Loading...
Draft Minutes 6-9-09CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. JUNE 9, 2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao AICP Senior Planner: Colin Jung APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the Minutes of the May 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to move the agenda to Item 2, Application M-2009-02 to accommodate the applicant present. 2. M-2009-02 Tim Kelly Major Amendment modifying the Architectural and Site Approval (Embarcadero Capital (ASA-2008-OS), Use Permit Modification (M-2008-03) Director's Partners) Minor Modification (DIR-2008-32) & Tree Removal Permit 1 Results Way (TR-2008-06) for the purpose of extending expiration date of these approvals for 6 years, phasing construction, clarifying conditions of approval, & modifying the traffic & signal Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 9, 2009 improvement condition. Tentative Council Date: June 16, 2009 Colin Jung, AICP Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application as outlined in the attached staff report. City Council approved the partial redevelopment of the 1 Results Way Office Park in September 2008. The applicant is requesting extension of the expiration date of the approvals; phasing of construction; and clarification of conditions of approval; and modify the traffic and signal improvement conditions, No. 31 in Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit Modification. • He reviewed in detail the applicant's requests as outlined in the staff report. Staff supports the request fora 5 year extension period, noting that other applications have been granted extension approvals. The applicant has agreed to make a $200,000 contribution for traffic improvements within a half mile radius of their project site; and that these contributions either in the form of cash or posting letter of credit will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. There is also a letter of support from Judy Wilson, Co-Chair of the Monta Vista Senior All Night Party thanking the applicant and the Results Way Business Park for providing them accommodations for their senior party over the last few years and asking that the Planning Commission support the application. Staff supports the request for flexible construction phasing with the following conditions: when the phased project comes in, all existing and new buildings have sufficient parking, roadways, utilities and accessory structures, to function on its own and work with any other construction phases proposed. During the phase 1 construction of new building, that the offsite traffic improvements, phase 1 public art requirements, front entry landscaping improvements and any in-lieu development fees would be payable during the first phase. There is an approved landscape plan that also includes the parking layout included in the original approval; when that was initially approved it showed each of the buildings with its complement of parking that would be used to serve that particular building. It was designed that each building would have enough parking surrounding the building to meet its own needs. They would like to use that plan not only to identify their parking improvements that they need to build, but also to define the limits of their improvements to the site with minor adjustments that would be approved by the Director of Community Development. Another condition is the interim parking plan that would be approved as part of any phased project. The third request is an amendment to the traffic signal improvement condition to give the city more flexibility to allow in-lieu payment for offsite traffic work instead of the McClellan Road improvements. Staff is not convinced that widening of McClellan Road is the best option, but has not explored all the options yet, and asked the applicant to offer the city an in-lieu payment option to mitigate that concern. In the event the other traffic improvements and pedestrian improvements were not as good as the widening of McClellan Road, staff is also asking the applicant to make an irrevocable offer of dedication of a portion of McClellan Road so that it could be widened in future. City Council asked in their approval of the project that they look at the street improvements as part of the conditions of approval. The city and applicant have agreed on the $200,000 contributions; staff is recommending deletion of Condition 4b in the model resolution. ~ Staff supports the extension of expiration date of approval, with the stipulation that the implementation of the minor modification request would not vest any of the approvals for the new buildings. Staff recommends that you re-use the previously granted mitigated negative declaration for the original project, and also recommends approval of the extension request per the model resolution. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 9, 2009 Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the application. Com. Miller expressed concern that the $200K may set a precedent. Staff said the funds could be used on programs to mitigate the traffic problem on McClellan Road. Sandra James, Applicant, representing property owner: • She explained that they were asking for extension on entitlements because of the economic climate. The choices that people have, property owners, developers and clients that want to lease buildings are on hold now because they don't know what is going to happen in the next two to five years, and they need some flexibility. They are requesting approval of the five year extension and to separate the traffic issues from the extension. Since the city has not yet determined what to do about traffic mitigation, the applicant is willing to make a dedication of property. John Hamilton, Managing Partner of Embarcadero Capital: • He said he appreciated the support of their efforts to have the dream of the park become a reality; and with the input they received they have a good blueprint to move forward with. The economy and growth of companies in the area are crucial in making it happen. • He agreed that the $200K is just a donation and they want to be good neighbors. In addition to the extension, they are asking that consideration be given to expenditure of the money reasonably close to the project, which would hopefully give some long term benefit from a traffic improvement, even if it is not directly contributing to any traffic mitigation around their project. He said that the busing discussion should be part of a larger study, and that he would rather have the $200K go to something more tangible, a gift that would keep on giving. He said he was familiar with the school congestion as he had children in the schools. • Said he was comfortable with staff s recommendation which was a fair compromise and is one they could move forward with. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • The neighborhood and city was pleased to see a long term investment in a tech park; the Bubb Road tech park is one of the oldest tech parks in Cupertino. The tech economy in the valley is unpredictable, it cycles and is presently in a down cycle. If people are in as players in the long term in the tech arena they understand how things go in Silicon Valley. She commended the owners for their long term goal of having a presence on this site of the tech park, tech buildings. Cupertino needs that to maintain their long history in the tech arena, and rather than seeing a housing overlay put on this property which she didn't rule out depending on some of the recent things that have gone down; she said she considered Bubb Road as a tech park and hoped that it would remain that way in the future. • She said they have ongoing issues with the schools, and she felt the city was being very reasonable in looking down the road at trying to figure out ways to accommodate growth in that area. That area will always have traffic problems and she hoped that by having a careful plan and careful consideration from both the tech neighbors and schools and children that they would eventually have a way of having traffic move in that area. She said it was important that they look at what has been happening in their tech properties and she felt it was a good plan. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he supported the application; recalled that he voted against the project in September 2008; Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 9, 2009 his concern at the time was that the city was not dealing with the impact of several hundred new workers. He said he felt the change of focus on McClellan Road to having a fixed fund to deal with possible traffic problems as a result was a big step forward and he supported staff's proposed recommendations. Com. Kaneda: • Said he supported the application. • He questioned whether it made sense to limit the area where the funds could be spent, the distance of Bubb Road and McClellan Road. The real issue of what is going to be affected are the two roads and it would seem like that would be the place to make improvements if you are going to make improvements. • Suggested that the language be tightened up to those specific streets as opposed to within a half mile. Vice Chair Brophy: • Referred to a map showing the half-mile radius; theoretically the farthest away would be the Bubb and Stevens Creek intersection, which would not be an unreasonable place to make improvements to handle the traffic coming through the complex. He said he was not comfortable with the half mile radius. Chair Giefer: • Recalled that in earlier discussions when it came up as a residential project and the other time as a commercial project, they discussed opening up Imperial or Orange or some of those streets, and the neighbors were not supportive of that. She said the realistic opportunities are of McClellan and the other intersections tend not to fail the way that one does. Aarti Shrivastava: She said they wanted to maintain maximum flexibility and the idea was not to make traffic improvements to the side streets. If they circumscribe this tightly and there were little improvements around the corners, some biking improvements; they didn't want to preclude possibilities and the applicant suggested what was thought to be eloquent language, a half mile, which covered a variety of options, and they wanted the city to have the most flexibility. The intent is if serious traffic improvements are made, they are definitely going to be focused on Bubb and McClellan. Com. Lee: • Said it was an elegantly designed project, and she was hopeful that the money will be used to help traffic in the area. • Said she supported the extension and the project. Com. Miller: • Said he supported the project; supports the phasing and the extension. He said he still had some concerns about the additional monies that are being asked for and the manner in which they are being asked. However, the applicant has indicated that he is satisfied with that result, and he was supportive of the project. Chair Giefer: • She said although she shared the same concerns that Com. Kaneda had that it seems simple where the traffic currently fails in the neighborhood, the point is well made that there may be other solutions that they haven't thought through within that half mile radius; it does serve the Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2009 property. She said she wished busing was an option, but the applicant is less satisfied with that and makes a good point; it is not something that is in perpetuity. She said they might get a test for a year and see if it helps mitigate the issue, but fmding increasing funding for that would be difficult. • She said she supported the extension. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application M-2009-02 as written, except that Para. 4b be deleted and that the Letter of Agreement be adopted. (Vote: 5-0-0) The agenda was moved back to Item 1. 1. CP-2009-01 (EA-2009-01) Review of the five-year Capital Improvements Program City of Cupertino (FY-2009-10 to 2013-14) for conformity to the City of Citywide Location Cupertino's General Plan. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, AICP Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Said that the review of the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2009/10 to 2013/14 and objective is to determine if the capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. Each year, the City Council adopts a five year spending plan for capital improvements; and its mechanism for prioritizing significant city expenditures for capital projects important to the city. Funding is not fixed for the second through the fifth years as priorities and projects change, schedules speed up and slow down; the only real certainty in the five year program is the first year funded projects. • Both state law and Cupertino Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to review the CIP for General Plan consistency; and also to make a recommendation on the environmental assessment. The Planning Commission is not responsible for setting the CIP funding priorities, which is under the purview of the City Council. The most significant project from an environmental standpoint is the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project which is a multi-year funded project. Other CIP projects consist of repairs, renovations and minor improvements, small additions to existing City infrastructure, smaller amounts of money for feasibility studies and data collection to support newer longer term projects. The review of the projects indicate staff has determined that the projects were categorically exempt from environmental review based on the nature of the projects; however, part of the requirements of CEQA is that the environmental Review Committee when they look at the projects, not only individually, but they need to take a look at the cumulatively is to decide whether the cumulative impact of all these all relatively minor projects has a significant impact or not. The ERC recommended a negative Declaration for capital improvement program. • Second part of the review is a review of the General Plan consistency for the CIP. He reviewed the CIP Matrix; which indicated the nature of the General Plan policy that pertains to the seven categories of projects as outlined in the CIP Matrix. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend a Negative Declaration for the Capital Improvement Program and find the five-year CIP consistent with the General Plan per the model resolution. Staff answered Commissioners' questions about funding of projects and potential projects for the future. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 9, 2009 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commended the City of Cupertino for its sound budget management and its fiscal responsibility. • She reported that recently there was a decision made not to pursue having the sidewalks maintained by the city which because of negative connotations the city should discuss further. There are parts of the city that will suffer because they have sidewalk infrastructures and if they do go down that road, they will have a lot of public input. She said she was not in favor of private owners maintaining their sidewalks. • She said she was pleased that the city is pursuing the acquisition of the Sterling Barnhart properties in Rancho Rinconada as the area is deficient in parks. Also pleased about the Lawrence/Mitty Park, even though it is out 3 to 4 or 5 years; the 280 Calvert/Lawrence interchange is supposed to be upgraded in the next couple of years from Calvert to Bollinger; and Lawrence Expressway is planned to be expanded 4 lanes. • She expressed thanks for the parks, trees, and Cupertino. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Miller, to recommend a Negative Declaration for the five-year Capital Improvement Program, file No. CP-2009-01 and that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Meeting cancelled. Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported on the May 14, 2009 meeting held. He reported that there were two new Housing Commission members. The Commission received $105,000 from HUD as part of the stimulus money and decided to allocate it for senior housing and rebuilding Silicon Valley. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Kaneda reported: • Parks and Rec -recently the Kaboom Group organized a volunteer building session at Blackberry Farm to build a play structure. Also discussed an off-leash dog policy, and attempt to identify one park where the policy could be implemented. • Blackberry Farm to reopen on July 4~`. • Library Commission budget was approved; will keep Monday hours; changing to RFID system of book tagging; the Teen area will be remodeled. • Bicycle Commission is working on updating their bicycle plan and it will be done internally, not by consultant. 50% increase in biking from the last year; will be developing some bike safety classes. • Public Safety Commission needs volunteers for 4`~' of July Fireworks to help patrol the fireworks sites. Interested persons will need to be certified; contact Dave Wynn at dnguyen722 cr,gmail.com Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2009 • IT Commission will be working with Erin Cook on an energy efficiency plan in conjunction with Semens and also discussing street lighting including LED street lighting and induction street lighting; coordinating with City of San Jose. Economic Develoament Committee: No meeting held. Chair Giefer: • Reported on her attendance at a recent Build a Green meeting, where there was a discussion about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the money that was being passed down to cities. Several counties and cities were being proactive in trying to make those funds available to reduce their carbon footprints in their communities, doing everything from creating Mello Roos districts where, similar to what Berkeley did, they are making the funds available in the long term to residents to help reduce the city's overall carbon footprints. • She pointed out that just as the Housing Commission was asked what they should do with the HUD money, it would have been a good opportunity if they had been involved when the city first found out how much money they were getting for their block grant for energy efficiency projects, because they would have added a lot of value. There is not time to react because the recommendations have to be made by June 25`i'. • She encouraged staff as part of their overall recommendations that some money be allocated for community education on what is available for improvement. Staff and deparhnent heads were asked to come up with a list of projects that they felt could be eligible for the energy grant blocks and just as they saw in the capital expenditure budget, they saw some of the Recovery Act dollars being allocated toward street improvements as part of the transportation portion. She said she felt that they could have made a greater impact with the dollars available to them, had they put their heads together and come up with some ideas. Chair Giefer: • Said she was specifically interested in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she would follow up with Erin Cook. She reported that a lot of the CDBG money went toward retrofitting homes to improve energy efficiency. Chair Giefer: • Said if they were allocated based on population, it was her understanding that it is the city's job to determine how to take and administer those funds and put them toward various projects. They have to be put toward energy efficiency so putting solar panels on city hall would be appropriate, aggregating funds and making low income housing loans for improvements for aging housing based on need would be another way to do it. Some cities are embracing this and trying to figure out how to use the money to reduce the carbon footprint, reduce energy consumption, put into play that job creation for insulation and weatherizing and other types of things that were part of the initial Recovery Act. She said there was a group of people interested and willing to participate, and she felt it was a resource which has been left in the cold. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said they were working toward getting the energy block grant, and that Erin Cook was working on a report to the Planning Commission. Cupertino Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the City Council discussed their work program in ApriUMay, and the Planning Commission's work program will be sent to the Council the first meeting in July. Com. Kaneda: • Announced that at the June 11~' Santa Clara County Cities Assoc. meeting, the Green Building Task Force will be presenting their Phase 2 recommendations to the Cities Association for adoption. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava provided an update on projects forwarded to the City Council: • The Council reviewed and discussed the housing element and office allocation items; there were some additional suggestions from Council members as well as from some community members. Staff has looked at some of those sites and will be bringing back a recommendation for tomorrow night to the Council. The housing element is only a discussion item for tomorrow night; they will have their final public hearing on June 16. • The City Council asked that the office allocation be brought back in July, likely at the second meeting. The Planning Commission work program will come back in July. Gary Chao: • Reviewed items to be agendized for June 23. Said that two meetings per month will still be scheduled; discussion of forthcoming activities and applications will be held with the Commission to determine future agenda items. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 23, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary