The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-11-2012 Table of Contents Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 . draft minutes 11-13-2012 Draft Minutes 11-13-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 •Conditional Use Permit for a 24-hour operation of a proposed grocery store Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1- Draft Resolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2- Plan Set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3- Letter from Safeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1 AGENDA C U P E RT I N O CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, December 11, 2012 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subiect: draft minutes 11-13-2012 Recommended Action: approve or modify minutes of 11-13-2012 Pa�e: 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/1ZEMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 2. Subiect: Conditional Use Permit for a 24-hour operation of a proposed grocery store Recommended Action: Approve Conditional Use Permit (U-2012-05) in accord with draft resolution Description: Application No(s): U-2012-05 Applicant(s): Jeff Oparowski (The Sobrato Organization) Location: sw corner of N. De Anza Blvd and Homestead Rd Conditional Use Permit to allow the 24-hour operation of a proposed grocery store (Safeway) in a previously approved building at the Homestead Shopping Center Plr�ririirig Coniiiiissiori c�ecisiori firir�l itiriless r�pper�lec� Pa�e: 10 2 Tuesday, December 11, 2012 Page-2 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 If yozz challer�ge the actior� of the Planr�ir�g Conanaiss�ior� ir� cozz��t,yozz naay be linaited to��ais�ir�g or�ly thos�e is�s�zzes�yozz o��s�onaeor�e els�e��ais�ed at the pzzblic hea��ir�g des�c��ibed ir� this�ager�da, o�� ir��itter� co��espor�der�ce delive��ed to the City of Czzpe��tir�o at, o��p��io�� tq the pzzblic hea��ir�g. Pleas�e r�ote that Planr�ir�g Conanais�s�ior�policy is�to allo�� ar�applicar�t ar�d g��ozzps�to speak fo�� 10 nair�zztes�ar�d ir�dividzzals� to speak fo�� 3 nair�zztes�. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. 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 plaiululg@cupertino.org. 3 CTTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CTTY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. November 13,2012 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2012 ��as called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Communit�-Hall, 10350 Toi7e Avenue, Cupertino, CA. b�-Chair Mart�-Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chauperson: Mart�-Miller Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Commissioner: Paul Brophy- Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Bro��nlev Staff present: Cit�-Planner: Gai�-Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of the October 9, 2012 Plunning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,to approve the October 9, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: PUBLIC HEARING 2. EXG2012-01,TR-2012-32 Residential Hillside Eiception to allo�� the construction (EA-2012-06) Craig Steely of a ne�� 3,104 sq. ft. single-famil�-residence on slopes Lot 306, San Jacinto Rd. greater than 30%and to allo�� a reduced second-stoi�- Front setbacic of 22 feet��here 25 feet is required. Tree Removal Permit to allo�� the removal and replacement of 6 Coast Live Oalc trees each eiceeding 10" in trunlc diameter. Mitigated Negative Decla�ation. Planning Commission decision final z�nless appealed. 4 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 13, 2012 Gary Chao, City Planner,presented the staff report: • Revie��ed the application for hillside eiception to allo�� the construction of a ne�� 3,104 sq. ft. single famil�-residence on slopes greater than 30%, and to allo« a reduced second-stoi�-,front setbacic of 22 feet��here 25 feet is required, and tree removal to allo�� the removal of sii protected Coast Live Oalc trees eiceeding 10"in diameter, as outlined in the staff report. • He revie��ed the slide presentation including the project site, renderings of the residence, street vie�� and northeast elevation. He noted that the residence��ill have a sod roof, sola�panel roof additions and permeable paving as sustainabilit�- features that��i11 fit in ��ith the largely natural environment. Staff supports the reduced second stoi�- setbacic because the purpose of the setbacic is to reduce the visual mass. • Relative to the Coast Live Oalc trees, the first proposal ��as to remove 12 oalc trees; since then the applicants have revised the plans, cutting bacic to sii��hich a�e��ithin the footprint of the house. The remainder of the oalcs «ould be protected in place, since there is no place to replant the sii trees «here the�-«ould not be in the right of«a�-, and the cit�-arborist determined the�-«ould not do«e11. Staff recommends that the in-lieu tree replacement fee be paid in lieu of the replacement requirement; the applicants are agreeable to paying the in-lieu fee vs. replacing the oalcs on the property. ERC revie��ed the application proj ect and agreed that the in-lieu fee��as a good idea for this particula�site because of the lack of locations for tree replacement. • Staff recommends to the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Decla�ation for the project; approving both hillside eiceptions for development on steep slopes and reduced second stoi�- front setback; and also approving the tree removal permit in accordance��ith the draft resolution. Com.Brophy: • Refei7ed to the Cit�- Geologist's report ��hich raised the question of��hether or not the proposed drive��a�-results in a concrete retaining��a11 in the development of Lot 307. He aslced if the issue had been considered of��hether or not the retaining��all for the drive��a�-��ould blocic the adjoining lot from being developed. Colin Jung: • Responded that it ��as one of the first things that came to the attention of the Public Worlcs Department. The 40 foot paper street recorded��ith the subdivision map,is on a 30% slope and there is no good��a5-to improve it fu11�-and it��ould have a severe environmental affect to improve it to its full��idth. At this point the full��idth is not needed because there are so fe�� lots located there; there is the bifurcation of the drive��a�- itself��here the retaining ��a11 is needed to support the road, the drive��a�-above it and the dri�e��a�-belo�� it��hich are both in the right-of-��a�-. There is an adj acent lot to the ��est o��ned b�-the Bianchi famil�; the�-ha�e been notified and the applicants have shared their plans ��ith them; therefore in the future ��henever that point comes ��hen the�- chose to develop the propert5-the5-��ill lilcel�-have to come up��ith a solution to ho�� the access could best be achieved to the adjacent lot. Depending on ho�� the Bianchis determine ��hat the best��a�- to get access to their propert5- is, they��ill need to come tluough the improvements that a�e proposed to be built b�- the Costas, hence a section of the ��a11 ��il1 need to be demolished or the�- ��i11 need to come up through another direction. Condition No. 12 in the EXC resolution aslcs the applicant to record a covenant on the propert5- in the event that the�- don't sta�- there over the long term; it memorializes that the�-recognize the5-a�e building pa�t improvements in the right-of-��a�-itself and those ma�-need to be removed or modified in order to create access for the adjacent lot. 5 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 13, 2012 Com. Brophy: • Said that potentiall�-the cui7ent or a future Planning Commission could be loolcing at a hea�ing in the future ��here the o��ners of the acl j oining lot ��ish to develop and ��il1 come in and aslc that the retaining «a11 that the Costas needed to build in order to develop theu propert5-, be removed. It is more than a reciprocal easement; it is a propert5-o��ner sa5-ing the5-��ant to develop their land neit to another, and then aslc that the propert5-o��ner lcnocic do��n the retaining��a11 the5-put in. Gary Chao: • Said it did not preclude the possibilit5- of the connection; from an engineering perspective it is feasible; the condition spealcs to that as an acicno«ledgement and is going to be a covenant on the propert5- so that not on1�- do the Costas lcno�� but if the�- sell the propert5-to another person the�- a�e bu5-ing into that understanding. It is simila� to a reciprocal access easement in aclvance of the adjacent property o��ner. Chad Mosely,Public Works Dept.: • Cla�ified that it«as a private access road, not a public road and «as never accepted b5- the count�- ��hen it��as first recorded. There a�e t��o potential possibilities to provide access to this additional property up there ��ith Bianchis; the�- could potentiall�- use Ca�iy Queen's property or the Costas; there are some engineering things that need to be done ��ith that to malce it��orlc. With the��a�-the Queen drive«a�- has been built al�eady, access to the Costas residence is some«hat restricted and the�-have put together this plan to��ork around the current obstructions that��ere built for the Queen resident �-ea�s ago; the gate being one of the obstructions and the ��a�- the drive��a5- goes up to the Queen's residence. There is currentl�- an obstruction that the Costas a�e ��orlcing around; the neit person ��ill have to deal ��ith not on1�- the Queen obstruction but potential obstruction ��ith the Costas. There a�e engineering��a5-s to get around that and the Costas have��illingly- stated the�-��i11 ��orlc��ith an�-future potential propert5- o��ners. Thirdl�-, there is another paper road that comes up San Juan further to the south that the�-��ould ha�e to construct an entire roacl to get up to their house, but there is also a third option to get up there. Discussion continued rega�ding the building of a retaining ��a11 ��herein staff ans��ered commissioners' questions. Concern ��as eipressed about the ramifications of building a retaining ��a11 as a short term solution if in the future a ne�� adjacent propert5- o��ner��ould request the neighbor remove the retaining ��a11 to allo�� access for the ne�� development. Com. Brophy: • Refei7ed to Condition 12 ��herein it states that the applicant agrees to ��orlc ��ith the neighboring propert5- o��ners to provide access ��hen those properties develop and commented that as a practical matter it��as not enforceable. If the ne�� propert�- o��ner��anted the retaining ��a11 removed b�- the cui7ent o��ner,the cui7ent o��ner could refuse to do so. Gary Chao: • Said there��ere access rights assigned to multiple pa�cels along the��ay. In the future��hen the neit neighbors come in and ask to eiercise their access right, they alreacly have an easement agreement that requires the Costas to allo�� for access. What Public Worlcs is sa5-ing from an engineering prospective it malces no sense for the Costas to pay fa� beyond their property in order to transition ��herever that access is going to be; the�-don't lcno�� and the�- don't��ant to spend their mone�-. The easement from the legalit5- perspective is alreacl�- covered; it has alread�- been granted to the neit parceL The current o��ner has to comply-, but there a�e multiple options; it is up to them to discuss ��hat is the best solution and the most efficient cost effective at the time the house is proposed. 6 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 13, 2012 Com. Brophy: • Eipressed concem that he felt the Costas��ould have to��orlc a�ound ��hat the previous people built, ��hich ma�-impose a burden on them. To the eitent that the solution is to impose the burden on the future developer of the vacant lot, he said it seemed the�-��ere going do��n the path of seeing ��ho the�-could pass the problem onto. Gary Chao: • Summarized that concerns«ere being raised b�-the Commission that the�-did not«ant to approve or condition something that��ould hinder the development of the future propert5-o��ner or subject them to negotiation. He cla�ified that the easement is alreacl�- in place for access, and is alread�- the o��ner's right. Staff can talce the concern, if that is the duection from the commission, and craft the covenant and the ��ording, in terms of the acicno��ledgement from the propert5- o��ner or even some acicno��ledgement from the acljacent propert5- o��ner and conf�um that the�- ha�e revie��ed this and full�-understand it. Before issuance is approved, the condition requues that the language be revie��ed b�-the cit�- attorney, and ��orlc��ith the applicant to ��orlc out language that could potentiall�- cla�if�- that further and have a better understanding disclosure for future property o��ners. Craig Steeley,Architect; Applicant: • Addressed the street easement and pointed out that the retaining«a11 being discussed averaged three feet height, and the entire project is predicated on having a minimum amount of eica�ation on the site, and as seen b�-the slope of it,it is creating accessibilit�-to the Bianchi's lot. Pam Costas,property owner: • Addressed the road maintenance agreement. Said the�- had easements for the utilities, and for the roacl«a�- a maintenance agreement bet«een Dr. Queen and themselves; because those a�e the developed properties on the developed roacl��a�-. The�-also joined the San Juan eiisting maintenance agreement and road reimbursement agreement for all the roads developed up to that point. She recalled the 2-1/2 �-ears of negotiations, meeting��ith the Bianchis and interaction��ith the neighbors relative to options available for gas, electric,«ater, se«er, etc. and theu concems about development. Worked ��ith the Bianchis because the�-had to cut through their land and the�-ha�e an easement for them as ��e11. She said there ��ere man�- issues to ��orlc through to malce it fa�orable for the neighborhood and��ould allo�� them to develop. Chair Miller opened the public hea�ing. Paula Larkin Hutton, San Juan Road: • Said the�- supported the project, and ha�e been negotiating ��ith Pam Costas on various issues rega�ding the propert5-. Ms. Costas has ��orlced diligently- to acldress the issues, sha�ed plans of the house, and��i11 be a good neighbor. She said the�-��ere still concemed about the trees along the road «hen the roacl gets «idened; the�-«ould lilce the Oalc trees to remain in good shape. Said presently there is a drive��a�-��here her son pa�lcs his ca�and the access to that needs to remain as her husband uses that to get to the bacic pa�-t of the propert5-to do maintenance. Chair Miller closed the public hea�ing. Com. Brophy: • Said he supported approval of the application. Said he feels cautious about��hat��ill happen in the future��hen there is a hea�ing on San Juan Roacl. The project is more complicated than some of the others, but given that Ms. Costa has been diligent and ��orlcing��ith the neighbors that she purchased 7 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 13, 2012 the propert5-from, it has lcept them in contact afteil�a�ds in terms of malcing a�rangements. He said he ��ould lilce to see clea�er language in Condition 12 relative to ��hat might happen in the future because the cui7ent language��as ��ealc. Although he had no reason to believe that the Bianchis and the Costas��ould not negotiate in good faith if that becomes the issue,properties do change hands. Gary Chao: • Said a road maintenance and access agreement«ould address the issue, and staff«as not opposed to adding some language to clarifi-. What��as not clarified ea�lier��as that��ith an�- easements, in this case a private access or maintenance easement, ��hen there is an improvement being proposed, typically- the cit�- ��ould aslc that the parties involved conf�um that the�- are olca�- ��ith the improvements. Staff��i11 do that before the�-allo�� construction to commence; because the�-ha�e no stalce, and don't��ant to get involved in future disputes, and also to prevent future confusion. The cui7ent acljacent propert5- o«ner «ould have to discuss it, and prior to the covenant and the improvement implemented, staff��ould ��ant a ��itten acicno��ledgement from the adjacent o��ner sa5-ing that the�-revie��ed it and agree. Vice Chair Sun: • Said it ��as a beautiful design, and he supports the application. The t��o issues of concem a�e easement and fust floor setback. The easement is a genuine concem of all commissioners; it is not lcno��n��hat��ill happen in the future, but the t��o private pa�-ties can negotiate the easement. • Relative to the first floor setbacic, he felt there ��as a design technical reason for the eiception; the proposed project is on the deep slope and it doesn't matter��hether it affects the neighbors or not and he felt it��as appropriate. Com. Lee: • Eipressed concem about potential future dispute rega�ding the road, the maintenance and the easement issue; aslced staff to revie�� it and malce sure that the language is clea�er for Item 12. The remainder of the application is appropriate. Com. Brownley: • Said he concui7ed ��ith colleagues' comments, the major issue being building on the slope. The design addresses the safet�- impacts of designing on such a steep slope, and the�- have granted eiceptions for slopes of this degree in previous cases. The proposal is simila�and��ell designed, and meets the test of building on the slope. The front setbacic is��ell designed for the purpose of allo��ing minimal visual impact on neighboring properties. On1�- sii out of the 17 original trees are proposed for removal; access has been acldressed. • Said he agreed��ith Coms. Brophy-and Lee,that because properties change hands over time and there ma�-be potential for misunderstandings, it is better that things a�e more eiplicit. It«ould be positive to acld some language for future safet�-. • He said he supported the project. Chair Miller: • Said he agreed ��ith colleagues; pointed out that the design ��ith tiers is minimall�- invasive to the slope and does the least amount of disruption of the slope itsel£ From that standpoint it loolcs lilce a vei�-good project as ��ell as the fact that the�-have acldressed a lot of other issues. Said relative the issue of the easement and the retaining ��a11, he hacl difficult�- deciding ho�� much government intrusion there should be in any-pa�-ticula�case;he felt it«as better to allo« the issues to be addressed b�- the neighbors themselves, particularl�- if it is a private road; rather than the Commission or cit�- imposing restrictions or a solution. • He encouraged staff to acldress ��ith the cit�- attorne�- if there ��ere an�- legal concems or ��hat the 8 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 13, 2012 cit�-'s legal obligations are ��ith respect to the neighbor and future access there. If there a�e any, appropriate language should be included; and if none,ha�e the neighbors��ork it out themselves. Com. Brophy: • Suggested approval ��ith aclditional language to Condition 12, to authorize staff that it should be subject to mutual agreement bet��een the applicant and the adjoining property o��ner, so that it can be done��ithout ha�ing to present it at a second meeting. Gary Chao: • Concui7ed and added the acicno��ledgement of the rights for access and future rights. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy,second by Com.Brownley, and carried 5-0-0,to approve EXG2012-01, TR-2012-32 and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2012-06 with the model resolution, and that the language for Condition 12 be modified as discussed. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Miller reported that the projected being discussed ��as granted a Negative Decla�ation. Housing Commission: No Meeting. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin�With Commissioners: No meeting Economic Development Committee: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Written report submitted. Ga��- Chao noted that the Rl t��o-stoi�-house has been appealed to Cit�- Council, December 4"'tentative timeframe. There��as a brief discussion of upcoming agenda items and potential projects relative to Cupertino. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting��as adjoumed to the neit Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on November 27, 2012. Respectfully-Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretai�- 9 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEPTINO,CA 9501�-3255 (�08)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 • �lanningr!,cu�ertino.org CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 • Agenda Date: December 11, 2012 Application: U-2012-05 Applicant: Jeff Oparowski Project Location: Homestead Square (former PW Market site), 20620 Homestead Road, (APN: 326-10-066) APPLICATION SUMMARY: Conditional Use Permit(U-2012-05) to allow the 24-hour operation of a proposed grocery store (Safeway) in a previously approved building at the Homestead Shopping Center (former PW Market). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 1). PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation Commercial/Residential Zoning Designation Planned General Commercial and General Commercial-RG [P (CG)/CG-rg] Environmental Assessment Categorically Exempt Lot Size 15.029 acres (654,663 square feet) Suilding Area 54,984 square feet Project Consistency With: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes BACKGROUND: Previous City Approvals The City Council approved a Use Permit (U-2009-08) and an Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2009-08) on May 4th, 2010 allowing the demolition of 69,656 square feet of commercial space and to construct approximately 15,224 square feet of new commercial space consisting of four new commercial satellite buildings and three new major tenant spaces at the existing shopping center. Following this, an Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-17) was 10 U-2012-05 24-Hour Safeway(Homestead Square) December 11,2012 approved by the Planning Commission to allow changes to the overall architecture of the project and a subsequent Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2012-07) was approved by the Director of Community Development to allow minor changes to the site improvements. The applicant has confirmed that the anchor tenant for the shopping center will be Safeway and is requesting a use permit to allow the 24-hour operation of the store. Existing Center anc� Surrounc�ings The project site is located at the Homestead Square Shopping Center, at the southwest corner of De Anza Soulevard and Homestead Road. The site is surrounded by a hotel, mini-storage facility and condos/townhomes to the south, Franco Park & apartments to the west, a small commercial strip center to the northeast and apartments/townhomes to the north (see Figure 1 below). ' ; i �� - I�_....;,._.__—�_ � ,:-9 '��..� ..,. "' -� � i i�i 1 � � � � � o ._....:..w„ �, �� I , � I 1 I �;�;� � �� - � -- - - �----�- �� _ i • i : �w:_.—;::�"� T''f'i. I'�� }-r-�� !�S�i�J .-� _ � ---- �I� �'Y i�� i�..,�:: - ''..�;; ��C�� fi „ �� R�,,pa, i �L I �. ' � t � �� _ e. ..�� • .f / , � I � � :1 -' _ , , .%/�;i� . . �i • I'�— 1t�1'.:� �1�I c ¢ _ ��%�/�' �I�� _ � �i 'c�� -._. : ...,.Y. J€�f�� ;; ..... i,�.�.:':, �a ~ �� 1�." yjs. _.. ��'�S- � � � '1 �� I .. ��/ ,f / .. �r � — 4; H�_. � ;..� / '� '� � � � � , � f� .� . , � '� '�t d - A - - - - - 'r`f .:./c� _ - � .�..-�—R .4 7... #' .t �� i e N �{ `'v ..e�.. _ f_ .=�.. .. .. I L.L ..�I I I S ii� � �+x -',`�� - r.; .�� ` 1�+; ; t '�' � �' �� J 1�'' � � '�� `� , 'I � _ �� ; ' .. �- - ► �•t' . I 'i � C a ��a -.�f �.} �:'.- � '� p - •"'�— - n.;a»lcaao�tr'4 Yt� �= G� t � u.i.. ` ' � r •r _ - '' +� 1 '� ��- i �ti. � � }'P iI!� _�,,.� - _ � ' f��X4' :i,�{I � �_ ' ' _ . l+ p��}�Q{� ; ��_4� � . , ,� _�� '�•�. - - - �. , yl �i �� -I , �f:... I�' �. ` /� i ''�_e •� �.. :.� � � �:r ��i �i� -"".,•'� -_ •- _ � , ! �, .ti +. C3 �u' � • �_.� Z � � ' - �a �_ .L� , I . ; I #. h', t��'a.11.u.�, � , 1.• k.—: .�. � . . - - _" - - - --- -- - ------------ - - -- - - ---- - -- .::: .. ' - - -=5-- � '� !f _ _ . _ -_---_ - -- - - ...__- -- - �� . T- --� �-�Q�'tiP._,S��C� ��r�C� �i�,—�.. �- - ,, -��._ -,_ , _ -._. - -- --_.- _ - � - - - - �--- ---�--=- - - Figure 1: Shopping Center Vicinity Site Plan DISCUSSION: In accordance with the General Commercial (CG) Ordinance, late evening commercial activities which occur between eleven p.m. through seven a.m. require the review and approval of the Planning Commission. Safeway is relocating its store on Hollenbeck Avenue in the City of Sunnyvale to this site. The store in Sunnyvale is allowed to operate on a 24-hour basis and Safeway anticipates providing continued 24-hour services to the neighborhood to fulfill customer demands for the area. See 11 U-2012-05 24-Hour Safeway(Homestead Square) December 11,2012 Attachment 2 for the site plan and exterior elevation and Attachment 3 for a letter from Safeway regarding the proposed project. Parking The proposed store hours will not have any significant impacts to the shopping center parking since the entire center parking lot is available to the Safeway patrons after the standard business hours (11 pm to 7 am). Further, it is anticipated that only a small amount of customers will shop at Safeway between the hours of 11 pm to 7 am. A condition has been added that if complaints or concerns are received in the future regarding the store hours or parking intensity, the City has the ability to require additional measures as deemed necessary to remediate the concerns. Noise The project is subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified by the City's Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.48). A noise study has been provided as a part of Safeway tenant improvement plans and the study indicates that the operations of the store will be within the permissible noise levels of the ordinance. In addition to this, as a condition of the project, the property owner will be required to provide contact information of the store/ property manager to the neighbors for any complaints related to noise or any other nuisance during the extended hours of operation of the grocery store. Further, the proposed extended hours of operation will not impact activities such as deliveries and/or trash pickup. Oc�or Abatement Plan Saking and food prep activity related to the deli and cafe typically starts at 4:00 a.m. In order to ensure that potential odor impacts to the adjacent residents are minimized, a condition of approval requires Safeway to install an odor abatement system prior to final occupancy. OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW The Santa Clara County's Fire Department and Sheriff's Office reviewed the proposal and have no objections to the project. All comments received have been incorporated to the project as conditions of approvaL The State Department of Alcoholic Severage Control (ASC) is also currently reviewing Safeway's request for a Type 21 Liquor License (On-Site Sale of Seer, Wine, and Spirits). The applicant will have to adhere to all conditions imposed by the Department of ASC upon issuance of the Type 21 Liquor License. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This matter is adjudicatory and 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. 12 U-2012-05 24-Hour Safeway(Homestead Square) December 11,2012 Project Received: November 1, 2012 Deemed Complete: December 5, 2012 Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until February 3, 2013) to make a decision on the project. The Planning Commission's decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision. PUBLIC NOTICING &OUTREACH The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearin , Site Notice & Le al Ad A enda ■ Site Signage ■ Posted on the City's official notice (14 c�ays prior to t{ie{iearing) bulletin board (one zveek prior to t{ie ■ Legal ad placed in newspaper {iearing) (at least 10 c�ays prior to t{ie{iearing) ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web ■ 143 notices mailed to property owners site (one zveek prior to t{ie{iearing) adjacent to the project site (300 foot) (10 c�ays prior to t{ie{iearing) The project applicant also held a neighborhood meeting at the former Rite Aid space in the shopping center on November 15, 2012 to discuss the project with neighboring residents. Representatives from Sobrato, Safeway, the architect's office and the City were present. Three interested people attended the meeting. They were anxious to see the store open and indicated their support for the project. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the project since the project and conditions of approval address all concerns related to the extended hours operations 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: Diana Pancholi, Interim Assistant Planner &Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Garv Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director Attachments 1- Draft Resolution 2- Plan Set 3- Letter from Safeway 13 ATTACH MF�1�o51 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW 24-HOUR OPERATION OF A PROPOSED GROCERY STORE (SAFEWAY) IN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUILDING AT THE HOMESTEAD SHOPPING CENTER. SECTION I: PROiECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2012-05 Applicant: Jeff Oparowski Property Owner: Sobarato Organization Location: Homestead Square (former PW Market site), 20620 Homestead Road, (APN: 326-10-066 ) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; 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) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City's zoning ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of 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, the application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2012-05 is hereby approved, 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. U-2012-05 as 14 Draft Resolution U-2012-05 December 11,2012 set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED SY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. APPROVED EXHISITS Approval is based on the plan set dated November 1, 2012, consisting of 2 sheets labeled A2 and A3, entitled, "Planning Department Submittal Homestead Square Retail Center," prepared by ARC TEC ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGIES, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS All conditions of approval administered with application nos. U-2009-08 shall be applicable to this approval unless amended by the conditions in this resolution. 3. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved as part of this Use Permit application. 4. FINAL TRASH, DELIVERY, AND PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE PLAN Prior to final occupancy the applicant shall submit a final refined business operation plan including but not limited to final trash enclosure, refuge pickup hours and route, delivery truck deliveries and pickup hours, employees break schedule. Any changes to this final operational plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to implementation of the changes. Recology, the City's refuse provider, shall review and approve the trash enclosure layout. Parking lot cleaning and maintenance activities (e.g. pressure washing, steam cleaning, parking lot washing etc) shall be performed between the hours of 7 am and 11 pm. 5. RESTRICTED DELIVERY AND PICKUP HOURS In accordance with the City's Community Noise Control Ordinance, vehicular deliveries and pickups (with the exception of refuse pickups) in the rear alley (located adjacent to the residential use to the south of the shopping center) shall occur only between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm Monday through Friday and 9 am and 6 pm on Saturday and Sunday. 5. ODOR ASATEMENT SYSTEM An odor abatement system shall be installed for all food preparation activities prior to final occupancy of this tenant space. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the community Development Director prior to issuance of building permit. 6. PARKING LOT SIGNAGE Prior to final occupancy of tenant improvement permits, the property owner shall install signs in the west parking lot (located adjacent to the residential use to the south of the shopping center) directing patrons to be sensitive to nearby residents. The wording of the signs shall be reviewed and approved by Planning staff prior to issuance of tenant improvement permits. 15 Draft Resolution U-2012-05 December 11,2012 7. LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT The shopping center property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from documented incidents in the shopping center at the City's contracted hourly rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident. 8. USE PERMIT REVIEW/ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS If complaints are received related to the tenant under this use permit, and the complaints are not addressed immediately by the property management, then the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the use permit at which time, the approval for the extended hours of operation late night hours may be modified or revoked. The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or parking restrictions as prescribed by the Sheriff's Office. 9. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other 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. 10. IND EMNIFICATION 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. 11. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2012, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: 16 Draft Resolution U-2012-05 December 11,2012 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROV ED: Aarti Shrivastava Marty Miller, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission 17 KEY NOTES o�� O2 S�PPI�'a C/IFif CCfii�L Af�1 OYOdLBdf S[�I OP1,8��Af Af61 ORMII�1 f�1uN 9ff ur�DBCNE oRawNC9s O8 P�IFMN WM1dWY O7 Fi1fD6f:AJ�PAYBYBJf O8 7M9i 8�iYPE 2 �„��„�, O1F±1�1 CA+PAGll7i BL"lD6li� OBB.iR('/iL 1A4� � I � �I I �II � I I�I I� I� �I �io .i � I I I I ( I � � I I I _�� I I II O �I � � a, ___� �i � o�� flO D�RI�G LaD;'OOLX OFFE 1FiX7C R�llIE Miflli 4 ilA�l R101� O��IBM 1R10(FnUIE OALL ilA#6&�Ml�Wt66H�1[711 O9 ALL ila#61lIB68:11�1 OFti1f N MD F[�If Q!f iUN O91E 1�49rBd15 N AD�WCBdf r�n�ss.�r io �K�� GM�6i NO YYLL ff�Et�F ARi�IK B ti'1f CBfM�: � � I � � i � I I I � I I I I I i II i � i I ;i I j I I� � � ° � I; � j I I ' ii � j I I � � �b b I I i I I jl � i ! � � � m ! I � � I �� I I � Q ! I� � � �i I I I I I I 0 I � I � I = �I � � I li I i I I Z � � � � � I I i I I I � I i I I i I � � � I � I i i PARKING AN ,YSIS �� PNIQi'f��RAHE�11k �5rz ff 1?�o=796 sPACes 795 6PAf� PAfiO�G Pf�� 11�6TA11 PAFIOXi PfD11� 392� SfM�PAfiO�[i R�'A� ?Sf SPACF� I�E PAFia�C Pfi711� b SPACFS YMI A�ffiE PNiO['Pt�l� B SP/� 10TAL PNiO�G PfDN[ID B47 SP/� ecraF r�Aeo��I��ror anoo�oPl ClAS61 FlClll� 916 ff PBOI��llIONqB1E P1vi0�C'SUL1S R7R C�±AL CC�A+B�7�IL(fAe.E BU�I�M �E PAfiO�G f�Jl,f$2 �i��= ��1 9GYClE PVMiv�G Pfi011� �3� ��R�� S�ALL 7YPE MiO1H �Ili C�uRJ1Nf 6TMd1fD� g-d' �-0' Y� ll�Fiiirl� B�' E'-0' Y� f�i�N1�i CF A�E PAfiQ�',SUL1S(�T�� IOTAL PAliO�['� 1�1 f�� OCMPII�Wf � 1 - � 2 - 9N5 9 - 76-fl0 4 - 1DF-�D 6 - 81-�DD 8 - �I-900 7 - �I-�OD B - �01-50D 9 - 9DI-1000 4 Y6R �� # � *1W0 PB�BJf ff l6UL •�a�n�i R�s a��a E��q a��riror'i he+eo�al�torn LEGEND � ��,�� / I�BIY�Al�i -- E70511�C PfO9ilY 11�E 8 U UI�GfALL PAfiaG SPACF�'�'x 8-0') ,s sr,a�o,a��sr,�u�-o x�r-�s 2O M�E PAfiO�G SULL(0'�'x 8-0') PROJECT DATA �� D]�N3 A�lbf PD 6(�l CCM+I W6lAY PI��Cfi�� (�Hi�IL PINt ��FE�IlY1L l� f£fAL FfJI�OF Q�6Y11Dk 8 AYI 10 A RA 24 hi6-WIE AD SIIE AFEA ��i APEII• FAR 69Cf� IN�0+1AA FHiif: PAIiQl3 PARQ�C 1Nlqt PA111�G I�A L/V�'i1F�6 WY�BCI�PE AfFJt Attachment 2 PF� �46(601 l�i �Ap�� ff BST bTM1S �7 Sf�us I�000� �{,'AD g �� - , �1 � � , � � d , , , j EXISTING iPARK l�' \ � / 1 i I � �. �. � � � � , F=_—=�_- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - _� ------- - - - ---__-__--_--_-_-- --------_--_-- �-�----- � i � _.—..��- ---,------� •-_ T-____ _�- -_- _-_=_�_ - — — —�- ----------- - - — — — — — � 8 i I' — - — — — 4 ' — ,--� -- I I ^ /� I�- �' � �I � � F—---- —.-.-.--.-—.-. - �- - - - _ - - - - �{�}� . _�� ,s � n — d � —'�—�_/v — — ESTEAD�fZD�— _ 9 I — �— — — — — — Q — I� v I F�— �? � " N � --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - _._� - - - _--_-.—.- - --_-_--___----- ---------_------_-- --------------------------- ------------------ --_-______ - ----- , � - - - ___—- ------- ------------------------------- __ e , - --------------_�- - a -- - - --_--_=_______�--=�=___==____=_______=________________=__==________=___ _-- - ___�__ 0 . ' �.J .�. . . . � � ____-�_____Js� �L .�.—'—'�._� ___�__�__�_ � � __________________ —��_ __ -1 •sT_"'t�___ _ ___ � �—� �� ______ ^ -- _____,..I P- ___ i -- f i .. 1 i�� 0 o rs--e- t------'� J \�----J � , j � I i r ° j r�� I � _-_ �"o � ,l{ � � � � � �1 �� _ 0 0 0 v v v �� —r_r��r �� I�� '� S ..,.... � �� r�� `°' ..r,..ee...arne,.. � ---- � �,----------- II�IA1�/._ ^'.��111 �� .........r.na................i r+^ra.r...r■ �� - _..��.._ •----•, ��'��... H ---- �----iir-r� ---- r==r--�i�--� ---===-.. ^ ,.... .... .... �■■� ...____--- �� ......__.... . . .,_ ��.�I I�1 Iljjll Ilj�ll��I�I� ��1� ��1�� ■�� 1111��1111 f�� u■ ��I��I�I ��',��l,��!''�� 11��1� ■�� I��i i�.. .i��l -�I��■��1��I��I ��jjJ Ljl��I�IJ � � 1 OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION (FRONT) PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION Z � ,�,�,�. PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION 3 � ,�.�-� PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION 4 � ,��,� � FINISH LEGEND �� a�� a °�� KEY NOTES ALL MAY Y O1 (�AE6 BJIFtY p00fiq O2 F$:�LQAa�K'a DOCK O9 S10fSi�Nf S1fSTB+t O�� O�K�� OMEf%1 CAN.'Pt� OGw�M�J1MC�l� �� OPAM�LMa OrTla/W�RG O�� O�� O�� O�� ON?f AT CB�If RJSIHi WfIH�i�MJ�B�IfAL NETAL�I F OTRr310pyPACiCfl BJ1081� O�w000 sor+� �8 Albl WCME MD N�If C809T BCK KEY PLAN -- -- --I � �' ❑ � � �_l__ Q � _a) FCI+B7FAD ROr1D � � ARC TEC ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGIES www.arctecinc.com Arizona ut venue, ing PAomix,Arizana d5028 P 6p2.953.2355 F 6Q2.953.2966 CaGfornia Alm levar, -(e San Joss,Califamia 95tt3 P 408.1%.0676 F 108.4%.11I1 11�1�V h^��Mlsi��WrM11p IIC S/IC lE wrr'�P e��\ •Y�w��wMM�•wME MIR:� ,wrI�1111�r�tiM�1 wYY�IMr~��-�IY��IC L� Y..�...��,__...�..,. wc�Cwwcicww w...Y�ow s..rr�+v r..ti w ir w.�r rnt�wc a ..rr w w w..rr r..+�+r�w �+��..ir��.+ore«r�w r.r�r•��.��zwcs r�w.r.w w ra��r ir.r�r.r w ��bYrMOY�b�� y�I�'MCL'/F�� ^Yl'Y��i�i.Mi� 11/NBOL�07fl YICk ,:,5i)BR/�tiO:.:::..:::.:... � W N Z W v J — a � W � W � JQ � > � = m � N m /w Q N �ir a, 0 wQo � W �o � � �� wt/� �¢ o W c� � � C � o z C N� QOE� � � =U DATE DESCRIPTION 09.02.11 PLANNING SUBMfTTAL 09.21.11 PLANNING RE•SUBMffTAL 05.18.12 PLANNING RE•SUBMITTAL 08.20.12 PLANNING RE-SUBMfTTAL 09.21.12 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL MAJORS- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3 PROJECT N0: 102708 ATTACHMENT 3 Sender's Direct Line (925) 467-3063 SAFEWAY ,M November 1, 2012 Gary Chao Planning Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Homestead Square Grocery Store 24 hour operation Cupertino, CA Dear Mr. Chao: Thank you for your assistance in processing a Conditional Use Permit for the 24 hour operation of the grocery store at Homestead Square in Cupertino. Safeway will be relocating to Cupertino from its current location at Loehmann's Plaza in Sunnyvale, which is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Safeway offers these hours as a convenience to its customers, for example, people working evening shifts and parents making the midnight run for a sick child. Employee parking would be designated by the landlord, Sobrato, pursuant to their Shopping Center Rules and Regulations. Safeway is happy to park its employees in an area away from the rear residents and be respectful of nighttime noise ordinances. Thank you for your consideration and please let me know if you have any questions. Safeway looks forward to opening in Cupertino and being of community service in 2013. Sincerely, SAFEWAY, INC. � � Natalie C. Mattei Real Estate Manager Cc: Rich Truempler Safeway Inc. Northern California Division 5918 Stoneridge Mall Roatl Pleasanton,CA 94588-3229 2