Loading...
draft minutes 3-25-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 25, 2008 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Paul Brophy David Kaneda Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Senior Planner: Gary Chao Chairperson Miller welcomed new Planning Commissioner Paul Brophy to the Planning Commission. He expressed appreciation and congratulations to Ciddy Wordell who is retiring effective March 31, 2008, but will continue to work on the Green Building Sustainability Program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to remove Application U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10, (EA-2007-08) from the Consent Calendar for discussion. (Vote: 5-0-0) 1. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10, (EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Homestead Rd. & Wolfe Rd. Review of conditions to Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two-level parking structure. Tentative City Council date: Aprill, 2008 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 25, 2008 Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Said that the intent of bringing the item back on Consent Calendar was for the Planning Commission to review all the conditions directed by the Planning Commission at the March 11 th Planning Commission meeting. · The scope of the meeting should be limited to the Planning Commission's deliberation at the March 11 th meeting. He clarified that changes, modifications and clarifications may be made to the conditions, but no new conditions can be added. Brian Replinger, Kimco Realty, Applicant: · Commented on Item 8 regarding the total parking count of the issues on the agenda. Said they got to the point where they could provide 835 spaces onsite are in discussions with the bank now providing 20 or more at the bank property, for a total of 855. The way the conditions reads is that the parking would be increased at the same percentage as the square footage is approved, so if there is a 22% increase in square footage, parking would be increased by 22%. Our concern is having to provide that onsite; we can get to 855 onsite, but getting the additional 15 to 20 onsite would be problematic and we would like to see if those could be met through an agreed upon parking traffic demand measures if in fact the study referenced later down the road, showed that those spaces would be required. Com. Brophy: · Asked if it meant applicant was proposing that they would not be increasing on site parking to the same percent as the increase in mall space. Brian Replinger: . Said the only way to get the on site parking increased to the 870, if in fact that is the number, is to provide urban type lifts for a portion of the parking. It becomes problematic for a center that does not have full time onsite management, but it is an option they are still willing to pursue, but would like to be able to look at that along with other options. Com. Giefer: · If you implemented a parking management plan that included valet parking and used the structure for valet parking, would you be able to put more cars than that and make up that deficit of 15 to 20 cars. Brian Replinger: . Said it was a possibility, and we have talked internally about doing that for employees also. Again, you could park the top south of the garage in a very dense urban parking type field to get the cars in and increase the capacity. That is an option internally that is looking favorable. Valet parking would be the preference during the heavy hours. Chair Miller: · Said he was surprised to learn at the last meeting that the church held activities on the center's busiest day on Saturday afternoon. Do you have any sense on an ongoing basis, how many parking spaces the church goers take up on the busy days, and whether or not it is possible to adjust the hours they do business so that the peaks do not coincide. Brian Replinger: · Said the two traffic studies done did look at the property on Saturday during the high use period, and that was the time they found the lot parked at full capacity. It was not identified how many were church goers. They have not talked to the church about any specifics, but told Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 25, 2008 them before that if it is possible to do, they would maintain the status quo allowing them to park in the lot; and if it is something they have to address further, they would discuss it with the church. · Said they would like to keep the offsite parking option open to consider; the way it is now worded they would be required to keep it onsite. The preference would be to keep it onsite since that is what they would have the greatest control over for the longest period of time. Chair Miller: · Asked staff if this is the kind of change that fits in with the requirements of what can be discussed tonight. Gary Chao: . Said the Commission was clear last time that they specified that the total percent of increase of parking supply shall equal to or greater than the increase of square footage, but it wasn't specified as to how that could be accomplished. Based on staffs interpretation of that condition, if we were to stop right there, lifts would be an option to accommodate. During the discussion you had also discussed with the applicant about restriping or reconfiguring the parcel, I think a number was assigned to that based on the project's architect, all those were considered and it could go towards staff s finding that the intent which is to match the increase of square footage. With that in mind, it would be your interpretation if you want to further specify how they can achieve that; in our opinion has to be measurable meaning if you allow them to use some PDM, i.e., valet parking, that is probably more measurable because you could literally count how many employees or customers are being valet parked to a certain area offsite those are measurable. It could be further clarified if the desire is to include languages to direct them how they could achieve that 20% or match the increase of square footage. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: . Said if they could interpret it as increasing stalls in some way, either through valet parking, lifts or offsite, if they could make that connection, they were in sound area. Com. Giefer: . In the model resolution parking 5 point No. 17, it does actually speak specifically about stalls on that one. As an example if we were to add after we hear the public testimony and the rest of the testimony, whatever we felt was appropriate, such as valet parking or offsite parking, would that type of language be appropriate. Gary Chao: . As long as they are measurable; those are the key. You can translate them into some type of stall equivalency or some stall discount to make the formula work. Com. Rose: . How much square footage would they need to reduce to not have to do the 22 stalls. (Answer: Numbers are not available at the meeting) Is it an impact on the project or would it make the problem go away if they cut the square footage that is causing the 22 stalls to be required. Gary Chao: . Said it is more complicated because they have various options of slashing square feet; they could take it from the office, from retail, or from the restaurant, and the combination of everything. It depends; it could eliminate the need for the stalls; that was part of the discussion last time as an option. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 25, 2008 Chair Miller opening the public comment period. David Chapman, President of Trustee, Good Samaritan United Methodist Church read a letter to the Planning Commission into the record: · "Subject: In response to the request to expand the Cupertino Village Shopping Center in the three plans. The Good Samaritan United Methodist Church approves the expansion of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center; the church has a parking agreement with the Cupertino Village owner Kimco. Kimco has stated that they will honor that parking agreement; the church has requested a modification of the play yard wall and the position of the access gate into that parking area behind Ranch 99 building. These requested modifications have been incorporated into the City of Cupertino Planning Department conditional use and consent item statement. Given that the above items will be observed, the church has no objection to the expansion of Cupertino Village as documented, and in fact, enthusiastically supports it. The church believes this project will be a win/win situation for Kimco, the church, the residential neighbors and the patrons of Cupertino Village. We appreciate the City of Cupertino's efforts to ensure that all parties reasonable needs are achieved." (Signed by David Chapman) Chair Miller: · Said that much of the discussion centered on the peak time for parking. Does that coincide with church activities on a regular basis? Do you know how many spaces the church takes up on a regular basis inside the shopping center on a Saturday afternoon? David Chapman: · Said that church activities vary on Saturdays depending on the event. They have not had problems in the past with finding sufficient parking spaces on church property plus the additional parking per the agreement with Cupertino Village. Said that the usage depends on the size of the activity on the Saturday afternoon, such as wedding, funeral or whether it is just a shopping day. Mohan Raj, Member of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church: . Said he supports the project. . He reiterated the need for the 8 foot wall by the school yard. . Said the church is active in the community with a variety of offerings as well as religious services and activities. Dean Fujiwara, Cupertino resident: · Said there was soil contamination at the shopping center, specifically by the old dry cleaner facility. The Department of Toxic Substance Control has communicated with Planning staff; there was a work notice done on February 25, 2008 and according to an email I sent to the agency, DTSC, they referred me back to Gary Chao and Steve Piasecki stating that they sent the information to them. This means that the public does not have any information about the toxic substance or the cleanup action or health hazard because we don't know what the contaminant does to humans and according to some of my internet research, it says that PCE could cause cancer or may not. As a neighbor residing across the street, having concern for the day care children next to it and concern with the customers of the shopping center if the contamination is in the soil. The construction may stir up the contamination and we the public would like to know how it is going to affect us; whether or not you are going to guarantee that we will be safe; because Kimco Realty and the DTSC came into agreement that says entry into this agreement provides Cupertino Village LLP with immunity from liability for certain Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 25,2008 hazardous material response costs and damage claims. You are about ready to approve a project and there may be environmental questions of which no environmental report was given to the public, even though it was asked by the public for the report and the public still does not know how that is going to affect their health. · The second concern is there is talk about making the second story of the parking structure valet parking or for the employees. Please consider the neighbors when deciding that because late at night when the employees finish work, there will be a lot of noise and the parking structure is open. At the present time there are loud stereo base noises that comes from the parking lot at 10:30 to 11 :00 p.m.; with a parking structure for employees it may increase the noise in the neighborhood. May Huong, Cupertino resident: . Said many in the neighborhood asked her to pass on the message that they were disappointed that the petition was recommended, but they had to accept it with no choice. . Asked that the Commission make sure the ratio between the retail and parking is kept up; the neighborhood is already taking in the overflow cars; if you keep the same ratio, it would not Improve. . The neighborhood requests that the parking be monitored. Said that many center patrons park on the street without checking the parking garage to see if it is full first. They presume there are no parking spaces available and park on the street. . Relative to the ground contamination, the parking lot is only a few feet from the previous dry cleaner facility. Digging up the space to build the garage is close to the church and the residents. Clean up the area first before digging, so that the patrons of the center, neighborhood residents and children atthe preschool are not put in danger. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: . Confirmed that the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is in the process of evaluating and investigating any ground and water contamination at the former Cupertino Village dry cleaner site. Staff has met with DTSC and the property owner will have to satisfy whatever conclusion the DTSC reaches as a result of their investigation, regardless of the proposed project or not. It is disclosed in the CEQA document which is part of the staff report, and is available to the public. He said that the contaminated area will not be stirred up with the new construction. During its investigation, the DTSC were not concerned about the proximity of the garage to the contaminated area. . Relative to the question about employee parking on the second level, whether it would create noise and light intrusion into the neighborhood; the new conditions directed by the Commission to staff at the last meeting related to the noise attenuation being implemented, so any noise will be buffered down to an acceptable level and reviewed by a noise consultant prior to issuing the building permit. Staff is satisfied that the noise buffering function will be implemented. The applicant hired a lighting engineer to ensure that the fixtures proposed would be cast downward and none of the casts of light will be on the property. As there are only one aisle and two rows of parking, the opportunity for the car lights to be cast over are minimal. Com. Rose: . When we talked about this before, it was clear based on personal experience of that shopping area and visits to the site, as well as comments from the community and commissioners, that parking is already a huge problem. Recommendations were carefully made to ensure that the minimum parking requirements would be met. In moving forward or re-examining this today, Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 25,2008 we need to be certain we don't look back and compromise any of those numbers or decisions we previously made. As options, the offsite parking was the least feasible; the lift had some requirements with supervision; and it appeared the valet service would be the best option to mitigate the parking issue. Com. Kaneda: · Relative to the parking issue, he said he was not inclined to relax the parking requirements; if anything, they should be stricter. He recommended that the owner decide the best way to provide the parking, whether by valet parking or lifts. He said he felt offsite parking would be problematic. Com. Giefer: · Said that the issue is where to get the extra 15 parking spaces. She said the way Cupertino Village could make peace with its neighbors is to have as much onsite parking as possible and free up Linnet Lane and the adjacent neighborhood streets. She said she was not in favor of decreasing the total amount of spaces required for the project; she was flexible on how they provide the parking spaces. The applicant has a preference for valet parking which is not a permanent structural solution. The church also had concerns about anchoring the urban lifts in the space adjacent to their preschool area because of the noise they create. She concurred that they need to keep the parking in place and allow the applicant to solve that by providing valet parking which is more flexible, and they would be able to work with that through the peaks and valleys of their patronage. Said she felt comfortable about the noise attenuation, but felt the applicant needs to consider the adjacent neighbors; perhaps they should reconsider the valet employees vs. patrons; how that parking structure is used, but I think through usage they can come to some agreement on that. · The other issue was the mitigation of the toxicity. The DTSC is in charge and if there was a problem, they would be addressing it with the Commission. . Said she would support modifying Condition No. 17 regarding parking supply, and adding verbiage that they must meet through devices such as valet parking, urban lifts or offsite parking. Com. Brophy: . Said that he would abstain on the final vote as he was not on the Planning Commission during discussion of the application. . He said he felt an arrangement with the bank for offsite parking would be the most feasible means to get overflow parking to relieve the pressure on the adjacent neighborhood and make the center work better. He said he was concerned about using the top of a parking deck for employee parking because of the noise created in the neighborhood when they leave the facility at the end oftheir work day. . Cupertino Village is a busy center and it is important that any solution agreed upon make sure we feel comfortable there is enough parking, not only for the adjoining neighborhood but also for the existing tenants. Chair Miller: . We want to ensure there is sufficient parking there, but I have no objection to you addressing that in any way that makes sense, whether the solutions we discussed, offsite parking or valet parking or lifts. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 March 25,2008 Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, to modify ASA-2007-10, U-2007-06, the clauses in both that pertain to parking, which is No. 17 in both; with added language that specifies how they might improve their parking; after the first sentence add "through valet parking or offsite parking; urban lifts will require additional review by the Planning Commission to achieve their total count." Com. Kaneda: . Said he did not want to tie it down to two specific items; if there is a problem with urban lifts, say put a condition on urban lifts, but hesitate to say that it has to be valet parking or offsite in case they decide they can find a couple of places by restriping in some other place that we haven't discovered yet, or change around the landscaping and do something that will create additional spaces, and then we put a condition on that there are only certain ways that they are allowed to find spacing. I would look to the architect and designer to get creative and figure out how to solve the problem, and put the condition on them to solve the problem. Steve Piasecki: . Suggested the language "parking capacity" instead of parking spaces, because if they do a valet system, then it relieves the capacity to park the vehicles and doesn't have to physically be a space. You could say "including but not limited to" the three identified. Com. Giefer: . Said she would withdraw her motion, but thought staff wanted specific remedies added to that. Steve Piasecki: . I would stay with the remedies that you suggested, just that in case they come up with something else, I don't know what that would be. Chair Miller: . I agree with Com. Kaneda, we