Loading...
PC Packet 01-17-2017CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, January 17, 2017 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber PLANNING COMMISSION 6:45 PM Special Meeting NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino Planning Commission is hereby called for Tuesday, January 17, 2017, commencing at 6:45 p.m., Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, "Special Meeting." SPECIAL MEETING SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Approval of Draft Minutes of September 27, 2016 Recommended Action: approve or modify Draft Minutes of September 27, 2016 Draft Minutes of September 27, 2016 2.Subject: Approval of Draft Minutes of October 25, 2016 Recommended Action: approve or modify Draft Minutes of October 25, 2016 Draft Minutes of October 25, 2016 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO January 17, 2017Planning Commission AGENDA This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 3.Subject: A Hillside Exception to allow the construction of a new 3,202 square foot single family residence on slopes greater than 30%; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 6 specimen size Oak trees to facilitate the construction of the new residence; Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed . Application No(s).: EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70 (EA-2014-08); Applicant(s): Amy Cheng; Location: 22823 San Juan Road APN#342-22-078 Recommended Action: Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration Approve the applications per the draft resolutions Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff Report 1 - EXC-2014-15 Draft Resolution 2 - TR-2014-70 Draft Resolution 3 - Initial Study, ERC recommendation 4 - Plan Set OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO January 17, 2017Planning Commission AGENDA If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an action taken by the planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning Commission meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org. Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 TUESDAY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2016, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Alan Takahashi. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Alan Takahashi Vice Chairperson: Margaret Gong Commissioner:Don Sun Commissioner: Geoff Paulsen Commissioner: Winnie Lee Staff Present: Assistant Community Development Director: Benjamin Fu Senior Planner:Catarina Kidd Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the August 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Paulsen and carried 4-0-1, Vice Chair Gong abstained, to approve the August 9, 2016 Planning Commission minutes as presented. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. ASA-2016-07, TR-2016-38 Remodel of the existing Target store and parking lot with Brian Lorenz (WD Partners for associated amenities and landscaping Target) 20745 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 2 Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: She referred to the visual presentation and reviewed the background/site content, General Plan and zoning, proposal elements, south elevation, east elevation, transportation/parking, multi-modal access, pedestrian circulation and vehicle circulation, for the remodel of the existing target store and parking lot with associates amenities and landscaping. The existing store will not be increased in square footage, some pieces on the site are being remodeled and some amenities added to the proposal. She reviewed the architecture/site plan which includes front entry relocation, façade changes on all elevations, creation of outdoor plazas, new pavement, new landscaping, solar panels, rainwater catchment system and order pick up area. Pervious pavers are for the parking spaces only and not for the drive aisles. The remodeled façade will be on all four sides of the property and visuals will be discussed. There will be a curbside pickup area to facilitate that type of use on the west side; rainwater catchment system will promote reduced use of potable water for watering of landscape. Solar panels are proposed for the center of the existing roof. There is a condition of approval that two infill panels along the Stevens Creek Blvd façade shall be dedicated to art; and other sculptures placed on site that are visible in public areas shall be reviewed and considered based on aesthetic considerations and maintenance requirements She reviewed the elevations as shownin the staff report. She noted that the open space does exceed the minimum requirements which is positive for an existing development. Relative to parking, it is a Planned Development zone; applicants have the ability to request a ratio different than what is prescribed in the zoning code, the traditional ratio is 1 to 250; the parking study was required and the analysis included looking at peak parking demand on Saturdays for this property, and based on looking at the parking demand as well as the programming, site design and the commercial context, the parking study concluded that there is sufficient parking as proposed which is a reduced ratio of 1 to 303. The other commercial location there is shared access and shared parking across three parcels for this project. The commercial used there share parking; there is no residential neighborhood or spillover impact. The parking studies conducted by the city also validate separately from a land use standpoint that the parking work as proposed. The proposal for bike parking adds a significant number of bike racks on the site, which staff feels is positive responding to both the Bicycle Plan, which when passed in 2016, recommended a higher ratio of bike parking for commercial properties. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application. Staff answeredquestions relative to the proposed application. Vice Chair Gongasked if the city arborist would be part of the peer review board. Staff responded that an individual consultant goes out and looks at what is being proposed and before building permits are issued, the city has a consulting arborist representing the city who will look at what is out in the field as well as what is in the report and make sure there is a match, and the replacement trees are sufficient. Asked if the Commission could recommend that additional members of the board be part of that board in addition to the consultant. Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development: Said the typical review process for the consulting arborist is similar to the architectural design review; they have a consulting architect even though they have architects and designers on board, which allows a third party evaluation of the project as opposed to the city staff evaluation. Said they feel that is a more objective evaluation in terms of electing additional participants. He asked if the thought was for a commissioner or other staff member? Vice Chair Gong: Said other staff; Com. Paulsen has mentioned it before that arborists on city staff have made comments about the trees that have been approved and recommended by consultants. She felt the combination of the two would work. Catarina Kidd: Clarified that before building permits are issued, standard practice is that Public Works is actively involved in that review, they will have that feedback as well, but as far as the work going out in the Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 3 field and the cost borne by the applicant, it would be consulting. It is not individual review per se but they have that point of contact that is inter-departmental and includes Public Works. The street trees for example would not go unnoted as far as Public Works goes; they are part of that dialog and part of the recommendation as to type of trees. Com. Paulsen: Said he had a tour by Public Works and one of the city arborists complained that the new development didn’t leave enough room for a large species of tree. Sometimes landscape architects will work to provide a tree that is attractive but won’t necessarily provide the massive amounts of canopy, shade and cooling that the city arborist would look for and he was not sure ifthe Public Works review involved looking at the traffic and sidewalks or if it actually involved the city arborist participation. He asked if the city arborist is part of their Public Works review? He said it is something he would like to see happen, perhaps included as a recommendation. Benjamin Fu: Said yes, as a standard condition. Com. Sun: Said they have conducted the traffic study already; so far the project is focused on the parking lot shrinking and they change the space from parking lot to commercial use or for the retail use. So far it is in Cupertino, in most shopping centers they are facing the challenge of the parking. Said he was somewhat concerned that if they shrink 30% of the parking spaces it would immediately cause a similar situation that occurs in other shopping centers in Cupertino. Is there any option or alternative the city has been considering to not dramatically reduce the parking lot? Said he did not get a response on how any recharge EV stations are going to be allocated for the electric vehicles. Catarina Kidd: Relative to staff’s concern about shrinking the parking space, staff may be relying on 2 pieces; one is the public side which is the city’s consultant doing that review and making that neutral determination of what demand is being generated on that site; said she was looking at that piece. The second piece is relying less on this but it is a factor, and that is the private sector side in the sense that the applicant is a business that has interest in making sure their customers can park; and if they are not able to park the public plazas they are creating would be failed in field spaces and would need to be converted back from a business standpoint. There is that piece, it is difficult to factor that specifically into the public side of the review butthat is a soft factor. On the applicant’s side it is a hard factor because the business has to work. Said she had to rely on the consultant looking at demand and how that factors in. The shared parking factor is also another piece that factors into staff recommendation but she said she did not know how to necessarily advise going further; those are just the pieces they rely on to consider whether or not it is a viable proposal. Com Sun: Said he was concerned about customers of other stores parking in the Target lot and the impact it would have on Target. If they shrink the parking lot dramatically, it may cause problems. Applicant: Said relative to parking, there is an adjacent lot, but it was not clear if that was factored into the square footage calculation; the southwest corner which is not part of the parcel, but it is 100% parking now. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 4 Catarina Kidd: The parking study looked at this site as a function, the applicant is only taking into consideration their parcel. They looked at the percentages on that conservative number, not taking into account the shared parking; given that there is shared parking that makes it more amenable. Chair Takahashi: Relative to Com. Sun’s concerns, at this point it is known that at least on Saich Way and the adjacent streets there is rarely overflow parking that is happening in the current configurations; there is some extra capacity as well. Catarina Kidd: In response to Com. Lee’s request, she discussed the courtyard, said the selection of trees was consistent with the Heart of the City with some flexibility. Staff would like to reset the standard since it is a remodel; for tree maintenance that would create a canopy. With that in mind there is some flexibility with the species that are onsite as far as selecting a species that would do more to canopy over the cars. It is one of the recommended conditions and is up for discussion. Relative to the public arts, how is consultation with the Fine Arts Commission integrated into the decision? Staff said the Fine Arts Commission reviews art when it is an ordinance requirement, there is a percentage of art requirement in terms of the value of the construction. With this property it is a remodel of an existing development; they are not required to do arts by ordinance but they are volunteering to do it to improve the project and are agreeing to it as one of the conditions of approval. It is a minimum of two panels to be added to the façade. Com. Paulsen: Said when researching the world’s most amazing urban murals online, he found some stunning works of art worldwide. What is the funding for those murals? Some of the murals are very ambitious but add a lot of value and interest to the city. Said it provides a rare opportunity in Cupertino to have a blank slate to do something really dramatic; it is not something that could be forced on the applicant, but is an opportunity worth exploring. Catarina Kidd: In Cupertino they are paid for by private sector, developers and property owners. Will have to ask the applicant the general locations for EV charging; currently there is no count. Com. Sun: Said he felt it would be good for Cupertino; if they want to be an environmentally friendly green city, they need a station for every EV to encourage people to use the EV. Suggested that there be a designated area where senior citizens or disabled persons could be picked up or dropped off. Catarina Kidd: There is a curbside pickup area shown; it is designed so that folks can drive safely and wait to pick up someone or items. Chair Takahashi: Asked for more information on rain collection; both surface and roof is covered by solar panels. The staff report is intended to engage their guests and the community and to reflect their values. John Dews, Senior Development Manager, Target Stores: He thanked the city and Planning staff especially Senior Planner Catarina Kidd for their efforts on the project. Said the staff report was very thorough and they are in total agreement with the Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 5 recommendations and conditions of approval. The results of their collaboration is a unique design that includes a number of new open spaces, site amenities, and at the same time incorporates the design guidelines for the Heart of the City Special Plan area. He provided a brief overview of the project; and stated they had 16 electric vehicle charging stations. Richard Varda, Principal Architect, Target Corporation: Said Target Corporation believes that Cupertino is a dynamic and thriving community and the store does very well at its present location; and they are pleased to report that they have been able to extend the lease on the property which has enabled them to make it a more significant investment. The remodeled design is intended to engage their guests and the community, and to reflect their values by reusing most of the existing store in its current location by maintaining existing routes of traffic access they have mitigated and any potential disruptions to the surrounding neighborhood. Although the plan and operations of the store will be similar to the current situation, they have made a significant investment in totally transforming the site conditions in the building architecture. To engage and serve the community and their guests, new social spaces will be created; outdoor spaces for unique events and activities, and for ease of convenience they will also be providing 16 electric car charging stations, a curbside order pickup location and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle and public transfer access. The design also includes many features that reflect their commitment to environmental sustainability and wellness. There will be a large installation of solar panels on the roof, currently about 12,000 square feet and they will be evaluating whether it can be larger, as they have almost 200 stores with large photovoltaic installations already in an ongoing program. There will also be additional panels above the charging stations indirectly linked to that function. The landscape will be completely redeveloped with a new stormwater retention reuse system as well as permeable pavement and drought resistant plantings. They are using the majority of the building structure and envelope and will strive to recycle the bulk of demolished construction materials which is their regular practice. Their material specifications will be reviewed in detail to ensure choices reflect environmental and health safety concerns. They have reviewed and revised their photovoltaic specifications for stores to conform to the objectives many times over the past 15 years. The remodeled building will have new and more efficient lighting and HVAC systems. He said they intend to achieve federal DOE Energy Star certification as they have for more of the several locations for public art at more than 75% of the stores in their chain. The new building will be a friendlierneighbor through the use of expansive glazing to allow visibility inside and out, and through the addition of warm and inviting materials such as wood and green screens and also through the incorporation of the several locations for public art as mentioned. He said they were respectfully seeking Planning Commission approval so that they may continue on the journey together as they refine the transformation of their store. Patrick McGoy, Paragon Commercial Group (Landowner): Said they supported Target in their efforts to remodel the store; they have been a presence in town and part of the community for over 30 years and he was pleased they have signed a new lease with them. John Dews: Said with Commission approval they plan to remodel the store beginning next year and as noted they signed a lease that means Target will be at the site for many years to come. Said Target has been a member of the Cupertino community for nearly 30 years and are proud of the strong community ties and investment they have made with the city of Cupertino. Target provides 5% of its profits back to the communities where they have stores, and in 2015 within the Bay Area they provided $6.3 million to local organizations; they volunteered more than 33,000 hours and donated more than 2.5 million pounds of food to local organizations. He thanked the city staff again for all their efforts and requested approval of the project. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 6 Chair Takahashi: Asked how the design compared to other Target remodels; is it seen as the future path, because the present store is the rubber stamp Target store with the red roof and the one entrance; four entrances is very different for Target so it seems like an evolution. Is it seen as the future of Target stores vs. an experiment? Said they would like to have the corporate view of where this stands relative to other Target stores. John Dews: Said they have gone through quite an evolution in the last 15 years with even more unique stores and now have more than 60 stores with two level sales floors; they have gone into urban locations that are very complex to deal with; they are doing smaller format stores as the one that is about to open, so the ability to customize their work to fit the localities and the appropriateness of a locality is far more than trying to replicate the same image all the way across the country. That was driven more in the past out of simply the ability to save money by producing at mass scale but it’s not a world of replication anymore, it’s a world of customization; this a store that is experimenting on taking that customization a step further and it will reflect in their work. Com. Paulsen: Commented that he appreciated Target, shops there and said his wife is responsible for helping homeless high school students in San Jose, and Target has regularly been generous with food and coupons for those students. Commented to Mr. McGoy that he liked the project and many of its elements. Said he felt they were sitting on a gold mine; Cupertino is on the cusp of exploding and a lot of those developments they see coming to the Commission involve scraping what is there and rebuilding with multi-story multiple use and especially bringing it closer to the street. He said he felt it was a type of sprucing up of an old concept, the big box one story setback from the street with a big parking lot in front; and asked if they ever considered redeveloping the property with Target on the site but with some other income producing elements also. Patrick McGoy: Said they looked at many different possibilities on the property but Target has been a good tenant and their company has a history with working with Target. The one thing they have come to trust over the years in all of their retail development is the fact that the retailers know best what is going to work for them and that was the most important thing to them because they wanted to keep Target on the site. Com. Paulsen: Said it would not deter him from voting for the project because of that, but he felt it was somewhat re- sprucing up of an old concept. They are moving hopefully toward a Heart of the City where it is walkable, closer to the sidewalk, multiple story, that type of thing. Vice Chair Gong: Asked about their other stores around the country, especially more suburban type of stores, what does the customer use of bicycles look like? Richard Varda: Said he did not have detailed studies and counts, which is something they should be undertaking; it varies based on the community. Some communities are huge biking communities such as Minneapolis so theydo see a lot of usage in the communities where they are promoting biking systems. Theybelieve Cupertino is doing that and will be on its way to having more need for bikes. Although the number shown on the site is high, it may reflect the future they will be seeing, which is seen as good thinking. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 7 Vice Chair Gong: Relative to the Cupertino store specifically, asked what the utilization of bike parking spaces was? Richard Varda: It is not that high right now; part of that is they haven’t remodeled and brought it up to a standard where they have all the opportunity for using bikes and have the easier access; they will see how that works. The number of residential units coming online around the city will drive more bike usage; they expect the future will be a lot different than the past at this particular store. Vice Chair Gong: With the increase of bikes, and fellow commissioners just spoke about the use of electric bikes at their last meeting, are there different needs to accommodate the parking of different type of bikes? Richard Varda: Not necessarily; electric bicycles tend to be larger and heavier; as long as the parking spaces are adequate and have some maneuverability around them, said he didn’t think the city has been discussing or requiring any element of charging for electric bikes; it is just a matter of making adequate space. Vice Chair Gong: Suggested they consider the accommodation because they are long into the future and she personally would want electric accommodation if she was riding a bike to Target to shop . Richard Varda: Said it was a good point; their landscape architect is present and they will consider developing the plan with those ideas. Com. Paulsen: Relative to charging stations, he commented that people fight about charging parking spaces; even if you don’t put in a lot of charging stations, if you are going to dig up the ground and put in some conduit you might as well put in some wiring because you will want them in the future. Richard Varda: Said they could consider putting solar panel canopies in areas other than just the side parking; it is more a matter of costs; they were using them to identify where the charging stations are and also to connect in and support the electrical usage in that location. As electrical car usage goes up it would multiply across their lap more as they keep an eye on the future; they are expensive and they estimated that 16 was a good start at this store but Cupertino will be more. Said they would consider more solar panel coverage if Target was interested in pursuing it; only the 16 charging stations would have solar coverage. Said they have an energy program where they work with a third party provider and lease the roof space and they provide installations. They haven’t looked at this particular store with some of the vendors and the first place they would put more panels would be on the roof; if they felt they would like to use the parking area and they could finance it efficiently, they would be open to it. Chair Takahashi: Commented that if they put solar panels in the parking lot they would have to eliminate trees. It would be a tradeoff of tree coverage vs. solar coverage, and at this point in time when you have a roof that large in area you are going to put them on the roof, you are not going to want to take trees out. Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 8 Jennifer Griffin. Rancho Rinconada resident: Said there was a lot of factors going on in Cupertino presently. There has been a major retail void, having lost three major anchors at Vallco in the last year, Sears, Macys and J. C. Penneys which has put increased pressure on Target needing to remain in Cupertino. A smaller Target will be opening at Main Street. She addressed the issue of the possibility of reducing parking spaces at Target from 616 to 428 and the possibility of a housing element site on the property within two to three years. Said she did not support the removal of 135 trees from the parking lot which are mature enough to provide adequate shade, and she did not support the proposed architecture for the entryway, stating she felt it has too much metal and resembles the Jetson style. She is pleased the Target store is remaining but said traffic needs to be addressed as it presently is difficult finding parking there. Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing. It was noted that the interior of the Target store would be remodeled; however no decision has been reached whether the store will remain open during remodel or remodeled in phases. Daniel Cunningham, SWA Group, SF, representing Target: Clarified there are 3 tree species on the project, pistache, sycamore and crape myrtle; crape myrtle are used in more specific locations as an ornamental tree; in the parking lot showing pistache and sycamore. He asked for clarification on what the Commission was looking for. Com. Paulsen: Said they were looking for a sprinkling of sycamores and in the majority of the parking strips would prefer Chinese pistache. The variety is good, the accents on the ornamental trees are fine, but in terms of what it is going to look like in 10 or 20 years if you plant sycamores there it is going to be stunning; if pistache is planted, it will be mediocre. Daniel Cunningham: Said he agreed; what they are doing by following Cupertino’s new guidelines for parking lots is it will allow for the trees to have a lot more soil; when looking at the existing trees on the site they are not all that impressive; the parking lot was not built for trees but what Target and we are doing at this site is creating a parking lot for trees by buying enough soil and allowing filtration so the trees are going to thrive and create a beautiful canopy Com. Paulsen: Large trees at the sidewalk would be favorable. The Heart of the City originally specified flowering pear but in talking with several arborists they roll their eyes, shake their heads and say some nurseries don’t carry them any longer because they are both structural and disease problems plus they don’t grow very big or very beautiful. This would be an opportunity to begin to add an element to the Heart of the City in a beautiful way. Chair Takahashi: Relative to the question of the tree layout, it appears there is an effort for a line of sight from the corner of Bandley and Stevens Creek to the entrance; there are trees omitted in the parking lot that are staggered going from right to left, was there intent for line of sight; what’s the rationale? Daniel Cunningham: Said the rationale for that was line of sight. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 9 Com. Paulsen: Said he felt it was important, trees can block the view of a building. It is important for a business to have that view. When sycamores get big they can be pruned; there is the interim period of 10 or 20 years that can be difficult. The other thing that can be done is plant alternate rows; it would be ideal to plant one row of one species and another row planted with a different species. Chair Takahashi: Relative to Com. Paulsen’s recommendation, he said he would like to look at the spacing and understand if the spacing is adequate to support a larger tree vs. the Chinese pistache which is a nice tree in terms of its general size; it is more of a moderate tree and is incredibly colorful and deciduous which is beneficial for maintenance as well as just more winter sunlight. Vice Chair Gong: Said she was pleased that the Target store was being remodeled as it would stay in the community for many years, instituting solar is a positive move; pervious pavement is a positive step; and the rainwater catchment system is a good move. She said she liked what was being done, particularly the remodel. Com. Sun: Said he felt Target was very good shopping place for the average resident; he did not object to changes in the parking lot as the parking lot reduction is a business decision and Target is confident that it will not have a negative impact on the community. The store remodel is a positive change as the business will remain in the community for a long time and have a positive impact on the community. Com. Paulsen: Asked Counsel if it was possible to add an amendment to the recommendation that they switch the numbers of the trees, the location says that something can be determined later; it would provide a much more attractive project in the long run. Colleen Winchester, Assistant City Attorney: Said it was within their purview to change the number or say two species of trees could be used intermittently, perhaps something along the lines such as assess utilization of the different mix of trees to gain more mass. Chair Takahashi: Said he would prefer that the arborists and tree experts make the call vs. the Planning Commission, the Commission’s opinion can be stated in terms of an impact; that is why spacing is critical when talking about bigger trees. Com. Paulsen: An arborist can make a recommendation about exact variety and spacing. Said he would recommend that there be sufficient species to provide a dramatic large canopy. Colleen Winchester: Said it could be stated that city staff and Target consult with the arborist to maximize capacity and variety among the trees have been selected. The developer and staff could work with the consulting arborist to determine the ratio between those three trees identified to increase the canopy of the trees. Com. Paulsen: Said he would like it stronger than that and would prefer more sycamores. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 10 Chair Takahashi: Said he agreed with language suggested by the city attorney. Vice Chair Gong: Said she would not support controlling numbers, but was in favor of counsel’s suggestion. Com. Lee: Said she preferred more canopy; shade is good. Said she supported Com. Paulsen’s suggestion that it be more specific. Chair Takahashi: Said that adding the open spaces is a significant benefit; because there is a lot of traffic, foot traffic specifically right to the one entrance; it is not very inviting to hang out there; it is energized but in a transient way. In his opinion the spaces added will make it more energized in terms of pedestrians getting coffee and hanging out while they enjoy the nice weather and then leave. They will be successful open spaces which is a significant benefit to the environment of the store and the overall feel, because now it feels like it is a get in and get out Target and this will enhance that and make the shopping experience more enjoyable. Said he appreciated the Target Corporation, their general approach, philosophy and strong community engagement which is evident when you are in the store as well as how the corporation has dealt with the city. Having the lease extended is definitely a positive thing for the city because it has been there a long time and you would be hard pressed to find a resident in the city who doesn’t go to that Target store, and losing that would be a significant loss. It is a part of the community that would definitely be missed. Said the overall design is well thought out; the environmental elements are a big step forward as well, solar, EVcharging, rain water retention are definite improvements in the current design; and taking risk associated with the design is positive and will be one that shows it was the right decision to make. Com. Paulsen: Concurred with Chair Takahashi’s comments; suggested wording for the tree issue; “we recommend that the applicant work with consulting arborist and the city staff to take reasonable steps to significantly increase the tree canopy over the current level” Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Com. Sun and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Applications ASA-2016-07, TR-2016-38 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:No meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission September 27, 2016 11 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Benjamin Fu: Reported that City Council approved update of municipal codes, to be consistent with state requirements in terms of density bonus, language codifications, and separate section on parking regulations to make it more consistent with the Bicycle Plan and also to allow for non-complying garages to be upgraded for safety. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on October 11, 2016 beginning at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ______/s/Elizabeth Ellis___________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 25, 2016 TUESDAY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 2016, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Alan Takahashi. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Alan Takahashi Vice Chairperson: Margaret Gong Commissioner:Geoff Paulsen Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Don Sun Staff Present: Assistant Community Development Director: Benjamin Fu Principal Planner: Piu Ghosh Assistant Planner: Ellen Yau Associate Planner: Gian Paolo Martire Assistant City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the October 11, 2016 Planning Commission minutes as presented. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. MCA-2016-03 Municipal Code Amendments to amend Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping City of Cupertino and Table 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20 Permitted, Conditional and Citywide Location Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones regarding the regulation, location and the keeping of bees in the city and to make other conforming changes in Table 19.20.020 for consistency. Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 2 Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reported on evaluating proposed changes on two sections of the code, the evaluation will include an overview of the current regulations in other cities, the importance of the honeybee to the environment and the results of regulatory action and how their proposed change will make beekeeping allowed in Cupertino. The current code limits beekeeping to permitted use in A Zones and agricultural zones, conditional use in A-1 which is agricultural and residential uses and permitted as accessory uses in all other zones, but the specific Chapter 8.07 states that the hives themselves must be located 1,000 feet from nearest residences, church, school, public building or corral or water area in the corral and 300 feet from any public road. Because of that even though they are permitted use, this effectively prohibits beekeeping in most of the lots in the city. Earlier in the year Cupertino Rolling Hills 4H Club and the Santa Clara Bee Guild presented on the importance of bees to the environment and requested that Council review the existing restrictive regulations and asked staff to evaluate the current regulations and draft an ordinance to set reasonable regulations to change some regulations to allow for this use in the city. Other cities were studied and some of those changes were rather significant; one of the minimum setbacks on property line is about 5 feet and from streets 20 feet, which is a drastic difference from Cupertino. Said what is important is why honeybees and why make the change? Compared to other cities, the Code does prohibit the keeping of bees because of those regulations and setbacks. It is important because bees pollinate about 85% of crops they have; scientists have claimed and stated about one in three bites of American diet is due to the pollination of bees because they pollinate flowers, crops, and they produce other products such as beeswax and honey. Due to some variable factors such as climate change and pesticide applications applied to residential and commercial lots, they effectively have the phenomenon called colony collapse disorder, which is where a significant portion of the U.S. bee colonies have vanished. They looked at the national agenda in terms of preserving the bee environment and many cities around the area and nationwide where they have modified the regulations. They are making two section changes in the proposed code of Chapter 8.07 Beekeeping; made changes to the definitions by consolidating some of the definitions and clarifying them; also made it explicit that it is a permitted use for A and A-1 zones, accessory uses in all other zones. Under Locations, the setback requirements were changed from 20 feet from the front property line and public or private streets and to 10 feet from side and rear and driveway easements. Other cities evaluated, lots with less than 5,000 square feet are limited to hives because they are smaller lots and the concentration of the beehives was something they thought about. Sections were also added to maintenance, registration, nuisance and enforcement. Throughout the research evaluating other cities, it was important that water provisions for the bees are sufficient; that way they stay within the area to access water. If there are any concerns about hives being left there, abandoned structures, it was put into the code that those apiaries would be dismantled and taken down. She reviewed the changes to Section 8.07.040 Nuisance, 8.07.050 Enforcement, Chapter 19.20 as outlined in staff report, page 4. Staff recommendation is to find that the proposed action is exempt from CEQA, and adopt the draft resolution recommending City Council introduce and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 8.07 Beekeeping, and Table 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20 , regarding the regulation, location and the keeping of bees in the City and to make other conforming changers in Table 19.20.020 for consistency. Staff answered questions relative to the application. Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 3 Ethan Chi, Chris Chapman, Nathan Chi, Bryan Chi, Elena McPherson, Rolling Hills 4H Club of Cupertino: The group members each commented: That they were pleased to see the Beekeeping Ordinance being updated; it was a great learning experience to speak at the City Council meeting in March; it was wonderful to know that anyone, including kids, could make a difference.They thanked the Commission for considering their proposal, and said they hoped that the Commission would approve this modification to the Code. Hopefully soon, Cupertino will be a model green city with many busy beehives and pollinated plants. Alysa Sakkas, Adult Leader from Rolling Hills 4H Club of Cupertino: Thanked the Commission for their consideration, and suggested three minor semantic recommendations to offer for consideration in changing the wording. First one is Item 8.07.030 Location Number Maintenance and Regulation of Apiaries; would recommend for A3 which currently says minimum setbacks; that it be changed to minimum hive setbacks, to clarify that the setback amounts are in respect to the hives vs. in respect to the apiaries as stated at the top of the paragraph. An apiary is an area that may enclose several hives, sometimes some people don’t choose to create a boundary for an apiary but an apiary is a collection of hives. Recommends that the 20 feet and 10 feet are respective of the hives vs. if someone was to create a fenced area wouldn’t want that measurement to occur from the edge of the apiary. The second one 8.07.030c under Maintenance, suggest to strike the words “abandon or” full sentence to state “Maintenance; any abandoned or disused apiary shall be promptly dismantled and removed from the location”, strike “abandoned or” would clarify, if it is abandoned by the bees it does not need to be promptly dismantled because beekeepers often have bees absconded from their hives and would probably choose to leave the hive assembled andmoving the colony into the hive. It is not clear whether abandoned means abandoned by the beekeeper or the beehive but the remainder of the sentence can stand alone. The third one 8.07.040 Nuisance; recommend striking the word, to say “the maintenance or use of any real property in violation of this chapter or when apiary bees swarm and/or abscond or which creates a condition as defined in Section 1.09.030 is hereby declared a public nuisance, is prohibited in a subject to code enforcement and all other enforcement remedies as provided in this code. Recommend striking the words “or when an apiary’s bees swarm and/or abscond, and the remainder of the paragraph stand alone in terms of the nuisance law; primarily because beekeepers cannot control swarming or absconding hives; this will alleviate someone being jeopardized for their beehives swarming or absconding. Thanked the Planning Commission again for the work done; said they were happy with this code and looking forward to seeing more beekeepers in Cupertino. Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing. Com. Paulsen: Complimented the group of 4H students on their excellent presentation. The Commission discussed the three suggestions from Alysa Sakkas. The first is the setback as far as whether or not it was defined to the hive vs. the apiary. Piu Ghosh: Said that could be at the Planning Commission’s pleasure; which means that if a hive is surrounded by a fence or some such structure, it could be within that 5 or 10 foot setbacks; the setback varies between all the different cities looked at; most cities define the apiaries as being the collection of bees, the hives and any accessory structure. All the setbacks are to the apiary and not to the hives. Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 4 Ellen Yau: Said there are some cities who when they define it, define apiaries and hives differently in some cases; the insertion of hives would not be much of an issue because we are looking at the specific structure of the hive; we do define apiaries, we do include hives, bees and the appliances themselves, but the appliances that there was another structure to store things, would fall under our accessory facilities chapter as well. That would have slightly different setbacks. Chair Takahashi: Said from a clarity standpoint it would make sense to reference the hive as well. Com. Paulsen: Said he felt saying “hives” clarified the issue, and the suggestions made by Mr. and Mrs. Sakkas were reasonable suggestions; the swarming issue and the abandonment issue as well as the definition of hives. He suggested they be included in the final resolution. Vice Chair Gong: Said she agreed with the first and second suggestion; the second one to strike the abandonment or disuse; instead of striking that, keep it and add abandonment by beekeepers as opposed to by bees, because if the beekeeper abandoned it, then they should remove it; said she would not strike it. Com. Paulsen: Agreed that it was reasonable. Benjamin Fu: Said staff would not have an objection to that; their intention was not to have structures that are abandoned; or an eyesore. There was one additional email item received from the 4H Group, switching the word “freshwater” for “clean water”. Staff can briefly discuss the difference between what their intent is for the “clean” vs. “fresh”. Alysa Sakkas: Said it was okay as stated. Com. Lee: Said she was in the minority, but did not have a problem with how staff has put it in the draft resolution; and she felt if apiaries wanted to be closer they could reach some kind of agreement with their neighbor and if they wanted to be closer encroaching the setback, she would rather they could go through the city and encroach in the setback with some type of ministerial review. Colleen Winchester, Asst. City Attorney: Said it would have to be with the permission of the neighbor. It would be a private agreement; the city would not mediate it. Com. Lee: Said she would support the wording as proposed; she felt it was better as stated in the draft resolution. Vice Chair Gong: Said she agreed they should make it apiary vs. hive. Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 5 Chair Takahashi: If an individual wants to put a hive in place; we outline the structure of an offset and could they then, depending on the offset between the actual hive and the apiary, alter the structure such that they would use a fence as part of that enclosure? Could they work it with that offset and meet the intent of the code? Piu Ghosh: Said she understood they were saying that the hive could be placed at the 10 foot setback and an existing fence, property boundary line fence could be used as the fence to enclose that as an apiary; that could be how it could be capped. Saying that that is a setback for the apiary does not necessarily mean that you can place a hive at 10 feet because you don’t have to enclose the hives with fencing. Com. Sun: Said he agreed with Com. Lee and Vice Chair Gong; it is the original intent of the city amendment; it is more accurate and may prevent some future problems with public nuisance. MOTION:Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve Application MCA-2016-03 with the following amendments: Section 8.07.030, Subsection C2, “Any apiaries abandoned by beekeepers or disused apiaries…” and Strike in Section 8.07.040, Nuisance, “or when an apiary’s bees swarm and/or abscond” and the rest to read as is. 2. MCA-2016-05 Municipal Code Amendments to various Chapters in Title 19, Zoning of City of Cupertino the Cupertino Municipal Code including but not limited to Chapter 19.08 Citywide Location Definitions), Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses to Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural and Agricultural – Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32 (Residential Duplex (R-2) (Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation), Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling Units in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones), and 19.124 (Parking Regulations) in response to recently adopted State legislation regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with State Law, and for internal consistency. Amendments will apply citywide. Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the staff report, stating that the ordinance amendment is in response to the recently passed Senate Bill signed by Gov. Brown on September 27th. Reviewed the various chapters listed that were being amended in Title 19 zoning; most of the chapters will be swapping terms out for the secondary and there are substantial changes to Chapter 19.12 and the definition section. Explained that the Municipal Code is reviewed periodically to ensure that it is consistent with State law and that there is internal consistency amongst all the titles and chapters of the Municipal Code. The urgency is if the cities in California don’t adopt something by January 1, 2017, any ordinances regulating second dwelling units are considered null and void. What is changing and how is it going to affect how we develop second dwelling units, accessory dwelling units? Primarily it will amend 19.112 Second Dwelling Units and R1-RHS A and A-1 zones. He reviewed other changes listed under State-Law Consistency – SB 1069, Chapter 19.112, Second Dwelling Units in R-1, RHA, A and A-1 Zones summarized. In addition to ensure consistency with State law, minor amendments have been proposed to ensure internal consistency and as clarifications. Senate Bill 1069 amends Section 65852.2 of the Government Code by replacing the term “second unit” with “accessory dwelling nit”. The definition of second dwelling unit has been updated to match the State’s definition of an accessory dwelling unit. The term “second unit” in the Municipal Code, when used in the context of an “accessory dwelling unit” has been replaced. While the City’s current practice Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 6 of processing of an accessory dwelling unit is a ministerial process through a building permit, SB 1069 requires that the City incorporate language in the ordinance to memorialize it. Allowable accessory dwelling unit sizes are being increased from 650 to 800 sq. ft. for lots of up to 10,000 sq. ft. for lots over 10,000 sq. ft. Other parts of the State law wereamended that don’t deal with the zoning ordinance but will be reflected in how an outside agency such as sewer and utility lines are hooked up to the second dwelling units including the elimination or relaxing of some fees that for accessory dwelling units are built within existing footprints of homes. What will affect how the City of Cupertino processes fire sprinklers is that these accessory dwelling units built within these homes won’t necessary be required to have fire sprinklers and that is more of a Cupertino standard than it is a building code standards, and that will be reflected when the building official will bring those changes to City Council by the end of the year. Said they took the opportunity to clarify some terms, such as refining the definition of duplex to give it more of a separation between the relationship a lot may have with a primary family unit, primary residence and an accessory dwelling unit rather than a duplex. There are slight refinements to that definition. Also removed all references to family as indicator of occupancy in unit types, in response to recent case law; and have inserted term “transient” for lodging and lodging unit to ensure that it meets the definition of transient; setting a time of 3 days or less for a person who is residing or staying in a unit. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that they find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code including but not limited to Chapter 19.08 Definitions), Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses to Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural and Agricultural – Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32 (Residential Duplex (R-2) (Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation), Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling Units in R- 1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones), and 19.124 (Parking Regulations) in response to recently adopted State legislation regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with State Law, and for internal consistency. Ellen Yau: Said they would have to do it in response to State law, unfortunately because of the California housing crisis, the Governor saw fit to sign the bill into law. She said when stating they see impacts, she was not sure what kind if impacts they were eluding to. Com. Sun: Presented an example of a single family house which was divided into a duplex, which would limit the parking spaces. One single family home would have a maximum of 3 cars, but if separated into a duplex there is a minimum of 4 cars; there may be another space for accessory room or unit and then have 6 cars there in one particular lot. He said it was a problem he could foresee. Piu Ghosh: Said she understood their concerns but unfortunately that decision was taken out of City’s hands by the Senate Bill the Governor signed with those changes. It states that if you are providing an accessory dwelling unit within the existing structure, as if you have an existing family house and you are taking a portion of it and converting it into an existing dwelling unit you do not have to provide any parking spaces. There is a list of conditions under which parking does not have to be provided on the site for that accessory dwelling unit. There is nothing cities can do to regulate that; all they are doing is making changes to conform to that amendment that the Governor signed. Gian Paolo Martire: Clarified that they do not allow accessory dwelling use in duplex R2 zones anyway. If you already have a duplex you can’t add another accessory unit on top of that. Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 7 Piu Ghosh: Presently the ordinance allows accessory dwelling units at R1, RHS, A and A-1 zones which are primarily single family zones; you can only have a single family home there. We currently allow accessory dwelling units there, we are just making conforming changes to that. Vice Chair Gong: If it is the primary dwelling unit and a part of it is carvedoff as an accessory dwelling unit, noadditional parking is required. What happens if there is a stand-alone garage that is now converted to an accessory unit, but those two parking spaces in that existing garage; do parking spaces have to be provided on the lot andsince it is a stand-alone building, do additional parking spaces need to be provided in accordance with our ordinance? Gian Paolo Martire: As the ordinance is written now, if you take away two enclosed spaces, you have to provide two enclosed spaces somewhere else on the lot. Piu Ghosh: Said if you do convert your existing garage into a stand-alone or you are attached; it doesn’t matter; if you converted that into an accessory dwelling unit you could provide replacement spaces on the site in any combination of the applicant’s choice, unenclosed, enclosed or with parking lifts in any combination; they don’t necessarily have to provide two enclosed spaces; it has to be on the site as opposed to street parking. If eliminating parking from your project, you have to provide replacement spaces on the site but can be in any combination of their choice of enclosed, unenclosed or with parking lifts or tandem parking. With this amendment, we cannot require enclosed spaces. Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: Said she felt Gov. Brown hadsigned many strange laws recently, particularly some of the ones allowing additional liberties to developers for housing element sites. Said she was concerned about completely overriding the current laws, municipal laws about what goes into suburban homes and state laws. She referred to the city of Fremont and a bill started by an assemblyman from Fremont and another similar bill from Santa Monica and said it appeared that Fremont is having some problems if they are starting to have ordinances like this and getting the governor to sign them. Said she did not know what problems Fremont had as they have the largest amount of space of any city that is unbuilt in the entire state. Said she was not pleased with what is coming down from the governor, when they have no right to say anything about it. She said she had questions because she felt they were turning suburbia into duplexes; you have a home and it is becoming a duplex. She addressed the issue of Air B&Bs; and questioned if people were building those units to be able to circumvent hotel laws. Would someone buy a home and build one of these units? Having a structure for grandparents or a college student is acceptable but she did not support building one specifically to rent it out for Air B&B. She likened it to being an inn keeper living in suburbia and putting 1200 sq. ft. on a lot, potentially having 5 people living in the home. It also says that if you live within ½ mile of a transit, you don’t have to have any parking places; does that mean if a VTA bus is ½ mile away and you have a 1200 sq. ft. home, that secondary accessory in your back yard could generate 4 cars and they would be on the street. Said she felt they needed to look at the issue more, and Cupertino needs to make a statement about it because it is eroding. Said that she was pleased it was going to go to City Council. Cupertino Planning Commission October 25, 2016 8 Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing. MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to recommend that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 19.08 under Definitions, Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and residential zones) Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural (A) and Agricultural – Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32 (Residential Duplex (R-2) Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation), and Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling units in R-1. RHS, A and A-1 Zones), and 19.124 Parking Regulations per the draft resolution. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION There was a brief discussion about the November 8th meeting being held on election night; Staff will keep everyone posted on next meeting date. Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:No report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None MISC. Com. Lee: Announced the Cupertino Quota Club fundraiser on Saturday, October 29 th at Original Pancake House open at 7 a.m. Brunch also from noon. (Open 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) A flyer about the event will be sent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on November 8, 2016 beginning at 6:45 p.m. (yet to be determined because of election night) Respectfully Submitted: ____________________________________ Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:January 17, 2016 Application:EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70, (EA-2014-08) Applicant: Amy Cheng Property Owner: Amy Cheng Property Location: 22823 San Juan Road (APN 342-22-078) APPLICATION SUMMARY: 1) A Hillside Exception to allow the construction of a new 3,245-square-foot single-family residence on slopes greater than 30%; and 2) A Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of six (6) specimen size Oak trees to facilitate the construction of a new residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve: A mitigated negative declaration for the project (EA-2014-08), The Residential Hillside Exception (EXC-2014-15) per the draft resolution (see Attachment 1), and The Tree Removal Request (TR-2014-70) per the draft resolution (see Attachment 2) PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Zoning Designation RHS-21 (Residential Hillside with minimum net lot area of 21,000 sq.ft.) Lot Size 14,933 sq.ft. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70 (EA-2014-08)Cheng Residence January 17, 2017 Project Feature Ordinance Requirement Proposal Consistency with City Ordinance Residential Building Square Footage Total Proposed Building Area 3,271 sq. ft. max.3,245 sq. ft.Yes Setbacks 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor Front 10’ min. (grade >20%) 25’min.10’N/A Yes Sides 10’ min.15’ min.10’25’Yes Setbacks 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor Rear 20’ min.25’ min.101’ min.101’ min.Yes Other Requirements Building Height 30’ max.29.3’Yes Slope Exception required for > 500 square feet of development on slopes of 30% or more. Onsite topography over which the home is built is around 55% slope. Yes, with exception requested for development on slope. Grading Quantity in cubic yards 2,500 cubic yards max. 115 cubic yards Yes Parking 6 spaces min. 6 spaces Yes BACKGROUND: Project Site & Development Requests The applicant, Amy Cheng, is requesting a hillside exception to facilitate the construction of a new single-family residences on slopes greater than 30% in a RHS zoning district. As part of the project, the applicant is also requesting a tree removal permit to allow the removal of six (6) Coast Live Oaks, twelve inches or more in trunk diameter. The lot isvacant andsurrounded by hillside single-family residencesto the north, east, and south. A religious retreat, the Legionnaires of Christ, is located to the west. The lot is quasi-rectangular, sloping downward north with an average gradient of 55% and completely covered with vegetation, consisting of Coast Live Oaks and other native vegetation. The Planning Commission approved a hillside exception and tree removal permit for a similarly designed residence for this property in 2009 (EXC-2008-14 and TR-2008-05). EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70 (EA-2014-08)Cheng Residence January 17, 2017 Site Aerial DISCUSSION: Residence and Site Plan Description The proposed residence is accessed by a shared private driveway that is an extension of San Juan Road and a maintenance agreement currently exists for all properties using this access route. The parcel will have six parking spaces, three enclosed (inside garage) and three exterior (parking deck). The steep topography of the lot has caused the proposed residence to be located near San Juan Road, as close as ten feet for a front setback from the property line. The proposed residence will be 3,245 square feet and consist of two stories, with one story downslope below San Juan Road. The home will be accessed at street level and second story living areas will be accessible by an internal stairwell. The proposed residences generally follows the primary natural contour of the lot. The building colors and roof material depicted in the plan set complies with RHS design standards, which require muted vegetation or earth tones with low light reflectivity values of 60 or less. Exception for Development on Slopes Greater Than 30% The Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones Ordinance prohibits any structures or improvements over 500 square feet in area on slopes greater than 30% unless an exception is granted. The intent of this rule is to minimize and discourage unnecessary hillside grading activities and visual disturbances. However, if the project/property presents unique circumstances or hardships (typically physical/topographic challenges), then the City may consider an exception provided that the project is designed to minimize the extent of the exception and impacts to the EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70 (EA-2014-08)Cheng Residence January 17, 2017 surrounding hillside.The siting and design of the proposed house minimizes the removal of the oak trees and reduces the visibility of the retaining walls necessary to develop the property in a manner consistent with the RHS Zones Ordinance. The City has historically granted exceptions to allow reasonable development of steeper hillside properties planned for residential use. The entire property is steep with a slope average of 55%. The property cannot be developed without a hillside exception request. With the exception of the proposed development on a slope over 30%, the proposed home complies with all other aspects of the RHS zone’s site development regulations. In order to mitigate any impacts, the proposed residences will be supported on pier-and-grade beam foundation systems extending into the underlying bedrock. The development will be constructed with appropriate geotechnical review and inspections as described below. Geological Review The City’s Geotechnical Consultant has peer-reviewed the geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant’s Geotechnical consultant, concluded that the project is feasible, and has no objections to the proposed residences layout based on the manner of construction proposed by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant. The City Geotechnical Consultant recommends that the private geologist’s recommendations be incorporated into the construction plans and the foundation of the proposed residences be sufficiently imbedded into the bedrock. Additionally, the applicant’s geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project and building and grading plans to ensure that the recommendations have been properly incorporated. The City Geologist’s recommendations are incorporated as a condition of approval in the draft resolutions. Tree Removal Request As a part of the project, the applicant proposes to remove six (6) protected trees onsite in order to facilitate the proposed residences and site improvements. All trees proposed for removal are Coast Live Oaks of specimen size and are proposed for removal as they are in the footprint of the new residence and parking deck. The City’s Consulting Arborist reviewed the proposal and concurs. In order to mitigate the trees being removed, the applicant shall be required to plant twelve (12) 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees consistent with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. A condition of approval has been added to the draft resolution for the required replacement trees. The final location and species of the tree replacements will be reviewed by staff in conjunction with the building permit review. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On December 1, 2016, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-08)for the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70 (EA-2014-08)Cheng Residence January 17, 2017 The project includes mitigation measures, which have been added as conditions of approval to the draft resolutions, in the following areas, to reduce the potential environmental impacts of the project to less than significant levels: Air Quality:Construction shall comply with the BAAQMD’s recommendations and the City’s standard air quality measures. Biological Resources:Tree replacements in conformance with the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance. Geology and Soils:Design-level geotechnical plans shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and all foundational piers shall extend into the bedrock. Cultural Resources:In the event that cultural resources (archeological or human remains) are discovered during construction all work shall be temporarily halted. Temporary Noise Levels:Construction shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and standard noise mitigation measures. OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW The City’s Public Works Department, Building Division, and the Santa Clara County Fire Departmentreviewed the project and have no objections. Their pre-hearing comments/conditions have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing) Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to the hearing) Notices mailed to property owners adjacent to the project site (300 foot) (10 days prior to the hearing) Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (five days prior to the hearing) Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (five days prior to the hearing) Community Outreach & Public Comments In addition to the standard noticing and information on the City’s website, the applicant mailed a letter in October, 2016, which included a brief project description and plans to the property owners within 300 feet of the project site in order to gather community input. Staff received a comment from a neighbor needing clarification of the tree removal and location of replacement plantings. The applicant has been made aware of the comments and the conditions of approval in the draft resolutions requiring that the removal and replacement of trees will be consistent with the Protected Tree Ordinance. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. EXC-2014-15, TR-2014-70 (EA-2014-08)Cheng Residence January 17, 2017 Project Received: December 19, 2014 Deemed Incomplete:January 16, 2015, April, 20, 2016, and September 29, 2016 Deemed Complete:November 14, 2016 The City has 180 days, until May 14, 2017, to make a decision on the project since a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA is recommended. The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the project since the project and conditions of approval address all concerns related to the proposed development and all of the findings for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapter 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made. Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1- Draft Resolution for EXC-2014-15 2- Draft Resolution for TR-2014-70 3 - Initial Study, ERC Recommendation 4 - Plan set EXC-2014-15 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,245-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 30% LOCATED AT 22823 SAN JUAN ROAD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.:EXC-2014-15 (EA-2014-08) Applicant:Amy Cheng Location:22823 San Juan Road (APN 342-22-078) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. The proposed site is situated on the northside of San Juan Road. The lot is currently vacant and surrounded by existing hillside single-family residences in the Inspiration Heights area of the city. Therefore, the development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 The proposed residence will be serviced by an existing private driveway that is shared by other residences. The project proposes six parking spaces on site, thus minimizing the amount of parking on the shared access roadway. Therefore, the development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The properties will be accessed by a shared private driveway from San Juan Road. A shared maintenance agreements is already recorded for the driveway. In addition, sewer and water connections are available in the street. The development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 4. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. Aside from the exception to allow construction of slopes greater than 30%, the proposed development complies with all other development regulations of the RHS zoning district including, but not limited to, building height, setbacks, and floor area. The development involves the least modification of the prescribed development regulations necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. 5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development. The average slope of the parcel is 55%, with no part being less than 30%. Therefore, no location on the parcel can be developed without a hillside exception. The proposed development will be located to minimize environmental and grading impacts on the site. 6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological or environmental hazards that have been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein. Design-level geotechnical plans shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and all foundational piers shall extend into the bedrock. Additionally, a geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project’s building and grading plans to ensure the recommendations are incorporated. With the incorporation of the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report, the proposed development does not consist of structures that have been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein. 7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans that will ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of the housing site and improvements will be minimized. The development will follow as closely as possible the primary natural contour of the lot to minimize erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of the housing site and improvements. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 8. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors, materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including building height, as much as possible without creating other negative environmental impacts. The development on the property shall use natural earth tone and/or vegetation colors which blend with the natural hillside environment and is designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass as much as possible. 9. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts. The proposed residence is located adjacent to an access road and preserves the vast majority of the existing natural landscape. The parcel is adjacent to other properties with a similar zoning and are developed. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats. 10. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in Section 19.40.010. The development meets all the requirements for RHS zoned properties and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in Section 19.40.010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-08) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Hillside Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-15 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. EXC-2014-15 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2017, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set dated March 01, 2016 consisting of 10 sheets, labled A-0.0, A-1.0, A-2.0, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, Sheet 1, Sheet 2, and Civil Sheet 1 entitled, “Amy Project, 22823 San Juan Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn and submitted by SC Design Group; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2014-70 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS, LANDSCAPING Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments, lighting, retaining walls and landscaping) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits for compliance to RHS zoning and other relevant regulations. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval. 5. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of one residential unit from the Other Residential Neighborhoods residential allocation area. 6. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES The applicant shall participate in the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by paying the housing mitigation fees as per the Housing Mitigation Manual. The estimated mitigation fee for this project is $40,433.76 based on the 2016-2017 fiscal year rate of $15.48 per square foot of residential area. 7. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and Water Budget Calculations shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 9. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed and prior to final occupancy. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report prior to issuance of final occupancy, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted prior to issuance of building permits. a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de- thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 11. TREE PROTECTION The existing trees to remain shall be protected during construction per the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the municipal code). The City’s standard tree protection measures shall be listed on the plans, and protective fencing shall be installed around the trees to remain prior to issuance of building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) The project shall be required to adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-08) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. 13. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURES MM GEO-1: Recommended a minimum of 2 discharges along this slope, and that the applicant should consider carrying water in a tightline pipe to drainage facilities downslope, with the neighbor’s approval. We would prefer to see all drainage directed to San Juan Road, or to Mercedes Road with neighboring cooperation. If this is not possible, then we recommend, at a minimum, that two discharge locations be identified by the Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 Project Geotechnical Consultant, with widely dispersed (minimum 20 feet) dissipation pipes. MM GEO-2:All retaining and residential structures at this site be pier supported. The consultant should review the plans and provide pier recommendations, as deemed appropriate. MM GEO-3:Due to the steepness of this lot, grading shall not be permitted during the winter rainy season. MM GEO-4: Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant’s geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the Grading and Drainage Plan and the Development Plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the Drainage Considerations, Retaining Wall Design Criteria, and Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer. MM GEO-5:Prior to final (as-built) project approval The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The Project Geologist should be on site during the pier drilling operations to assure that piers are embedded into competent bedrock materials, and that bedrock materials are as anticipated. Consideration should be given to downhole logging select pier excavations to assure bedrock conditions are as anticipated. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. 14. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES MM AIR-1: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 15. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MM BIO-1: The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacements requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of site permits. MM BIO-2: A qualified arborist be required to inspect the root damage of Tree # 7 at the time of footing excavation to determine whether or not Tree # 7 could be preserved.All trees to be preserved on the property and all trees adjacent to the property shall be protected against damage during construction operations by constructing a four-foot-high fence around the drip line, and armor as needed. The extent of fencing and armoring shall be determined by the landscape architect. The tree protection shall be placed before any excavation or grading is begun and shall be maintained in repair for the duration of the construction work. The existing trees to remain shall be protected during construction per the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code). The City’s standard tree protection measures (City of Cupertino Standard Detail 6-4) shall be listed on the plans, and protective fencing shall be installed around the trees to remain prior to issuance of building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES MM HAZ-1.4: In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. The City of Cupertino (or its representative) shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 determined to be significant, the City of Cupertino (or its representative) and the archaeologist and/or paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum duration, and a report prepared by the qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards. 17. NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES MM NOI-1:The following construction noise mitigation measures shall be taken in order to reduce noise event impacts to nearby receptor areas: Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. Construction activities are prohibited on holidays. All construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. If no noise-reduction features were originally installed, then the contractor shall require that at least a muffler be installed on the equipment. No individual device will produce a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet or the noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. 18. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre- construction meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited to, Building, Planning, Public Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department) to review an applicant-prepared construction management plan including, but not limited to: a. Plan for compliance with conditions of approval b. Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way c. Construction staging area d. Construction schedule and hours e. Construction phasing plan, if any f.Contractor parking area g. Tree preservation/protection plan h. Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan i.Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts 19. CONSTRUCTION HOURS The applicant shall comply with the construction hours standards described in section 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 20. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 21. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 22. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. PRIVATE UTILITY SERVICES Developer shall work with both the City and affected neighboring property owners regarding the installation of private utility services to the property. Work associated with private utility construction will include obtaining the necessary permits and approvals from the respective utility companies and restoring the existing road pavement to pre- construction conditions. 2. STREET WIDENING AND DEDICATIONS Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 3. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 4. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 5. GRADING At Building Permit stage, Civil Engineer shall work with the Project’s Geotechnical Consultant and Public Works to modify the grading & drainage design, especially the stormwater energy dissipator. Provide a profile plan of the proposed storm system with dissipator. Demonstrate the size of dissipator is sized appropriately and away from the property boundary. A letter from the Geotechnical Consultant will be required for the review and approval of all geotechnical aspects of the final grading & drainage plan. Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 6. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post-development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible. 7. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees:$ Per current fee schedule ($3,349.00 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,825.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit:$ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee:$ 1,280 e. Power Cost:** f. Map Checking Fees:$ Per current fee schedule (N/A) g. Park Fees:$ 63,000.00 ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Any required backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 12. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 13. EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 14. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 15. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non- standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to private water facilities and pavers. 16. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 17. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant). Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 18. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 19. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES Developer shall dedicate to the City all water mains and public water appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the subject development. 20. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley. 21. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 22. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, the water company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. WILDLAND INTERFACE This project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related Landscape plan requirements. 2. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and two-family dwellings (including detached workspaces) as follows: In all new one-and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by CUPMC 3. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection system, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 4. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and County Fire Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 5. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505. SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION Walls less than five (5) feet from the property line shall be one-hour fire-resistive construction per CRC Section 302.1. Metal railings are not allowed at carport parapet adjacent to east property line per CRC Section 705.11 and shall be of one-hour construction. Draft Resolution EXC-2014-15 January 17, 2017 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 2017, Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: none NOES:COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST:APPROVED: Benjamin Fu Alan Takahashi, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\EXC-2014-15.doc TR-2014-70 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF SIX COAST LIVE OAK TREES TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 22823 SAN JUAN ROAD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.:TR-2014-70 Applicant:Amy Cheng Location:22823 San Juan Road (APN 342-22-078) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services; The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new buildings and site improvements, and are not suitable for preservation or relocation. The siting of the home on the parcel is the most ideal in order to preserve the hillside without grading or greater loss of trees. b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). Draft Resolution TR-2014-70 January 17, 2017 The neighborhood and surrounding parcels are zoned RHS-21, similar to that of the proposed development. Restricting the applicant’s proposal to remove the six (6) Coast Live Oaks would limit the development potential of the site not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-08) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-70 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. TR-2014-70 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2017, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set dated March 01, 2016 consisting of 10 sheets, labled A-0.0, A-1.0, A-2.0, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, Sheet 1, Sheet 2, and Civil Sheet 1 entitled, “Amy Project, 22823 San Juan Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn and submitted by SC Design Group; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. EXC-2014-15 shall be applicable to this approval. 3. FINAL PLANTING PLAN The applicant is required to plant twelve (12) 24” box replacement tree in accordance with the Protected Tree Ordinance. All replacement trees shall be Coast Live Oak. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of site permits. The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional or alternative tree replacements as deemed necessary. An ISA Certified Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 4. TREE PROTECTION The existing trees to remain shall be protected during construction per the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the municipal code). The City’s standard tree protection measures shall be listed on the plans, and protective fencing shall be installed around the trees to remain prior to issuance of building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. Draft Resolution TR-2014-70 January 17, 2017 A qualified arborist be required to inspect the root damage of Tree # 7 (as identified in Nigel Belton’s report, dated October 3, 2016) at the time of footing excavation to determine whether or not Tree # 7 could be preserved. All trees to be preserved on the property and all trees adjacent to the property shall be protected against damage during construction operations by constructing a four- foot-high fence around the drip line, and armor as needed. The extent of fencing and armoring shall be determined by the landscape architect. The tree protection shall be placed before any excavation or grading is begun and shall be maintained in repair for the duration of the construction work. 5. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 6. INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 7. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Draft Resolution TR-2014-70 January 17, 2017 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 2017, Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: none NOES:COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST:APPROVED: Benjamin Fu Allan Takahashi Assist. Director of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission 20370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.0577COVER SHEETA-0.012,894CUPERTINO . C A L I F O R N I A AMY PROJECTFLOOR CALCULATIONVICINITY MAPGENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT INFOGENERAL NOTESSET-BACK INFORMATIONPROJECT DATASHEET INDEXARCHITECTURALSTRUCTURALADDITIONAL NOTES:ADDITIONAL NOTES:FIRE ADDITION NOTES:STRUCTURAL 20370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.0577PROPOSEDSITE PLANA-1.01-0PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 18" = 1'-0" 20370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.0577A-2.01-0PROPOSED FIRST FLOORPROPOSEDFLOOR PLAN 20370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.0577A-2.01-0PROPOSED FIRST FLOORPROPOSEDFLOOR PLANBLOCKDIAGRAM PROPOSEDELEVATIONSA3.020370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.05771-0PROPOSED ELEVATION FRONT2-0PROPOSED ELEVATION LEFT SIDE PROPOSEDELEVATIONSA3.120370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.05771-0PROPOSED ELEVATION REAR2-0PROPOSED ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE PROPOSEDCROSSSECTIONA3.220370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.05771-0PROPOSED ELEVATION REAR2-0PROPOSED ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE HOUSE GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED LEGEND GRADING NOTES PRELIMINARY FOR PLANNING ONLY GRADING & DRAINAGEPRELIMINARY1 PRELIMINARY 22823 SAN JUAN ROADCUPERTINO, CA204 E 2ND AVE #820SAN MATEO, CA 94401SCALE VERTICAL: 1"= AS SHOWN HORIZONTAL: 1"= AS SHOWN SHEET OF 2 SHEET REVIEWED: DRAWN: DESIGNED: DATE: JOB NO.:160790020 AW AW AW 8/17/2016 HOUSE UTILITY GENERAL NOTES: LEGEND UTILITY NOTES UTILITY PLANPRELIMINARY2 PRELI MI N A R Y22823 SAN JUAN ROADCUPERTINO, CA204 E 2ND AVE #820SAN MATEO, CA 94401SCALE VERTICAL: 1"= AS SHOWN HORIZONTAL: 1"= AS SHOWN SHEET OF 2 SHEET REVIEWED: DRAWN: DESIGNED: DATE: JOB NO.:160790020 AW AW AW 8/17/2016