Loading...
PC 04-12-2011 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. April 12, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca., by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Staff present: Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava Assistant Planner: George Schroeder APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0 to approve the March 22, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Review of Resolution No. 6626 for Application MCA - 2011 -02, City of Cupertino, Public Engagement Policy. There was a brief discussion about amendments to the language of the resolution. • Page 1 -4: Relative to holding focus groups, workshops for projects of areawide and citywide significance, in some cases it would be a recommended action on the applicant's part, and would not be required. • No. 5 inclusion of regulations that are currently not codified —they are part of the previous code which were inadvertently removed; staff will make sure they are back in the Code. • It should be the applicant's decision, rather than a city decision. • Vice Chair Miller: relative to request for a caiange to allow appeals directly from the DRC to the City Council, he commented that if staff felt it was contentious enough that there may be an appeal filed, it should not go to the DRC in the first place. Staff indicated they would implement that. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission Z April 12, 2011 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said one of the goals was to work on the public engagement flow chart and in terms of understanding what the public engagement was, the diagram is more helpful because it talks in terms of language used before in Cupertino. Said she preferred the new diagram, which has a good approach to project size and engaging the public. Anything that happens out of the Main Street project affects the entire city; anything that will impede or cause traffic problems on the east side of Cupertino involves the entire city since it is difficult to get from one end of the city to the other. She said she was also concerned and disappointed about the changes to the Rl ordinance which will only result in many lengthy meetings arguing over the Rl ordinance again. She also said she did not want to see any changes to the status of the DRC as it is an extremely important group and has been in use since the annexing in 2000. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Com. Brophy: • Suggested that the wording regarding the focus groups and workshops, be changed from "as needed" to "when appropriate ". Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0, to recommend approval of Resolution No. 6625 as amended. PUBLIC HEARING 2. ASA- 2011 -02, TR- 2011 -07 Architectural and Site approval for facade, landscaping, Jack VerdonByer Properties parking lot, lighting and sidewalk enhancements including 20730 Stevens Creek Blvd. the demolition of 2,400 sq. ft. from the rear loading area at the former Mervyns department store site; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 31 trees in conjunction with landscaping, parking lot, lighting and sidewalk enhancements. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Architectural and Site approval for facade, landscaping, parking lot, lighting and sidewalk enhancements including demolition of 2,400 sq. ft. from the rear loading area at the former Mervyns department store site; and Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 31 trees, as outlined in the staff report. • TJ Maxx/Home Goods is proposed to take up approximately 70% of the former Mervyns space, the remaining 30% will be a future retail space. He reviewed the remaining project improvements relative to the project. A noise consultant has determined that the project is not anticipated to generate significant noise impacts and will stay within the city's noise limits. • He reviewed the building architecture, site improvements and landscaping, tree removal and replacement, street frontage improvements, and loading area. The City's Public Works Departments, Building Division, Fire Department, and Cupertino Sanitary District have all reviewed the project and have no objections to the project. • On March 28, 2011 the applicant held a neighborhood meeting, at which time neighbors expressed concern about delivery truck noise. pollution, container storage, glare from building - mounted lighting and past negative experiences with delivery trucks. Staff recommends conditions be added relative to trash and delivery plan, delivery truck circulation plan, appropriate directional/warning signage and prohibition on storing materials /items along the existing sound wall. Other recommended conditions of approval include a shopping cart management plan; new lighting must conform to the standards in the General Commercial Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 12, 2011 Ordinance and a final lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance; and a separate sign program and signage will be required for the project as a condition of approval. • Staff recommends approval of the application according to the model resolution. Staff answered questions regarding the project. Jack Verdon, Applicant: • Explained the project timeline; estimated completion of the project is 3 to 3 -1/2 months, including the - re- roofing. He indicated that the TJ Maxx/Home Goods store would have signage on the building as well as a sizable street sign, similar to what Mervyns had when they occupied the space. He said the trees along the curb will have a more mature height and the current landscape plan is retaining some of the more mature trees; the trees inside the parking area will be below 12 feet to allow a visual corridor. Robert Thompson, TJ Maxx/Home Goods: • Said the store is a combination store with two separate entrances, with the ability for customers to float back and forth in the store with a common checkout. He said it is likely the Homestead store will close. Cynthia Palacio, Scofield Drive resident: • Discussed concern about truck deliveries, stating that she felt the delivery hours of Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. should not be considered limited hours. She suggested that large truck deliveries not be permitted on the weekends as it negatively affected the residents' ability to enjoy their outdoor activities. She questioned who would enforce the delivery times. Relative to the lighting, the use of motion sensor lights creates a strobe effect which is a problem. She recommended that trash collection not be permitted on the weekends, and construction hours be limited to week days only; and demolition or construction in the rear of the property not be permitted on the weekends. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Expressed concern about cutting all the trees down in the parking lot; some trees have declined in the last several years but many are salvageable. She asked that the first tier of ash trees not be cut down as they were in good condition; she was also concerned about the 80 inch live oak tree in the Pizza Hut parking lot not being removed. She said she felt it was not a good idea for developers to go in and cut down parking lots trees as it is a high visibility center. George Schroeder: • Lighting fixtures will be replaced with down mounted lighting; applicant has provided a foot metric plan showing that the lighting glare will not project onto adjacent properties; staff will work with them on the final plan to ensure that is the case. Relative to the construction hours, he said it was unusual to restrict it to only weekdays. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the applicant wants to open the store within a short period of time. The construction period can be a source of stress for the neighbors, particularly on the weekends; a reasonable compromise is to limit the construction hours on the weekend. Relative to truck deliveries, the same approach is taken on most projects. Delivery hours are limited to early and late in the day, with some allowance for weekend deliveries, with the least impact on the neighbors. Jack Verdon, Applicant: • Said they did not have a detailed work schedule yet, but will provide a specific plan to cover it. They will consider the residents' concerns and because of the noise factor will do the Cupertino Planning Commission q. April 12, 2011 demolition portion during regular business hours; because of their tight schedule and issues with the Homestead store, he said some o:° the front project work could be done on the weekend with less impact on the neighbors. Relative to the concern about trees, they have worked with the arborist; some oak trees have root rot problems, and some others are suffering healthwise and have not been properly maintained, resulting in 6 being removed. He said they were concerned about the health of the heritage tree which is not part of the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second lby Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0 to approve Application ASA- 2011 -02 and TR- 2011 -07 OLD BUSINESS: 3. Initial Vision Scenario - Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy Update Aarti Shrivastava: • Explained that the update is provided for informational purposes only, and no action is needed. In 2008 the State legislature enacted SB375 requiring the Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy integrating land use planning and transportation planning. The purpose of the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) is to articulate how the Bay Area region can grow over the next 25 years in a sustainable manner. In order to achieve greenhouse gas goals, the SCS and RHNA will focus on growth that can be funded by transit investments. The MTC puts out a regional transportation plan called the RTP and for the first time they will link that where growth needs to happen. The SCS will also identify housing distribution as well as job distribution. The RHNA will cover an 8 year planning period from 2014 to 2022; the initial vision scenario is a starting point, with comments by mid - May; it builds on partnership they are trying to create because local jurisdictions are going to have to accommodate the housing, they need to ensure that the plans are consistent with what local jurisdictions have. They looked at where jurisdictions were putting growth, ABAG has been doing a lot of work trying to help create PDAs where communities are planning growth and mixed use projects near transit; they are looking at helping to fund these projects, either infrastructure or planning and many communities have applied for that funding. They are also creating planned conservation areas where areas might be conserved for either farming or open space, and that combination is expected to put growth where it needs to go and conserve open space where it needs to be conserved. • She reviewed the informational material. The current regional plans look at a certain amount of growth over time; the increment they expect using this IVS is about 363,700; they expect that there will be a total amount of growth up to 2 million population in the Bay Area; Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have the greatest growth as shown on the map, and a fair amount of growth along transit corridors as well as corridors such as El Camino Real, based on plans that cities have created through their General Plans. Cupertino is expected to have one of the lower percentages of the total growth; primarily because it does not have a lot of transportation in the area; it is lower than was assumed in the 2009 projections when the Planning Commission saw it last. Communities with transit will have more growth. • The WS creates more affordable housing, meets the housing target, the jobs housing transit alignment, because they are trying to locate growth near transit thereby reducing housing costs as well as transportation costs for low income households. The IVS also assumes more growth than the last time so it does bring more people to live in the region; the benefit being if the growth occurs as planned, the people will use more alternative options to get around, but they will still drive; and as a result the greenhouse gas emissions and the vehicle miles traveled go up. The IVS is called an unconstrained model, it looks at demographic projections and growth projections, which triggers the reality check where people see they have other issues coming in and they will look at alternatives to that scenario, and those will be developed and analyzed as Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 12, 2011 well. These are some of the steps that will or have occurred; they are looking at a fair amount of planning director elected official and public involvement; staff has been holding meetings and going to meetings; they have also been connecting with elected officials either through their Board or in Santa Clara County through the Cities Association. The detailed scenario is expected to come out between April and December; the regional RHNA, the methodology of how to calculate the RHNA will come out in July; and they will also talk about the transportation investments discussion in October; all in preparation for the final plan. • Some of the questions they are asking communities include: Do these growth distributions work for a community; if not, how can we do it differently? What resources do counties and jurisdictions need to support growth and how might transportation dollars help jurisdictions who are either taking on growth as well as support open space and agriculture? Most were comments they received early on from communities and they want to make sure they responded to all of these. • Said there was no specific goal or objective for Cupertino; however, they do expect that once the RHNA allocations come out, cities are going to have to absorb a certain amount of housing. It appears that Cupertino will not have more than last time; it is an 8 year plan instead of a 7 year plan. The process has not ended, therefore it is difficult to gage where they will end up. If the SCS falls short of the goal, they must create an alternative community strategy to achieve the goal; they are expecting that one of the alternative scenarios is going to help them get there. • Clarified that the city had to identify the sites, but were not accountable for ensuring that the sites were built on. Affordable housing is different; the city needs to create opportunities with every market rate unit being built. Typically the affordable housing requirements are much higher as a percentage compared to the market rate because it is such a high cost area. There are communities in California where presently the cost of a house is close to what a housing unit might identify as a median or moderate affordable housing unit; which is not the case in many cities in the Bay Area where they require being proactive. • Said there are no requirements for zoning higher than 25 units to the acre, but they identify at what density you can call an area available for affordable housing, which typically has been between 20 to 25 units to the acre. • Reported that the city's numbers were higher for the last RHNA process; 70% of the growth had been located along the corridors and PDAs and other growth opportunity areas identified by cities in cities' plans; leaving another 30% they need to find areas to locate which is where the methodology committee will review and ascertain how it would be disbursed. There may be different RHNA numbers once the methodology comes out and staff will keep the Commission posted. • Relative to state or federal funding, the majority of the funds goes to the MTC for transportation funding; what they are doing as part of that is teaming up with them and people are applying for some funding for the PDAs that they create. Funding will go where the growth areas are, and Cupertino is not one of the focus areas. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said it was a better approach to looking at how much housing Cupertino should take on in the future. Said she felt Cupertino had reached the mature city status; several years ago it was still an orchard land, with parts of the city still ir, the county and some still under agriculture and orchard. She speculated that Cupertino would reach the point of having shopping districts, high tech centers, school areas, parks, etc. and not be by any major traffic corridors; therefore things would slow down. Cupertino has reached major buildout areas, and more housing that comes in needs to be studied carefully especially if someone outside the city says they must build. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission E April 12, 2011 NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Lee reported that the Sunflower Learning Center, a day care center, would be coming to the Planning Commission to request addition of a playground. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Brophy reported: • Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee: has a transportation plan that is to go to the City Council; however due to timeline of meeting, it was postponed. Working on crosswalk; they are continuing to work at the Foothill 280 intersection where there are existing traffic problems for bicyclists. Currently the City of Los Altos is working with VTA on restriping the area by the interchange. • Parks and Rec: April 23 Big Bunny Fun Run; May 7 Cupertino Day at Blackberry Farm, free BBQ and swimming to open the summer season at Blackberry Farm; Shakespeare in the Park will be running a summer drama camp at Union Church. Possible solution to the ongoing issue of feeding the ducks and geese is to put multi - lingual signs asking that visitors not feed the ducks. • TIC: Working on a number of projects such as revenue protection, looking at things such as utility user tax and franchise taxes and how they are affected by changes in technology; looking at cost reductions through technology, such as street light changes using a different bulb; irrigation; and looking at continuity planning. • Public Safety Commission: Primary focus is on the bicycle and pedestrian issues; increase in bike riding at Kennedy, issue of getting more crossing guards. • Teen Commission: Also working on pedestrian issues, with WOW Program, encouraging elementary and middle school students to participate and will be doing similar program for high school students, hoping to set up to be self - sustaining in the future. • Library Commission: Only 6 applications for the Poet Laureate competition were received; deadline for applications has been changed to July 15` Library Foundation is the beneficiary of the Hole In One Contest at the Rotary Evert at Deep Cliff Golf Course on May 13 Rotary Club is also working with Habitat for Humanity for four homes on Cleo Avenue. Also working with Santa Clara Library system to get E- readers for library; also looking at some of the complications of the crosswalk for the library crossing at Torre. Discussion about library hours. Used Book Sale on May 14 and 15 at Library. • City Council: Reconsideration of Bubb Road cell tower was denied; Sixteen students will visit sister city in Taiwan; the traditional visit to Japan was cancelled due to earthquake. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for pril 26, 2011 at 6:45 p. i • , • • Respectfully Submitted: (Vs Elizabeth, s, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: April 26, 2011