostly residential. Nicki Hou, Cupertino resident: • Said she concurred with previous two speakers who expressed concern about the health of the next generation. She said if the main reason is financial gain, she said she would help organize a fund raiser to repair the leaky roof, and not put the children's health at risk. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Giefer; • Asked the speakers who were opposed to the application, if it would alleviate any of their concerns if the Commission added a condition of monitoring to ensure that it was in conformance with the emissions proposed which are well below the federal guidelines. Female speaker: • The issue at hand is whether or not if you add monitoring to the amount of emissions, it would be enough, and she responded "No." She said the reason is because when you review the literature, there is definitely some evidence to suggest that they may change the standards which is fine; they are adults, but the concern is for growing children whose tissues are susceptible to any kind of potentially mutagenic agent. She said if the proposal is approved, she would like the parents who send their children to the school be fully disclosed in writing that there is a wireless service facility on top of the building that their child is attending. Colin Jung: • Said the measurements of radiation exposure taken were grade level measurements; any area below the antenna itself regardless of whether it is in the building or outside, and the other exposure would be at a higher second story elevation of the nearest building. He commented that most parents wouldn't think twice about setting up a wireless baby monitor in the house, which generates RF energy more than 10 times what the proposed PCS facility is going to be generating. Aarti Shrivastava: • Responded to a suggestion from the last speaker that a requirement for full disclosure be conditioned. She said they would speak with the applicant about the suggestion, although they have not typically done it on other projects. The Planning Commission could make a recommendation to require disclosure. Pastor: • Said that the building that the tower is on is not the building that houses the preschool or after school program. Those other two buildings are on the same campus, but they are not underneath; the building underneath is used for worship. Cupertino Planning Commission 1.3 May 11, 2010 • He said he was not opposed to a condition stating that the participants in the preschool and after school program be made aware that a wireless facility was located on the premises. Female Speaker: (not identified) • Said she had very poor cell phone coverage in her home and she uses her land line phone as much as possible. She questioned putting a dish on top of the church when there is more than enough wireless, wi -fi and radio activity already going on, exposing children. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Discussion of full disclosure to the public of cell phone towers on premises: Chair Brophy: • Said they had been through the process before with wireless communications. In this case not only is it below the FCC maximum readings that are below the 1% of the maximum, even if there was an adjustment for which they cannot judge anyway, he said he did not see how it could be viewed in terms of the overall risks, as something to focus on. If there is going to be a change in policy, he said he would prefer it happen on a general policy rather than doing it on a particular application, when it hasn't been required of anyone else previously. He said he was speaking as somebody who has had nieces and nephews attend the preschool and would feel just as confident saying it if they were attending this year. Com. Giefer: • Agreed with Chair Brophy, but said they need to be consistent. Once the device is installed the performance is verified, and if it is not performing as expected, it allows Clearwire to make adjustments. Said she would like to include the condition as she felt it was in the best interest of the school and church to have full disclosure for people who are buying their services Chair Brophy: • For future, since a large percentage of the town live near cell phone towers, on any residential application are we going to require that we tell people there are cell towers 300 feet away. • Said he was not opposed to adding a clause about testing it to make sure it works; he said he understood that occurs just as a matter of standard operating procedures. He said he would prefer not to do additional ones. Com. Miller: • Cell phone towers disclosure has not been something that has been addressed; however, as soon as the industry finds something that might present an issue, shortly thereafter there is a piece of paper on it. Presently it is not addressed. Com. Giefer: • The pastor said that he wants full disclosure to his congregation and people who use their campus, and she felt in good faith that will happen now that it has been brought to his attention. It has been brought to the Pastor's attention, who will make the users of the campus aware of it. Chair Brophy: • Said he would not do it unless they are willing to do it on every future application; perhaps we should go back and do it retroactively and require people to send out notices. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 11, 2010 Com. Miller: • He said they have had previous church applications which resulted in denial or the church members putting pressure to withdraw the application. • He reiterated that federal law states they were not permitted to deny the application based on health reasons; the only justification for denying it is aesthetics. In this particular case, there is nothing displeasing about the aesthetics; it is very unobtrusive. • Said he was in favor of the disclosure idea because everybody can decide for themselves, and it places the responsibility in the right place. Vice Chair Lee: • Agreed that disclosure was appropriate; commented that gas stations have signs informing the public of gas fumes and precautions to take when pumping gas. There is no aesthetic reason to deny the application. Com. Miller: • Whether it should be done on all buildings, the proposed location is not all buildings, but is a church and a school where children are present. There is some logic that says it doesn't have to be on all buildings but perhaps where there are large congregations of children, it makes sense. Chair Brophy: • Said he had difficulty following the logic; theoretically a residential structure, people would spend far more time there, why shouldn't we be notifying everybody in town that even though they live in areas far below the limits set by the FCC, you should know that down the road there is a cell tower. He said he felt outvoted, but felt they were going down a path where with no limit to the number of theoretical disclosures they are putting on applications on a hit and miss basis, and may regret it in the future. • Said he did not support disclosure; and would not require a single applicant to provide a disclosure when it was not required of others. • Said they did not have either the legal right or the ability to judge what the appropriate RF restrictions are; in this case they are dealing with an application that is less than 1% of the maximum allowed by the FCC. Even if there were to be an adjustment to the FCC limits, of which to his knowledge there is nothing pending; he said he did no the direction they were going with the issue. Com. Giefer: • Said she felt the majority has not come to terms with what any disclosure might be. She memorialized what the pastor said with regards to disclosing that there is a wireless facility on the sites; how they choose to disclose it and what the words are would be left up to their discretion as long as they provided staff with a copy of the letter they intend to pass out. She said the verification is more formal; she would like the wireless provider to provide staff with a copy of their test report after installation to make sure that it performs either at the indicated levels or below; and they have that information as part of their standard installation. She said she cared more about that than the disclosure. As part of the informational packet given to the parents, there should be at least a paragraph informing them that a wireless facility is on the facility; it is in the best interest for both he church and the families that support their educational services. Com. Miller: • Said they have done it on other occasions and it is a good idea. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 11, 2010 Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and carried 3 -0 -1, Chair Brophy abstained, Com. Kaneda absent; to approve U- 2010 -01 with the following additional conditions: That the applicant provide the Cupertino Planning staff with verification after the installation of the device showing that it conforms to the anticipated measurements or below as indicated in the staff report; and that the property owner disclose that there is a wireless facility on site to those interested in their preschool or school services or after care services. Decision of Planning Commission is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 days. 3. GPA- 2010 -02 General Plan Amendment to update the City's Historic City of Cupertino Preservation policy and Historic Sites list. Tentative City Council Date: June 1, 2010 Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background for the preparation of the Historic Preservation Policy and related General Plan Amendments, as outlined in the staff report. On January 8, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Historic Preservation Policy as part of their 2007 -08 work program, since they were interested in a more proactive approach to preserve existing buildings working with the Historical Society and other community groups. On May 5, 2008 the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Historical Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) and provided the committee with the four parameters as set forth in the staff report. On April 20, 2010 the Council reviewed the framework resulting from the work and recommendations done by HPAC and authorized staff to proceed with initiating the public review process and General Plan amendments. • The City Council prescribed the following: • The Council wanted the policy to be focused on public /semi - public sites, commercial properties. It was clear they did not want residential sites on the list. • The Council wanted the HPAC and staff to update and re -rank the existing historic resource list currently in the General Plan. • Define public hearing, review and noticing procedure process, including the involvement of property owners. • Define potential methods of preservation. • The City Council wanted a proactive approach, clear guidelines as to what property owners should expect when their properties make its way onto the list. • He reviewed the methodology that the HPAC used to evaluate and formulate the policy, as outlined on Page 2 of the staff report, including biweekly meetings from June 2008 through November 2008, compilation of information., site visitations, evaluation of both existing and potential new sites, reference to prior City reports, and previous preservation efforts. In the evaluation of the list collected, they used a set of historical designation criteria which are outlined in the staff report; each site was evaluated against the criteria; and the HPAC determined the level of significance ( preservation /commemoration/honorable mention) • The HPAC chose 11 additional sites, in addition to the 19 historic resources list in the General Plan. The 3 categories recommended for the Historic Policy are Historical Sites, Commemorative Sites and Honorable Mention Sites. The HPAC recommendation is to retain 10 of the existing historical sites currently in the General Plan and add the Miller House to the list. If the site is owned by the City, the City will work to rehab and restore the structure in order to retain its historic significance. If it is privately owned, the City will work in partnership with the private or public entity to restore and preserve the site. The policy also encourages and prescribes to allow public access to the site to foster awareness and Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 11, 2010 educational opportunities; and seek opportunities to plaque and provide reader boards to ensure that occurs. • The HPAC suggested that 7 sites currently on the General Plan should be moved to the Commemorative Sites list, in addition to those listed in the staff report. Four sites will be moved or added to the Honorable Mention Sites in the General Plan; those sites are listed in the staff report. The city will work with the property owner, whether public, private or quasi - public to ensure that there are to be plaques, reader boards or some feature that would be taken or drawn from the existing facility or the history to be located on the site to educate the public. He provided a sample of a commemorative plaque. • Relative to the Honorable Mentions category, the HPAC is recommending that 2 of the existing sites in the General Plan be moved to the Honorable Mention category, as well as 2 additional sites. The category was created because all of the sites are not located in the City of Cupertino and are outside the jurisdiction of the City, consequently even though they are historic significance, the City cannot require other cities to preserve the sites; the City will communicate with the jurisdictions to work with them to make sure they are aware of the fact that the sites are significant and recommendations will be provided to them. • Other recommendations include that the Historic Resource List be periodically reviewed and updated and that the list of Community Landmark Sites be retained in the General Plan unchanged. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council and adopt the Historic Preservation Policy and the General Plan Amendments. Council will review recommendations at their June 1s meeting. • Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the Policy. Com. Miller: • Referred to the summary table and questioned why the Union Church of Cupertino (which does not meet any criteria whatsoever) was on the Historical list. Staff responded that it embodied distinguishing architectural characteristics, which is in the description.) • Pointed out a discrepancy that the Glenn Denning Barn was listed but then was shown as being outside the city limits. (Staff clarified it should have been the Montebello School Site as opposed to Glenn Denning Barn; it is confirmed not to be in the city of Cupertino.) • Questioned why the Miller House was on the list; was it already designated a historic site. (Staff responded that there was a Use Permit at the time, there is prior approval; it was already designated and required as part of the condition of that prior approval to be preserved.) Chair Brophy: • Discussed the language for privately owned sites, "property owners would be encouraged but not required to provide access to the public "... Asked if it was an instance where if someone were to come in with a development application on that site, would staff interpret that as meaning that the public access would be up for grabs as part of any development permit. Aarti Shrivastava: • Discussed the interpretation of the word "encourage ". Provided an example of a historic building located a short distance from the main path; is there the ability to provide a plaque and for the public to get to that building and view it; that would be one of the considerations of the project. It is very clear that it is only an encouragement and not required; staff will look for ways to see if it can be done, but it will not be a necessity. Looking at the current language in the General Plan, it is very unclear about what needs to happen; staff wants to provide as much clarity as possible into the process, so if somebody comes in, they know they have a historic site, there are not too many non - public sites; it is very clear to everybody what needs Cupertino Planning Commission 17 May 11, 2010 to happen. Typically we only require these as part of projects, if they are existing sites, we do not go out and have them do something in addition unless the city is partnering with them. Com. Giefer: • Pointed out that there was one California state site included, but the one in the parking lot in Monta Vista was not included. Are existing historical markers in the community being inventoried? If the one at St. Joseph's is included, shouldn't the one in the Monta Vista parking lot be included also? (Staff response: It is included on Page 3 -17 of staff report) Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the goal was to look at the existing sites in the General Plan to look at existing properties in the City. The HPAC did an exhaustive review of sites, of past literature, of the existing General Plan and what is shown is their recommendation. Com. Giefer: • Asked if the classification for them and the names were existing names in the General Plan or were they newly minted names? Aarti Shrivastava: • The General Plan addresses community landmarks and there is some confusion because it puts Vallco as a community landmark and not necessarily historic; staff tried to sort those out into what is truly historic. Commemorative sites are those where either the buildings have been demolished or the buildings themselves do not have significant merit, but something commemorative occurred at that site. The Honorable Mention category was set up to designate the fact that they are not within the city's jurisdiction, but they played a role in the city's growth and development. There was a brief discussion about a more appropriate term than Honorable Mention; suggestions included. Historic Mention and Historic Interest. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Suggested Historical Significance or Historical Honor in place of Honorable Mention category title. • Said she was pleased that Cupertino has forged ahead in going into the realm of establishing the Historical Preservation Policy. She said she has spent a great deal of time at historical sites around the country, seen many different historical monuments and traveled to Europe where they have plaques everywhere. Cupertino has some incredible history including the Monta Vista area alone where the Monta Vista parking lot has a monument from 1776 when the DeAnza party went through and almost 200 years to the day, Apple had their first buildings on Bubb Road. • Said it is difficult to try to preserve and acknowledge the history of the city, but historical preservation begins at home, and that is what needs to be done. Cupertino will have some fabulous history in the years to come and by laying the groundwork by how to preserve and document sites in the city, when you are up against something 50 years from now and the President of the United States is from Cupertino, they will undoubtedly know how to preserve his/her home. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 May 11, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Recommended removing the language "for privately owned sites ". He said it was a foot in the door and his understanding is that the Council was clear that they did not want the City to get involved in trying to use its leverage; if there is different language to make it clear that this is not a tool of leverage, he said he would support it. The City has a right to demand public access to private property but he did not think any of the sites are of a sufficiently important nature to justify that power. Said he was concerned that the language could be interpreted to mean that the City at the time of the development application could say the policy asks them to ask for public access when that is clearly not what the Council intended. Com. Giefer: • Said she would prefer to have the City Council sort that it out on what they intended. Chair Brophy: • Said he was willing to send it to the Council, as red - flagged so they recognize it as an issue. It is not required, but is a bargaining chip, an example of a development application on a site that includes a historical site; one could go down the checklist and say this is a historical site and we would like to add public access to this as one of the conditions. You can say the applicant can always say No, but when you are negotiating a development agreement presumably the city has an inherent advantage; it is not simply a request; it is done with the idea that it potentially can be done with the idea that a development application is considering this. Com. Miller: • Said he did not necessarily disagree with Chair Brophy, but was looking at the language; another way is to view it as a protection because it specifically says it is not required. Chair Brophy: • Suggested changing the language; from "but not required" to read "but in no way required ". Com. Giefer: • Said she preferred it as is; and pointed out if it is something they have so few of on the list of historic sites, why not give it that consideration. She said they are not requiring that it be maintained, but giving it thoughtful consideration. Chair Brophy: • Said that Cupertino does not have that many historical sites but wants to preserve what they do have. The list includes such sites as the Union Church of Cupertino, and a tack house inside a gated community. He said he did not see them as sites in which the City has a reasonable expectation that they should be open to the public without the property owner's consent. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed; and said that if you remove the statement you are removing a protection. Com. Giefer: • Said it did not change her opinion; as written it meets her needs. It makes one stop to see if there is something important about it that might be preserved at a later time; but it also does not obligate the owner to take that action. The goal is to make people pause and think about what they are doing and it achieves that. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 11, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Questioned if it puts the City in a position where if a development request occurred on these properties, it is one more thing that the City can ask as a condition of development approval. Com. Giefer: • Said that the City did not have a track record of doing that. She said in her opinion it may change in the next 50 years, but not change politically in the next 10 years. The benefit is if they further define things, they have refined what those definitions are so people understand what they are working with more. When it involves private property, staff may use it as a negotiating chip; she did not see it as a business necessarily as a business inhibitor. It just makes them stop and reflect on what they are about to do, and give thoughtful consideration. • She said Council provided direction and if they chose to change the language to better meet their needs, she would support that. Chair Brophy: • Asked if there were any objections to approving it as is, but sending a notification to the Council of concern about whether or not this language protects the right of property owners to decide whether or not they wish to provide public access. Com. Miller: • Said he supported Chair Brophy's first change and would support the second change as well. He said he was in favor of the protection, however worded. Chair Brophy: • Requested that the sentence remain, changing the wording "but not required" to "but in no way required." Chair Brophy and Com. Miller concurred; Vice Chair Lee supported change; Com. Giefer opposed to change. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4 -0 -0; Com. Kaneda absent; to approve GPA- 2010 -02 per the model resolution with the change suggested by Chair Brophy. 4. CP- 2010 -01 Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services and organizational efficiency. Continued from the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council Date: May 18, 2010 Gary Chao presented the staff report: • Reviewed that the item was discussed on April 13, 2010 and April 27, 2010 and was continued to the May 11 meeting when a full Commission would be present to provide comments. Aarti Shrivastava: • The ordinance requires that any commercial building above 5,000 square feet has to be approved by City Council and office building above 10,000 sq. ft. is approved by Council. We were looking at possible changes to that as part of the streamlining process. • Said the goal of the present discussion was to get the broad concepts from the Commission to the Council so they could review them and provide direction on which ones to follow up on. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 May 11, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Said the Matrix process is predominantly focused on professional developers, architects, engineers, and contractors, and for the most part they were reasonably satisfied and they identified areas for improvement. • Said he understood the Council may have some interest in the existing ordinances and he preferred to stay away from some of the areas where they have struggled in the past and if they really feel strongly about some of those areas to move those as a separate process rather than have them tie up the Matrix, where they could move on the more technical issues to make it easier for the applicants. • There have been issues of daycare centers and churches, and they made them conditional uses, but make elder care projects and churches permitted uses. He said he felt they could work well with what staff drafted; and that is the direction he would prefer rather than spending a lot of time on the issues that are of more concern to professional architects and larger developers. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed they should address both groups; but not sure they should emphasize one over the other. In reading through the report there are a number of things that appear to address concerns, i.e., Attachment 1 where staff is proposing more review at the staff level and then making the appeal or exception process go to review board. Some of the other things in the report included holding classes and also putting more information online including step -by- step procedures for going through a process. There are a fair number of things in the report with recommendations to that effect; are there some missing at this point. Chair Brophy: • Said at a previous meeting there was a discussion about fees and the recommendation that they be frozen. One area to look at, to the extent that they will be looking at green building issues that independent of any increases might be proposed to cover technology improvements or cost of living, is the use of fee structures to encourage more green development; perhaps lower cost and to encourage more affordable housing by keeping the overall structure revenue neutral. There could be lower fees for the first 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet of a residential home and higher ones thereafter; things such as that to look at if there is interest from the rest of the Commission. Com. Miller: • Said he felt lowering fees is a worthy objective. Chair Brophy: • Sid that he was referring to a revenue neutral one, but one that would help with affordable housing and perhaps also encourage people to take a second look when they design their homes at how they might get a more effective, home in less square footage; the so- called not - so -big house that works well. He said he was a believer in setting up fee structures that encourage people to do things rather than having to tell them what they can and cannot do. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed. Staff proposed a number of things to make staff's operations more efficient and hopefully would result in a lower cost that could be passed on in terms of lower fees. If doing a small building, they would definitely want to go through the fees and make sure that there is a nexus between the cost that the applicant is bearing and the benefit that the applicant is getting. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 May 11, 2010 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said that as a member of the public and a resident of Cupertino for 10 years, she found huge problems with the document. The public was not involved at all; it looks like someone is trying to take over Cupertino and say how it should be run. She said she was concerned about the focus groups that the Matrix Consulting Group came up with; the identity of the focus group members remained anonymous; however, after reading the document it appeared the focus groups were composed of builders, large land owners in the city and no one from the public. They made suggestions about how to run businesses in Cupertino, and were supposed to be the expert people at what they do; however no one knew their identity, which discredits what they said in the meetings. Why should the public believe them; the public is the one that remembers why we do things the way we do; it sounds like the focus groups are not happy with how we do things in Cupertino, but who are they and what do they do in Cupertino? Perhaps a city historian should be hired to ensure they don't start changing policies; why is the balcony notification being eliminated? She reiterated that the public was not involved in the study and report and the direction of the city is changing. Chair Brophy: • Said on some points Ms. Griffm raised, he felt some of those areas were areas where it would be a mistake to get involved at this time. If it is desired to reopen the balcony issue or the process dealing with R1, it should be dealt with as a separate matter and it would be better to focus the Commission's energy on areas that have not been the subject of discussion, and find areas of general consensus where they can make or fmd processes that will move smoother for the applicants, especially smaller applicants without residents or adjoining property owners feeling like they have not had a full chance to express their opinion. Com. Miller: • Relative to the focus group process, he said that is the way focus groups are run, it is not just this focus group. The intent is to first ensure that the people in the focus group are stating their opinions and are not holding back. The process in general should be one of separating the source from the content, and that is the goal. Although knowing the identity of those making the comments would be ideal, if not known, the Commission cannot color their judgment, but look at the comments for what they are and see if it makes sense to them. Many are good suggestions and some of them as Ms. Griffin pointed out, are not so good. He said personally he saw nothing wrong with the process. Com. Giefer: • Suggested that they look for areas of commonality in their approaches and thinking in terms of what is acceptable and what is not with regards to recommendations, and see if there are areas where they are not in alignment that need further discussion, and try to consolidate around as many points as are agreed upon. Com. Miller: • Said that he submitted comments in the last two hearings which have been incorporated in the list under review process. If that is the extent of the input going to Council, perhaps there is something more such as prioritizing the list. Vice Chair Lee: • Said they did not discuss fees; but Chair Brophy and Com. Miller talked about reducing fees to provide incentives for affordable housing. She asked if bullet points should be added to discuss it more. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 May 11, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Responded that at this point, it would be getting into an area that is out of the matrix; that is a separate issue discussed at the time of the shopping center project. They can discuss it in the future, but this is not the place to do it. Com. Giefer: • Referring to Page 4 -2, she suggested that reference to "Develop How To Manuals" be reworded, since it implies that it is an instructional manual for using the website. • Relative to the R1 notification, she said she was concerned about the "Don't Send Any Plans" message as it was sending out a red flag and appears to be the beginning of the eroding of noticing, and she had an issue with anything that would undermine the amount of noticing done. She said she supported sending out the site plan and elevations only with the weblink but did not want to meddle with things that are known public issues because it undermines their confidence in the Commission. She suggested that it be rephrased to be more specific. • She said Chair Brophy's suggestion about a fee neutral approach was a good one; if building green or affordable, you pay a reduced fee set for your first however many square feet the project is; and then look at the overall fee structure, so the larger the home is, the higher the fees are, or something similar that encourages building more green, smaller efficient homes, rather than large energy inefficient homes. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said for affordable housing projects, the City does not charge park fees, which can be cost prohibitive; and it also does not charge construction tax on the building permits, so those policies exist. She said she did appreciate the revenue neutral. One of the things coming down the pike and they are not adding fees to it, with all the new regulations of Cal Green or New Green Building Ordinance, is the new landscaping ordinance. Staff plans to spend more staff time on these applications than have been typically done; the number of hours per project will go up, but in the interest of trying to help people do the right thing, there is no proposal to increase fees. • Relative to the appeals process, she said that the first appeal could be at the same fee; staff does not have an opinion on this and the Planning Commission can take a stand one way or another. Some applications have been appealed more than once, perhaps the second level of appeal could be on a cost recovery basis. The appeal costs between 50% to 100% of the original application cost in terms of staff time: Council has chosen to reduce that cost to $100. • Said that limiting the number of appeals was a question for the City Attorney to address. If the Council makes a decision there is a reconsideration process where the Council could be asked to reconsider their decision; starting from the Planning Commission or staff level, there are many levels of appeals. Com. Miller: • The problem is that it is a political decision at the Council level and they have chosen to keep the appeal price down because they do not want to discourage it. We could try to limit it, but they are the ones making the decision. It is a good question, and if you did that, would it always be to the City Council. Chair Brophy: • Suggested that they address the issue of R1 notification, as the intent is that everybody get sufficient documents for review; that they have knowledge they can either go online or if they are knowledgeable about plans, they need to know they have access to them if necessary either online or come down to the Planning Department. It needs to be restated in a clearer manner. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 May 11, 2010 Com. Giefer: • Said she rewrote it as RI notification, "send reduced plan sets including site plan and elevations with weblink information;" since most people don't care about an electrical plan. What matters is what is it going to look like on the curb and how is it going to affect the house next door. Com. Miller: • Said that is correct, and the remainder is unnecessary because residents do not have a right to critique it and make suggestions which are oul: of the scope of what they should be evaluating. • Said he supported sending out only the minimum set that provides the information they need in order to make judgments on the aspects appropriate for them to be making judgments. A full set of plans should be put on the website for people to see; that is public information. The goal in moving forward is to try to reduce the amount of paper, not increase it. Paper is one place to reduce costs, and it does not diminish the objective of notification. Com. Giefer: • How the interior of a house is arranged is the owner's business, but the issue of a second story balcony looking into a neighbor's master bedroom are legitimate questions for neighbors to ask. Some of them are unnecessary, but all four side elevations are needed. If it is defined as part of this, it puts the community at rest and continues the relationship and trust they have in the Planning Commission. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to website information, it will be done as soon as there is a good permit system up and running. The site plans and elevations will be sent out to everyone within 300 feet radius; for two -story applications it is everyone within 300 feet. For second -story decks, extension of legal non - conforming walls, minor things, it is to adjacent neighbors. Com. Miller: • Said that the side and rear elevations for people living down the block should not be an issue as it does not affect them. For those immediately affected, you want to give them what they need, and there is already a distinction that for some things only the immediate neighbors get, and some get a full plan set. He suggested that the larger set be defined and given to those residents who are immediately affected. Chair Brophy: • Said he agreed in principle, and asked if it was a battle they want to deal with at this time. Relative to the RI issue, the focus should be on getting the plan set to people and if too many changes are made, it is counter- productive. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said all comments will be forwarded to City Council; staff doesn't have an opinion. Com. Giefer: • Said she concurred with Chair Brophy; once the appropriate website technology is available that would allow them to change the mix of what they send out, they should reconsider if it makes sense to do it. She said she would be concerned with the administrative efficiencies and reliability if they try to slice it up differently. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 May 11, 2010 Com. Miller: • There is general agreement not to implement anything new until there is an alternative such as the website, then the question is what should be implemented. Aarti Shrivastava: • Explained that 11 x 17 sized black and white drawings are sent out as part of the plan sets; sent to approximately 50 people, within a 300 foot radius depending on lot size. The applicant pays for the copying of the plan sets and the mailing costs. Com. Giefer: • Suggested they continue with what they are presently doing until they have the technology available, and revisit the issue at that time. Com. Giefer: • Summarized recommendations: Rl notification: send reduced plans sets of elevations and site plans with weblink for further information; to be implemented only after online permitting system is implemented and fully tested. • Relative to cross sections of the interiors, she said her issue was only with what information is available; • Said her issue was just what information is available; and she did not have a problem with not sending a cross section of the interior; there is no landscape plan so you cannot see what the privacy plantings are. Gary Chao: • Summarized that there were many good comments from the Commission; some of which would be more appropriate when the item returns. At this point, the Commission should decide whether they want to look at evaluating either streamlining or more efficient ways of notifying R1 properties; bearing in mind when they come back they will explain the other components involved; not just the plan, to make a comprehensive decision, because there are story poles, story boards and different requirements for commercial properties as well; so they will have all the information to make that final. decision on how you want to curtail it or not. Com. Giefer: • How far down this path do we want to go because they all affect R1 notification. Do we really want to try to remedy this quickly by changing some language on recommendation or do we want staff to come back and actually do a more thorough review on that. We fix one item and say fine we won't include two sheets of interior drawings and mail out plan sets, and we are done, or do we want to look at all of it. He said he did not want to look at all of it, but wanted the story boarding to remain and the story poles to remain because they are part of the notification. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that when approving a house plan, it is not required to have a full set of construction plans at that point; they have the concept drawings. Typically the electrical plan, foundation plans etc. are not required. If it is a special project, such as with a basement, a lot of it depends on the project itself, there needs to be enough information to help staff understand how it is put together; how the massing works, which includes the Public Works and Building staff, who also look at it at the planning stage. Cupertino Planning Commission 2:5 May 11, 2010 Com. Miller: • Commented that he felt the level of detail in the story poles was excessive, and likely not appreciated by the public. Chair Brophy: • Story poles is an area where the benefit is less than the problems of changing it. Com. Giefer: • Recalled that when they were putting the story poles in the R1, she adamantly fought for them because she felt they were informative. Gary Chao: • Clarified that story poles are supposed to outline only the second story, there is no need to do the ground floor. It does need to present itself to get a sense of the massing, to the extent that the main ridges, corners, and main peaks be delineated. Staff: • Said Cupertino was similar to some cities in h.ow they deal with story poles and requesting the same level of detail; while others require more detail. Some cities don't require story poles, and don't review single family at the Planning staff level. Aarti Shrivastava: • Suggested comments on Attachment 1 to forward to Council: The third category, Planned Development Use Permits should be renamed to Minor Development Permit and Major Development Permit, not ASA. In the major ASA category state Planning Commission/City Council depending on the level of review, and the Planning Commission may want to make some recommendation on what that threshold might be if it goes to Council. • Relative to the appeal process, the appealing body is always the next level of review, and staff is not suggesting any changes. Com. Miller: • Said he supported staff suggestions to move more of the items down in the structure, including the recommendations. Aarti Shrivastava: • Suggested a change at the Use Permit level; the small modifications can be done at staff level and the bigger ones can be Planning Commission level. • Relative to a previous suggestion by Com. Giefer that for cellular antenna and similar facilities, the Technology Commission rather than Planning Commission could make those determinations because they are not land use decisions; she said that the Technology Commission stated they are not in the business of aesthetics and the Planning Commission is a better body to look at that since they look at aesthetics. When reviewing other cities, Mountain View was the only one who did it al staff level. Cupertino has the ability to do some antenna decisions at staff level, but in the past have forwarded them on. • There was a brief discussion about the role of the DRC, which appears to have been reduced to evaluation of signs; more items are now being handled at staff level. Com. Giefer: • Said that when things were moving fairly quickly and the calendar was fuller, DRC was a way to dispatch things more quickly, and if the decision is made by staff that is one avenue, but if Cupertino Planning Commission 26 May 11, 2010 there are items that we are taking from Planning Commission and moving to DRC, they can be more expeditious. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that if issues cannot be resolved at staff level, staff feels the Planning Commission is a better body to appeal it to; primarily because there is a real hearing process in the next level. There is also more consistency if it is heard by the Commission, rather than just two members of the DRC. • In prior years the DRC did a lot of single family review which has since moved to staff level; it also reduces application costs. Chair Brophy: • Many of the issues are issues that are going to have to be dealt with after it comes back from the Council. Are there any other lines other than R1 notification that need to be changed from what has been proposed. Com. Giefer: • Said she was unsure how to memorialize the concept of looking into reducing fees for green building and affordable housing. She suggested forwarding it to City Council, perhaps under fees, to look at a fee neutral basis to provide incentive for green building and affordable housing as par of a fee study. Com. Miller: • Said he was in favor of incentives over mandates and arm twisting. Chair Brophy: • Review Revenue neutral fee structure to support affordable housing and green building objectives. Com. Giefer said she would support that. • Said they could change fee structures that reduce or increase fees; he suggested they deal with the issue of raising or lowering fees separately from changing the structure. • If you want to raise the entire structure, or lower the whole structure, that is a separate issue. There are two issues; one is the structure of the fees and increase or lower. Com. Miller: • Said what was being suggested was that they were two separate discussions and two separate decision points. Said he supported that, but did not approve of lowering it in the one side and raising it on another. Chair Brophy: • Relative to changing the fee structure, if they were to say eliminate building code fees for solar, saying that is one decision but down the road they could look at raising other fees at the same time; he was not opposed to looking at the issues of lowering the general fee structure or raising them; but at the same time would like to look within that for a given dollar number; what they are accomplishing to provide incentives to meet affordable housing or to meet green building objectives. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed with the concept of providing incentives; however, it then presents the issue of creating a reduction in revenue which somehow needs to be made up; then it is a different discussion in terms of how and when the shortfall in revenue is made up. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 May 11, 2010 • If it is affordable housing and they are doing a redevelopment district and collecting redevelopment monies, perhaps an appropriate use of the redevelopment monies is to backfeed what we are doing in terms of reducing fees to increase incentives. • Said he did not think it necessarily follows to increase the fees somewhere else, as opposed to using monies from other sources to achieve a public good. • Said that when fees are increased, it is saying you are going to pay and you are focusing on an individual or small group to pay for a wider benefit to the entire community, which is a concept he does not agree with. Com. Brophy: • We are already doing it although not calling it: that. When we don't charge affordable housing projects park fees, presumably then when we set the park fees for everybody else we have set them at a level that takes that into consideration. If we are going to do that we are doing it on an explicit basis rather than on an implicit bas is. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed and supported that and wanted to discuss it further. It shouldn't be a matter of course and that's the way it happens; but rather that they made a conscious decision to do that. • Said he also supported staff's efforts to upgrade their permit system and there may be ways to do that in a less expensive manner. They should ensure that they send that message to the Council, because the last time around, the Council was not keen on doing it primarily because of the cost. The message should be that this is a efficiency tool or set of tools and they should be looking at ways to make it happen, particularly since the current system we currently is going to reach its limits in a very short period of time. They are going to be forced to replace it in any case. Chair Brophy: • Relative to review of fee structure, just support affordable housing and green building objectives in revenue neutral manner. • Said he was willing to look at raising or lowering fees but would like to look at the fee structure within for a given dollar number; and be explicit about it rather than simply say they are going to exempt the projects for park fees. Aarti Shrivastava: • Summarized the changes: (1) How To Manuals; (2) Rl notification; (3) Rewording of first bullet in technology to say "support staff efforts to upgrade permit system" that would help improve efficiency; and (4) Chair Brophy's sentence on reviewing the fee structure. Relative to Rl notification, send reduced sets including site plan and elevations with weblink for further information. Com. Giefer: • Said that if they reduce plan sets, landscaping needs to be called out. The landscaping plans would be a privacy screening. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, and carried 4-0 -0, Com. Kaneda absent; to approve CP- 2010 -01 to be forwarded to the City Council with Planning Commission comments. OLD BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 28 May 11, 2010 NEW BUSINESS: 5. City of Cupertino General Plan conformance hearing for the disposition of Southeast end of Cleo Ave. the real property to Habitat for Humanity for the (APN 362 -31 -004) purpose of developing an affordable housing project. Tentative City Council Date: June 1, 2010 Gary Chao presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background of the project. In August 2005 the City acquired the Cleo Avenue property from Caltrans for the purpose of an affordable housing project or park use. In December 2007 the Habitat for Humanity was selected by the City Council to develop the property. In March 2008 Council rezoned the property to Planned Development Residential to accommodate potentially four (4) residential units. Habitat is requesting that the City initiate the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) process in order for them to secure necessary funding to move the project forward. The Planning Commission is being asked to make three findings to the extent that the location, purpose and extent of disposition are in conformance with the General Plan. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she felt Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful program; and that the Habitat program needs to own the property it builds on. The City of Cupertino turned the property over to the program. Said it was an interesting situation because if this was a larger piece of land and Cupertino had purchased it, there might be some issues with the city turning over a large piece of property to a private charity for affordable housing. She suggested that if the opportunity of surplus land occurs again, the City consider letting its own BMR program or Vista Village handle it. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-0 -0, Com. Kaneda absent, to approve Agenda Item 5, disposition of real property APN 362 -31 -004 to Habitat for Humanity. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No Meeting. Housing Commission: No report. Manor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissioners: Report given at previous meeting. Economic Development Committee: Com. Giefer reported: • Russell Hancock, from Joint Venture Silicon Valley spoke about the economic conditions in the valley; fmancing is still difficult to acquire and the new norm may be that large projects will come in piecemeal for development. • A new Leadership Cupertino class called Leadership 95014 is available to the public who are interested in learning more about Cupertino and its government. There will be an informational mixer soon. • There is a growing request by restaurants in the community to get entertainment permits to help stimulate business into their establishments. • The Chamber of Commerce is working with the city to try to make the businesses more green. Cupertino Planning Commission 29 May 11, 2010 • Service Announcement: Chamber of Commerce is working to promote businesses in the city; sponsoring Savory Summer Nights on June 26 at Vallco shopping area, local restaurants will have different tastings. Contact Kelly Kline in the City or Chamber of Commerce. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Provided an update on future meetings; • Proposal to cancel May 25 meeting; • Trying to regroup and fmd topics for Planning Commission to discuss for Land Use Sustainability Plan and expect to have that sometime in July or August; • June 8 proposing first set of focus groups for Green Building, July 27 proposing second focus group meeting; • Planning Commission retreat, propose subcommittee of two for considering topics, location. • Consider canceling a summer meeting. • Council decided not to raise fees this year; not planning to do a fee study Com. Miller and Chair Brophy volunteered to serve on the committee for planning the retreat and will report on June 8 Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4 -0 -0; Com. Kaneda absent, to cancel the May 25, 2010 Planning Commission meeting due to lack of business. Adjournment: • The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 8, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. // Respectfully Submitted: Elizabet iris, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: June 8, 2010