want to leave it flexible so that they can get creative. However, Com. Giefer's comments bring up another question. When I go through a notice, all the items that are coming back, and they are all coming back to the DRC, the question in my mind is that so many things are going to be reviewed again, that does it make more sense to bring it directly to the Planning Commission. Com. Rose: . It is a public issue and it might be good to have the resolution in a public forum that people will see. Com. Giefer: . Withdrew original motion, and suggested the following: Motion by Com. Giefer, to amend language Under parking supply: "the total percent of increase in the proposed parking capacity shall equal or be greater than the proposed percent of increase in building square footage; including such options as valet parking, or offsite or other dense types of parking, to meet the parking demand." She said she was not particular where it goes unless urban lifts are part of it; it is a new way for us to solve a parking problem that we should all be more educated on. Second by Com. Kaneda. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Brophy abstained) Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 25,2008 PUBLIC HEARING 2. M-2007-01 Masayoshi Fujioka Kikusushi Restaurant 1655 So. DeAnza Blvd Six-month review of a Modification to a Use Permit (20-U -99) to extend the hours of operation of an existing restaurant to 9:30 p.m. (with patrons/employees leaving by 11:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday and 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday (with patrons/employees leaving by 1:00 a.m.) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Ciddy Wordell presented the staffreport: · Explained that the application was for a six-month review of the previous modification to a Use Permit since they were allowed an extension of hours over the original Use Permit. If the Planning Commission agrees to allow the use, the hours will continue. At the time the hours were extended, the neighbors presented some concerns related to the heating/air conditioning system, parking lot lighting and some of the issues they had with the previous tenant who had created some problems with them partly because they had an entertaining use. When the hours were extended the restaurant owner explained that there was no entertainment in the restaurant. The Planning Commission added some conditions to help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors about keeping doors closed, looking into the lighting and ventilation systems. She reported that they have not received any complaints about the current operation, · A concern about the parking lot sweeping was mitigated by changing the time of sweeping to later in the morning. The light poles were installed previously without a building permit; staff would like it clarified as a condition of the Use Permit continuing that the lighting has to be changed to conform to the original Use Permit so that the glare does not go onto the residential neighborhood. The noise complaint regarding the heating/ventilation system was investigated and it was found to conform to the noise ordinance. · The restaurant is complying with the parking regulations related to not parking in the lot after 8 p.m. which is adjacent to the residences. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow the continuation of the modification and condition it on the lighting standards conforming to the original Use Permit. Scott Halen, Manager of Kikusushi Restaurant, Applicant: · Said he discussed the lighting situation with the property owner. He clarified that the lighting poles were raised about 9 years ago and are in conjunction with the entire shopping center and are timed to go on at a certain time. There are different lights on the restaurant that face Prospect Road that can be turned off and on manually by the restaurant. They are the brighter of the lights and are shut off when the restaurant closes. He said he informed the property owner that the neighbors had complained about the lighting system. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that it was the city's responsibility to follow up with the property owner, not the applicant. Staff will follow up with the property owner to have them conform Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application M-2007-01. (Vote: 5-0-0). OLD BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 9 March 25,2008 NEW BUSINESS: 3. Planning Commission 2008 Work Program Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report: . Said that the annual work plan is based on the goals of the City Council which are included in the agenda packet. Some projects are carried over from the previous year and there are new ones. It includes both city-initiated projects and private projects and building permits. · Major items include the General Plan Housing Element which are the numbers from ABAG in terms of having adequate sites for the regional share of housing. Numbers were received last Fall, have been approved and the Housing Element must be amended by June 2009 to include the adequate sites in the different income categories. Some proposals are being considered from consultants who will assist in making amendments; they will prepare the draft through the summer and would be prepared to attend public workshops in the Fall, which would include Planning Commission conducting the workshops and coming back with actual amendments in early Winter and Spring, and projecting adoption in May. · Another large project is the Green Building Sustainability Project. The City Council authorized earlier for the city to begin a voluntary green building program where applicants for building permits are informed they need to complete checklists for building green and the LEED program to show what they are doing voluntarily to provide some of the green building practices. . The Historical Preservation project is a city initiated project. Last year the City Council indicated they wanted the Planning Commission to look again if there were other areas, sites or buildings that might be added to the non-residential historical list. They asked that a Committee be formed to add to the list and make recommendations as to how the structures or sites might be preserved, commemorated or memorialized. A call for volunteers was sent our and as yet a full committee has not been formed. As soon as the committee is complete, the City Council would review the list and work will begin on the research of the sites and best way to address preservation or commemoration. It will come back to the Planning Commission in the Fall. . Private projects include the Santo Properties South Vallco Master Plan. Mailings have been sent to the public inviting them to meet with a facilitator to share ideas and issues on coordinating the projects of the new development with Cupertino Square and the Rosebowl site, and the actual public hearings associated with the proposal for the 17 acres on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Another large private project is the Oaks Shopping Center which will be presented to the Planning Commission soon for a proposal for a hotel, eliminating some of the retail to accommodate the hotel. Com. Giefer: . Asked if the Rosebowl project on Page 3-6, would come back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the project previously and that project has since been sold. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it would not come back for further approval. The City Council looked at it recently and with some conditions determined that it was in substantial compliance with the previous approval with the architectural and site approval that they had gone through in 2005. There were some minor changes which will be processed as staff level changes. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 March 25,2008 Com. Giefer: · Reoalled how thorough the Planning Commission was to get what was perceived as the bedroom count correct, to have the least family or child enrollment in the school district. Was Council aware of that at the time of their review? Steve Piasecki: · Said Council was aware of it, and they asked that the applicant match the bedroom count no more. They held the line on that. Com. Giefer: · Page 3-20 of the agenda packet contains the sign code review. She said she recalled working on the sign code review last year. Ciddy Wordell: · Said it was addressed last year; but City Council is considering the possibility of doing more. The first thing that would come thru would be looking at some of the portable A Frame signs, perhaps allowing them to be up more than currently allowed. Temporary signs can be up 120 days per year; however, there may be times when restaurants want to publicize menu changes. That particular element of sign program will come sooner. There was also interest in having more generous SIzes. Com. Giefer: · Noted that on Page 3-24, Go Green category had nothing listed. Ciddy Wordell: · Stated that the second paragraph explained what will be done; the building permits either for Builder Green or LEED or something similar. It would be some type of mandatory compliance. Phase 1 Global Green did identify other programs that Cupertino can be considering, which will come back in May. Chair Miller: · Said that since the sign ordinance was reviewed, a new Business Development Manager has been hired who has brought some new insights into the sign program which are worth considering. · Asked for more specific details on the plans for the Housing Element to hold workshops and public hearing; how the process will be defined. Ciddy Wordell: · Said that a consultant would be selected and meetings would be held to use their expertise on how to involve the public. The scope includes several community meetings and Planning Commission workshops as well as public hearings. . She noted that the RFP for a consultant has already been sent out. Chair Miller: · Referred to a memo Memo entitled "Annual review and implementation of General Plan policies." State law requires that the city provide an annual report on the General Plan's progress and implementation including meeting its regional housing needs and local efforts to remove government constraints to maintain, improve and develop housing. This review will also serve as mitigation as the mitigation program required by CEQA. Is that something that is part of our plan for this year. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 March 25,2008 Ciddy Wordell: . Said that it would be scheduled later in the year with the new City Planner. Chair Miller: . Reported that he attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting, where the school district presented a plan to go out for a bond issue to expand their facilities; and they also discussed a project to install solar panels on all five school sites and generate approximately 5.6 megawatts of electricity. They presented a study they had commissioned in terms of what their expectations were with respect to attendance between now and 2016. They came up with a number of 11,000, presently it is at 10,275 students. They were looking for funds to expand the facilities to do that. It is important from the Planning Commission standpoint and also given that the community is sensitive to housing issues that if there is a plan to expand the available space for students, that it coincides with the city's housing plans. . Said the numbers were based on trends in existing housing as well as the expectation for new units coming out of the cities they service. The pipeline of elementary age students was included as well. . Relative to the school district's plan to go out for a bond issue, he suggested that the Planning Commission address the projections sooner in the event the projections are substantially different than the school district's, resulting in the school district wanting to increase their bond issue in order to accommodate additional development activity that the city may have. . He suggested that the city consider putting solar panels on buildings and investigate programs to promote solar use on other businesses and residents as well. He said that green building standards are good, but the larger payback is in what can be done in an incentive program to encourage solar on existing structures. He recommended expanding the green building program on the work program to include a broader emphasis and conduct work study sessions on solar and other energy saving issues. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that it could be included as part of the work program if the Planning Commission chose to do so. Com. Giefer: . Commented on a bond issue that the City of Berkeley attempted to do to help subsidize residents to generate their own solar, which caused the solar industry to leave Berkeley because there was no money in it for them. She said that more information is needed on the program. In the City of Berkeley's instance, everything was going to be done through the city, with the city as the customer as opposed to the residents. It would not have been profitable for the solar companies. Com. Kaneda: . Said there are substantial tax credits for tax paying entities as well as state incentives for energy saving programs. He said for schools it is more problematic. . He agreed with Chair Miller that it was an excellent idea to have more discussion on solar energy and other energy efficient possibilities for all sectors. . He said he was in favor of Cupertino taking a more aggressive role in combating global warming and ultimately in the longer term reducing their own energy costs. Chair Miller: . Said that the benefit of doing the bond issue is that a public agency can get money cheaper than going to the private sector. The idea is to lower the barrier to purchase, which is the high up-front costs. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 March 25,2008 Com. Brophy: · Agreed that it was important to look at the numbers seriously and do a financial analysis to see if it may payoff. Com. Rose: · Said that her understanding of Berkeley's attempt at the solar energy plan was that everyone who was in the process of pursuing putting in solar stopped to wait to see what the plan was for financial support from the city, which created a lull in the group who might normally have moved forward. . Said that she supported solar energy, and felt it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to give people options they might need to have soon. She noted that many of the roof designs on Cupertino homes prevented homeowners from using solar panels. Chair Miller: · Summarized that all agreed that the Issue of solar energy should be added to the work program. Steve Piasecki: · Said that timing is important; currently the city is in the process of going through budget hearings. He said that the City Council is considering hiring a green person who may become the point person to work with other staff members as a team as needed. He said the new position would likely take effect in July. Minute Order: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to forward a Minute Order to City Council urging the City Council to include allocations in the upcoming budget to focus on green building programming and a staff person to assist with green programs, and training of Planning Department and Building Department staff. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller: . Recalled an application for a house on Vye Avenue in 2007, relating to a large house that was within all the city guidelines, the key one being the 45% rule. Staff approved it and there were many resident concerns and it came to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission approved it; and the City Council cut the square footage back to 35%. He said in his mind it created some ambiguity in the ordinance which did not exist before. He questioned whether the Planning Commission wanted to address that and revisit the Rl ordinance just with respect to that particular issue and the uncertainty and the less prescriptive that it made the Rl ordinance. Com. Brophy: . Said his background was in real estate development and city planning consulting for most of his career. He said what irritates most people is there is not a clear cut line of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. In the case of the Rl zoning, the 45% number for Cupertino is quite high compared to other similar communities that Cupertino would be compared to. If this is the time to think about it, I would seriously look at the possibility of looking at that number of what is an appropriate number so that people can have a sense that both applicants know they cannot build above a certain size, but that if they do come in at that size, the Planning Commission and City Council will accept it. Presently there is a feeling that projects come in, and whether they eventually get approved by the Commission or the Cupertino Planning Commission 13 March 25, 2008 Council is a function of how many neighbors show up to complain. That seems the wrong way to do business; it is not fair to either side. Com. Kaneda: . Said he agreed. He resides on Vye Avenue and recused himself. He said he found it disturbing that certain types of issues, such as the balcony issue, where the decision is not made based on what is necessarily right or wrong, but made on whether or not a neighbor chooses to take exception to something. He said he felt it was unfair to make decisions where in one house, you would make a decision to go one way because none of the neighbors said anything; and then an exact same situation, a decision goes in the opposite direction purely because a group of neighbors for whatever reasons complain and the decision goes the other way. It seems like the public process is not working when that happens, and it happens frequently. Com. Giefer: . Asked for an approximately percentage of remodeling, new construction applications received; how many come to either DRC or the Planning Commission for review. Ciddy Wordell: . Estimated that there would be 50 two-story homes each year; the ones going to DRC would be requesting exceptions such as setbacks. In the past year there have only been a few; the remaining were appeals. Less than 10 per year would go to DRC or the Planning Commission. Com. Giefer: . Said that as one of the two Planning Commissioners who worked on the current Rl ordinance, there were some ideas that at that time, we were not interested in pursuing as a sitting body. One of them was having a maximum home size and the other idea that was put in as a control to what we are talking about is neighborhood compatibility. She recalled the reason for the clause of making a reasonable effort striving towards neighborhood compatibility, was so that if we had a house that was too large for a neighborhood or did not fit in with it at all, the decision could be made as a group without having to reconsider what the floor area ratio was between the structure and the home. That was the control mechanism we put in the Rl at that time. We had one decision where the house was too large for the neighborhood; it didn't fit in as part of the neighborhood compatibility; that is the rule that proves the control we put into the R 1. She said she was not sure she wanted to revisit that; it is a very difficult and arduous process; and staff time and what is on everyone's plate needs to be considered carefully. Com. Brophy: . The problem with a neighborhood compatibility rule; you are saying it is not in the Rl zoning, but it seems to come back informally if neighbors complain. Ciddy Wordell: . Noted that neighborhood compatibility is listed as a design guideline for two-story single family. It is a subjective reference that people use to protest and say it is not compatible. Com. Brophy: . That seems to be the issue that Com. Kaneda was raising, is that it is an opening to either approve or deny a project based on factors that if you are on the losing side, may seen arbitrary and unreasonable. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 March 25,2008 Chair Miller: . Said he agreed. The value of a piece of property is in the number of square feet that you can build on it. When someone purchases or wants to develop, if they have no idea what is ultimately going to be acceptable, it makes it very difficult. We have neighbors that come in and say they don't more than a certain amount, and whether they realize it or not, by reducing that amount, they are actually lowering their property values; and you also lower your property values by having uncertainty in terms of what you can or cannot do with the property. To the extent that we can make it more prescriptive, it serves a good purpose. He said he was not suggesting they try to solve it tonight. · We spent a long time reviewing the R 1 ordinance, and part of the reason we spent so long is we reviewed the entire ordinance; however, we have since reviewed the hillside ordinance with respect to Lindy Lane and that spent only a couple of hearings on. To the extent that we could define very clearly what we are going to look at and not going to look at, there may be an opportunity to fix what he considers to be a hole in the ordinance presently; and is created by the precedent that the Council set with regard to the specific application. Com. Giefer: . Said she felt the Rl ordinance was highly prescriptive, which was one of the things the sitting Planning Commission felt was the right solution as opposed to DRC. That is the other alternative like the City of Palo Alto where you have aFAR that you can build to, but it needs to be architecturally distinguished and there are flaws in that system as well. Morgan Hill has a bakeoff, you have to have to come in with the best design and that is who they choose. When we evaluated Rls for comparing ours to other cities, we have a highly prescriptive one, so I am not sure unless we say this is the type of house you can build in Cupertino; that we are going to ever have something that is completely prescriptive enough, and if we make it too prescriptive, it takes all the creativity out of the process. If we were to move forward on the RI, I think there are other things that merit cleanup in the RI as well. Part of the Rl also talks about ancillary shed structures, that they have to be 6 feet from your common fenceline, which probably should be removed from it as no one has their shed 6 feet from their fenceline. I don't know whether we can open up just the FAR aspect of it without also saying what does neighborhood compatibility means. If we want to define what neighborhood compatibility is or if we want to get rid of that, that is the design guidelines that we have. I think before we say we want to do this on our work program, we need to all sit down and re-read the Rl to see if there are other things as well. Chair Miller: . Said he was suggesting a limited scope in terms of looking at the FAR because that is the issue that was addressed. He said he was not suggesting they change the neighborhood compatibility which would engender a far greater amount of discussion. What we have done in the past is we have addressed specific issues with respect to the ordinance and kept that to a limited discussion. Given staff resources this year and the other things on our plate, I don't know that we have the time or resources to do a wider discussion. He said he brought it up as an issue which was created by this precedent on this application and wanted to see if there was support on the Commission for addressing just this particular issue and trying to fix this particular problem. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that R 1 has been at the top of the issues since 2000 when Rancho Rinconada annexed and prior to the annexation. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 March 25,2008 . R1 is a very large can of worms; presently it is a strong ordinance which is a model for many cities. Cupertino has a very prescriptive, well reviewed R1 ordinance. Vye Avenue was a different kettle of fish; there was a virgin neighborhood of ranch homes, with established homeowners in the neighborhood for many years. The home that was proposed to go in would have fit in other neighborhoods, but looked unusual in the tract of ranch houses. The homeowners were going to go to a one-story overlay if the city had not done something to try to take care of the problem. She said she did not feel it was a good example to use to reopen 45% for Cupertino. There are other things that need to be done first. Steve Piasecki: . Said that the comprehensive update of the R1 ordinance took 4+ years and thousands of staff hours. The central issue was floor area ratio; even if that was pulled out of it and focus was on FAR, he said there would be a replication which will be a tremendous drain on resources. The Vye house was bumped out to the public process because of the size relative to the neighborhood. We now have a Council precedent that says they are concerned about homes relatively that large compared to neighborhoods. He said he would continue to bump out houses that come in that are in that proportionate range. If it is more than 100% larger than the neighbor's, it will go through a public process. He said they have treated the Council decision as a precedent and will advise applicants in similar situations. . Ms. Griffin commented that they were looking at a one-story overlay. Every neighborhood has the ability to come into the city and identify their uniqueness and work with us as we did with the Fairgrove neighborhood where they needed specific rules and that was brought up during the Vye hearings as well. They could have chosen to come in and say they were ranch, predominantly one story; you need to look ranch and predominantly one story. . He suggested that the Planning Commission continue to monitor it, they have raised a good point; and we may come to a point where we have to reopen this. This is not something in the scope of what the City Council has authorized in their work program. If you decided to go there, I would need to go to them and say do you want to do this as well. He said he felt they would want to continue to work with what there is. Chair Miller: . Said he felt it was an issue which should be addressed. He said he understood the issue of limited resources and that the City Council would need to support it. He recommended that it be added to the work program as a low priority that could be done if some of the other items get postponed or pushed out, and there is time to fit it in. He also encouraged that they specifically limit the scope and take it back to the City Council to see if there is interest in pursuing it. He said he felt there would be interest from the Council. Com. Rose: . Said that in her neighborhood which is considered to be in transition, there were about 6 homes close to her that are being completely rebuilt; and she did not see a lot of fuss in the neighborhood about what is happening. She said she did not necessarily agree if it was a big problem. The current ordinance has language that allows looking at the issues and there is a process with the Planning Department and Planning Commission that allows the Planning Commission to help neighbors to work through it. . If we want to make an impact on the neighborhoods, the focus should be on making the building code require green requirements, or at least green capabilities, so that in future years when residents are faced with energy costs higher than present, they will have options on how to environmentally address those concerns. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 March 25, 2008 Chair Miller: · Said he agreed that the highest priority should be what she discussed, and his suggestion was a lower priority. Com. Brophy: · Said one of the most effective ways of having more energy efficient homes is not to have them so large. He said what is heard consistently, is big house on small lots. A FAR number that is more in keeping with other communities do in this area, would probably do more to reduce energy use in new homes than anything else. He agreed that the kind of designs built make it more difficult to implement solar energy down the road and needs to be addressed. Com. Rose: · Said they were not certain at this time how the FAR would be affected by the discussion; they do not know if it will be reduced or changed. Chair Miller: · Said that he was coming forward stating that we had an ordinance that had a certain amount of prescriptiveness to it; and the ordinance by this precedent has less prescriptiveness to it. He said that he was suggesting that one solution would be to lower the FAR. He suggested that it be a low priority project because of possible staff priorities and their ability to take on more projects.. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to add as a low priority item, discussion of the first and second floor area ratio to the 2008 work program. Com. Giefer: · Said that they would not just talk about a potential change in FAR but would also have to tackle the first, second FAR because they spent a great deal of time talking about the practical aspect of getting 3 bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom downstairs. It is very lengthy process to have that discussion and get the public testimony on what the best match is. Chair Miller: . Said he did not agree with that; and he was concerned about expanding the scope too much at this point. He said the second floor area ratio is a separate issue and the question is whether or not we want to address it at this point. It doesn't enter into the discussion with what happened with Vye Avenue and a potential solution can take all kinds of forms which doesn't have to impact the ratio between the first and second floor. Com. Giefer: · Said she felt it was naive for them to move ahead and think that they would not address that as well. A lot of time was spent on what the practical implications are of the very prescriptive methodology put in place on this. It would have to include both in mind. That is not to say we shouldn't examine this; I want everybody to understand what it is we are talking about. . Chair Miller: · Reiterated that they disagreed on the issue. He proposed it as a low priority item and if it is getting into extended discussion it could be rolled over to the following year. The reason for proposing it is because it is an issue and he wanted to see if there is support in addressing the issue at this time. (Vote: 3-2-0; Com. Rose No, Com. Giefer No) Cupertino Planning Commission 17 March 25,2008 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting. Housine Commission: . The main focus of the meeting was a proposed project for transitional housing for battered women primarily of South Asian descent. Discussed focused on funding sources and eligibility. Mavor's Monthlv Meetine with Commissioners: No Meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . Reported on his attendance with Kelly Kline, Economic Development Manager, at the International Conference of Shopping Centers in Monterey. The conference is also utilized for owners and tenants to get together and make deals on properties. . He reminded Commissioners of the League of California Cities inservice on Wednesday through Friday. City Council member Mark Santora will be attending as well. . Reported that he received an email from a Cupertino resident commenting on the beauty of the blossoms along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He commented on the history of the display and the efforts of the people who made the annual event so successful. . Presented a staffing update, and invited the Planning Commission to join the celebration after the meeting to commemorate Ciddy Wordell's retirement. He expressed congratulations to Ms. Wordell and noted her accomplishments during her tenure as City Planner. Com. Giefer: . Congratulated Ms. Wordell on her retirement and thanked her for her efforts, particularly as a member of the General Plan Task Force. She said she was looking forward to continuing to work with her on task forces. Com. Kaneda: . Congratulated Ms. Wordell on her retirement and expressed his appreciation for her efforts on the Sustainability Task Force. He said he looked forward to working with her on the task force. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 8, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary