Loading...
PC Agenda Packet 01-28-14Table of Contents Agenda 2 draft minutes of the 01-14-2014 meeting Draft MInutes 01-14-2014 4 Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Committee representatives Staff Report 12 1- Committee Appointee list for 2014 14 2- 2014 Meeting Calendar 15 Conditional Use permit for a weekly food truck event Staff Report 27 1- Draft Resolution 31 2- Project Description 35 3- Traffic Analysis 40 4- Plan Set 46 Director's Report Directors Report 51 1 AGENDA CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall Tuesday, January 28, 2014 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: draft minutes of the 01-14-2014 meeting Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes Page: 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL 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 2. Subject: Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Committee representatives Recommended Action: make selections and recommend ERC appointment to Council Discuss meeting calendar for 2014 Page: 12 PUBLIC HEARING 3. Subject: Conditional Use permit for a weekly food truck event Recommended Action: Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a weekly food truck event Description: Application No.(s): U-2013-09 Applicant(s): Benjamin Himlan (Whole Foods Market) Location(s): 20955 Stevens Creek Blvd Conditional Use Permit to allow a weekly mobile food truck event in the parking lot of a commercial establishment Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 2 Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Page -2 Page: 27 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 4. Subject: Director's Report Recommended Action: accept report Page: 51 ADJOURNMENT 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. 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. 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 planning@cupertino.org. 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. JANUARY 14, 2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Vice Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Commissioners absent: Chairperson: Don Sun Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 10, 2013, Planning Commission meeting: Acting Chair Brophy: • Requested clarification on Page 7, Aarti Shrivastava’s statement that if a heritage tree is dying and needs to be replaced, the owner has to either replace the tree or provide funds for a public tree. Page 10 states that a fee is not charged if the tree is dead. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Explained that Ms. Shrivastava was likely referring to the application fee for the tree removal application which is going to be retroactive because the tree is dead already. Previously she is discussing a replacement; if a tree is dead staff acknowledges that it is caused by nature and it is not their original intent; therefore they are not charged for staff time to review the case; however, they do need to come in to the Planning Department and apply for the paperwork; in which case if the tree is a specimen tree then staff requests that the tree be replaced with something in kind. • If for whatever reason physically the site does not lend itself to any replacement, there is the option of the in-lieu fee that goes into the street tree fund. (The second remark refers to the fee for permits) • Acting Chair Brophy clarified his comment on Page 15, about Douglas Fir trees, stating that his point was that Douglas Fir is not native to the flat lands and that there were issues about watering trees, if they tried to encourage them to be a heritage tree in flatlands. 4 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 2 MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 4-0-0, Chair Sun absent, to approve the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented following clarification from staff. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 2. Review of 2014 Work Program. Discuss Work Program prior to submittal to City Council. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said their goal was to discuss the Planning Commission’s recommendations to City Council for the Planning Commission’s work program for 2014/15. A copy of the Council’s goals and objectives from last year which spills over to 2014 are included in the staff report. The Council have not yet set their goals and objectives for the coming year; historically the Planning Commission’s discussion occurs after the Council has discussed their goals and objectives for the coming year. The Council has tentatively scheduled discussion of their work program in March; the Planning Commission’s comments will be forwarded to the Council for their consideration. • He highlighted the items recommended to be included in the work program. The first item is the city’s General Plan Amendment (GPA) process which is the biggest current project which will continue to 2015. The purpose is to address development allocation, replenishing that, looking at study areas, various corridors in the city as well as some of the key sites including Vallco. It is already under way and will be committing most of staff’s resources and time. • The second item, which stems from the GPA process is the state requirement for the city to update the housing element. It is running in conjunction with the GPA process because it requires some additional considerations of outreach. On January 23, 2014 a joint study session of the Housing Commission and Planning Commission will be held to discuss the housing element goals and objectives, and requirements for this year. During that meeting discussion will include potential sites, parameters and the Commission’s input will feed into that process. • The third item is the tree ordinance, which is going to City Council in March for their final consideration. It will potentially come back to the Commission because based on community feedback staff is asking Council to look at the parameters and directions again; they may reach a decision or come back to the Commission for additional analysis. • The fourth item is the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP) amendment which is an item from Council’s work program from last year. There has been no specific discussion regarding what they would like to see, but are looking at side yard setbacks, some of the calculations for density etc. Depending on the GPA it may result in more items to be addressed within the HOCSP. If there are any policy changes or anything that changes within the HOC corridor, the HOCSP would have to be updated to follow suit. • The fifth item is to update the Below Market Housing Manual and nexus study for the housing 5 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 3 mitigation fees. The project came up a few years ago, but since the housing element is being updated it will follow the housing element effort; the Council and Planning Commission will be part of a study that will review the residential BMR housing mitigation program and fees. • The sixth item is the climate action plan; the city is in the process already to solicit RFPs from consultants to help staff with the process, Staff has already received numerous RFPs or proposals from environmental firms that can help the city guide them through the process and evaluation, outreach efforts and conducting interviews. Staff plans to go to City Council in about a month to have them authorize the contract, formally initiate the project and return it to the Planning Commission. The targeted timeframe is summer/fall 2014 to return for review and recommendation. • The seventh item is Council’s desire from last year to consider evaluation of a teacher housing project with a non-profit developer. As yet, there has been no interest shown or proposals from a non-profit developer. • When considering some of the projects and recommendations for staff to focus on in the next year or two, it is prudent to consider some of the projects in the works that may go before the Planning Commission for consideration, which is also demanding staff’s time. • Some of the noteworthy projects include parkside trail; live/work project; apartment complex on Foothill; some of the projects may come in shortly after the GPA process is approved because the property owners have expressed interest of having a project that runs along the side of the GP anticipating favorable approval from the City Council and they will follow up the GPA process with a project immediately for the city’s consideration to benefit from the policy or the allocation and the development parameters that the Council may consider approving. The projects may include but not be limited to Cupertino Inn, Prometheus office complex and Vallco redevelopment. • The work program will be based on the Council’s ultimate direction, goals and objectives; usually they will consider staff resource and time commitment, knowing what is on the books already, and they will prioritize Commission’s comments with community input. Once Commission’s recommendations go forward to Council, and they in turn provide direction, staff will bring it back to the Commission for a second look. Gary Chao: • Said the HOCSP had to be reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission; it is an integral part of the amendment process because most of the projects, if not all, are reviewed that would trigger some of the development regulations. • Said that teacher housing could be a sub-category of BMR housing. It is the Council’s desire to have a project constructed that the city could partner with. The BMR housing manual and nexus study relates to policies, fees and infrastructure that would guide the BMR project. Acting Chair Brophy: • Asked staff about the combined working on the GPA and the housing element; presently it is envisioned that in the GPA they look at additional non-residential development on key sites; but at the same time are facing a housing element which has always been a difficult subject to discuss in Cupertino, especially as it affects possible impact on the school enrollment, etc. Does it make sense to be looking at those two issues together because some of those sites may be able to have potential apartments; they would have low impact on the school district and still help the city to meet the RENA goals that are set by the regional planning agency. Gary Chao: • Said it did make sense; that is the purpose of the joint study session with the Housing Commission on January 23rd. It is overlap and concurrent to the GPA process. As staff studies the special areas within the corridors when the Council and communities engage in conversations about the non-residential desires of the city or goals, it is inevitable to have the conversation with the community, Council and Commission about housing opportunities; and also just as a bargaining chip as well because the 6 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 4 reality is some of the projects may require a supplement benefit for developers to realize some of the non-residential products they like to see, such as Vallco. • There has to be something that would inject interest and benefit the developers and builders to be able to do something worthwhile for the city’s consideration; as well as looking at existing sites. There are opportunities to evaluate whether that’s the best and greatest use for the site and also the location. • Does the theme for that corridor in that area lend itself to support residential; staff internally are talking about allocations and development policy alternatives and the various levels of intensity of recommendation, and are also considering the potential of housing in light of those recommendations of options for the Council to consider. The Commission’s input would contribute towards that recommendation, ultimately to City Council. Com. Takahashi: • Briefly discussed the reconciliation of current Vallco activity and possible development vs. the GPA. There was mention that potentially something might be coming forward soon. He said he assumed they were working under the existing General Plan as far as what they are allowed to; in terms of submitting applications, it is a matter of timing and effectively trying to beat a revision to the General Plan if there were a relatively large change in terms of Vallco. Gary Chao: • Said when the Council considered at the initiation of the General Plan, discussing the parameters and consideration, they specifically clarified to staff and the community that because it takes a long time for the General Plan to develop and there is some concern that they don’t want business to stop and not know the outcome of the General Plan, the Council clarified that if there is a project that the developer or owner is ready within Vallco that they can bring it to the city as with any process, if there is no moratorium. They have to consider elements like circulation, connectivity because the whole concept of the General Plan is to look at Vallco comprehensively. Ultimately it avoids a piecemeal phase not knowing exactly the final outcome. Council and community would like to see it as a whole division so that the policies could be developed to achieve that vision. Any project that would come in during the interim before that vision is defined would have to work hard to demonstrate to the community and the Council that there is provisions put in place; connections, walkways and interface considerations for that future comprehensive master plan of Vallco. • There are a select few property owners who are looking at options to take advantage of the current General Plan and there is nothing to lose because they could get a project approved and still wait and see if they may benefit from and assess their options later on. The market is there, the financial investment is there, there are many possible considerations that may be iunning ahead of the General Plan process that warrants their interest in coming before the city before the General Plan process is done. Staff will try to connect the project as it comes in beforehand with the vision they are talking about with the Council and community in Vallco as a whole. There are five general entities that own land; there may be entities that are very involved that own long term leases with Vallco; staff has reached out to all of them, and they are fully aware of what we are doing; and many of them are excited about the opportunity. Acting Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak; the public hearing was closed. Com Lee: • Said she supported the work program as presented. Com. Takahashi: • Said it was comprehensive and well aligned with what they were attempting to accomplish. 7 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 5 Acting Chair Brophy: • Discussed the BMR nexus study and reviewed the law passed by the legislature a few years ago called the Vacancy Decontrol law, which specified that any rent control units upon the tenants moving out were subject to what could be rented at market rate uses. The State Supreme Court ruled in a Los Angeles case that affordable housing units were subject to this law and that notwithstanding any commitments required by the city on affordable housing, that once the initial tenant left, that unit was then available for market rate rentals. This year the legislature passed a law to overturn that decision; however, Gov. Brown vetoed that bill and his argument based on his experiences as Mayor of Oakland was that developing housing in California is extremely complicated and expensive and that he felt that this attempt to bring this back in would be counterproductive to the long term interest of the state in terms of developing new housing to serve the growing population. The point of the whole BMR nexus study is to skirt around that, the law as it was currently set by the Supreme Court and left in tact by the governor saying that the construction of new market rate housing somehow generates a demand for more low income housing independently of everything else. • Said his background in real estate development has been in retail and industrial building, not residential, but he knows how difficult it is to develop to make residential rental units work. Given that the city has several million dollars in their BMR housing fund courtesy of the Apple deal, he recommended to the Commissioners and then to City Council that they consider dropping the item and not try to further complicate it to develop market rate rental housing in Cupertino. City Attorney Colleen Winchester: • Said whether or not the nexus study is legally required in conjunction with the BMR housing project, is something they would need to defer to a determination at the time when doing the BMR housing and the nexus study and whether or not that is a legally required component of the entire program. Com. Brophy’s recommendation has been noted and staff can confer with the consultants with respect to the BMR issue. It would have to be determined legally whether or not that is something they could or could not drop as opposed to being a legal component of the BMR. Acting Chair Brophy: • Said as a result of the Apple transaction the affordable housing fund was a rich fund. He asked why they were required to do a nexus study; his understanding being that the study was only needed if they wanted to impose affordable housing charges onto a market rate rental project. Gary Chao: • Clarified that the BMR manual was an update of the existing program; there has been a mitigation manual for many years. He said he could not speak to the legality in terms of the Supreme Court decision or requirement of the city. Acting Chair Brophy: • Said the term “nexus” came about as a result of the Supreme Court decision; it was clearly a way to get around the decision to be able to impose fees on the developers at market rate rental. Said he did not believe there was anything in the state law that requires them to get around it and it’s not even clear that the so-called nexus studies will stand up in court. He said to say now that they are required to do them seems to make a huge leap that is not in the record; I think the fact that the governor when given the opportunity to overturn the decision by signing the bill that the legislature passed, clarifying what the term vacancy decontrol, specifically chose to veto that bill on the grounds it was making the development of rental housing more difficult in a place where it is already difficult. It seems to be a major policy decision to go against the governor and against what the law is. He said they may be required to have a BMR handbook, but there is no requirement to do a nexus study unless they are looking to extract funds or units from future developers of rental units. He said they should take the governor’s position, especially given that they have such a huge affordable housing fund already, and 8 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 6 are not short of funds. • He suggested as a policy issue they recommend to City Council to consider dropping the nexus study; he was not arguing against the BMR handbook, but arguing against the nexus study portion of it. Gary Chao: • Said it would be part of the Commission’s comment to the Council regarding the item depending upon how the Commission feels about it. If it comes back, it will likely be a topic of discussion for that process. Acting Chair Brophy: • Said he would like the issue to go before the Council for their consideration. Affordable housing is one of their biggest problems in the Bay Area; it is not just the traditional poor people, but people who have lived in traditional middle income market rate housing are finding it harder to live in Cupertino and it appears the best solution is to encourage the production of more housing as long as it meets the design standards they have and doesn’t have an impact upon the school district. It is imposing an additional burden. Gary Chao: • Said there are many recent court rulings, overturns and clarifications on the mitigation fee as it relates to rental apartments. Staff is not prepared this evening to discuss the final verdict or if a final determination has even been reached. Staff understands the comment, and will provide additional information to Commissioners on the side or after the fact in terms of providing the current status of things and the legality of the mitigation and nexus study. Acting Chair Brophy: • Said it was his last year on the Commission, and he was again suggesting they study the parking requirements. Certain uses are grossly under-parked such as grocery stores and restaurants; while other uses are over-parked. He cited a good combination such as the Lucky Center where Ranch 99 Market soaks up too much parking, but CVS doesn’t need that much. There is clearly a problem with Marina or Whole Foods or Ranch 99 in Cupertino Village. As they look to becoming a more intensively developed city, they need to relook at the parking issue. Com. Lee: • Said she supported Acting Chair Brophy’s comment; it was apparent on some of the reviews Ranch 99 market still had a bad parking problem. Com. Takahashi: • Relative to the nexus study comments, he referred to the second paragraph of Item 9 where it mentioned a possibility of a joint study with other cities. Acting Chair Brophy: • From his perspective he said he felt it was a bad policy, given that it is one of the top public policy issues in the Bay Area; Silicon Valley Leadership Group lists that as their number one issue. He said he did not feel that to join in a conspiracy with other cities to make it harder to build rental housing was his idea of a step forward. City Attorney Colleen Winchester: • The study determines if there is an appropriate nexus between the fee and a fee for not developing affordable housing. Com. Brophy’s concern relative to increasing a fee on the developer, the city should be using other funds for affordable housing rather than imposing the burden on the developer. 9 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 7 Acting Chair Brophy: • Said the funds already in the affordable housing fund were augmented by the Apple deal; he was not advocating taking money out of the general fund. To the extent is called a study, there should be no confusion that it is a neutral study looking at the issue with no prejudgment; it is a study aimed to justify putting additional burdens on developers of market rate housing. City Attorney Colleen Whitaker: • Said she would not correct Com. Brophy on his perception of the components, but legally the goal of the study is to determine the appropriate level of fees to be imposed when non-affordable housing or market rate housing is being built. The study then determines the nexus between the construction and affordable housing, which is the purpose of the study. Com. Lee: • Said there still has to be programs in place, which is the reason for the study. Acting Chair Brophy: • Said they already have an affordable housing fund and programs to encourage BMR housing; fees charged on For Sale housing on office and commercial which is a much stronger argument to say that office and commercial development generates a demand for housing rather that somehow market rate housing generates a demand for more BMR housing. Said he was not objecting to methods of collecting money; but questioning why they would spend time and money on a study aimed at making it harder to develop market rate rental housing. Gary Chao: • Reiterated that they would pass the concerns on to the City Council for their consideration. The topic is a very complex topic. Acting Chair Brophy: • Said he has had concerns about the parking for many years. He asked for input from the commissioners in the event a slot became open. Com. Takahashi: • Parking is always a sensitive issue when there is a shortage of parking; and having under-parked large paved asphalt parking lots are just as big an issue. The advantage of challenge parking is it will give an incentive for alternate modes of transportation; which needs to be considered in the parking equation; given real estate is in such demand, striking that balance is something to pay attention to. Com. Gong: • Said it is also a factor of the success of the business; if no one wants to go to the restaurant, there is not a parking problem. Acting Chair Brophy: • He cited examples where there was not enough parking such as BJs restaurant; Elephant Bar has parking problems but it has other uses which offset the lack of parking. A better parking ordinance or more accurate parking ordinance would encourage larger developments that have mixed uses as opposed to free standing grocery stores or restaurants; it would result in better quality retail development. Com. Gong: • Said if it was freestanding, the options for developing parking would be not just a flat surface; it is costly to go up or down but that could provide incentive to the developer in a different way. 10 Cupertino Planning Commission January 14, 2014 8 Com. Lee: • There are certain cities that call for more parking requirements per square foot for retail than a medical office; it may be beneficial to evaluate Cupertino’s parking ordinance compared to other cities, and drive around the city to see which uses are under-parked and which are over-parked. Acting Chair Brophy: • Suggested that it be added to the list if Council was interested and they decide there are additional resources. Discussion concluded; no action was needed. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No report. Housing Commission: No report. Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: • December meeting cancelled; no January meeting. Com. Lee will attend the February meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Gary Chao reported: • City Attorney reminded them to set the agenda for the January 23 Joint Housing/Planning Commission Study Session/Workshop, at 6:30 p.m. • 2014 Planning Commission Academy, March 26-28 in Burlingame, register ASAP since it fills up early. Contact Julia • State of the City Address: January 29, 2014, 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the January 23, 2014 Joint Housing Commission/Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. EOC Conference Room, City Hall Building. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary 11 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Planning Commission Election Agenda Date: January 28, 2014 RECOMMENDATION Elect a Chair and Vice Chair Recommend an Environmental Review Committee (ERC) representative Appoint a Housing Commission representative Appoint a Design Review Committee (DRC) member and an alternate Appoint an Economic Development Committee representative Discuss the Hearing Schedule for 2014 BACKGROUND Terms The terms of office of the Chair, Vice Chair and Design Review Committee members are for one year and end in January of each year. Environmental Review Committee Typically, the City Council reviews the staff members of ERC annually. Historically, the Planning Commission recommends its Chair to serve on the Environmental Review Committee. The Planning Commission recommended ERC member will be reviewed and formally appointed by the City Council. Housing Commission The Planning Commission sends a representative to the Housing Commission to provide better communication between the Commissions. The Planning Commissioner is not a voting member and there is no term of office. New appointments occur from time-to-time; the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may be selected. Usually the selection is determined by the level of interest of a particular Planning Commissioner. Design Review Committee The Municipal Code provides that the Chair of the Design Review Committee is the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, so only one member and an alternate need to be appointed. Economic Development Committee Each year, the Planning Commission sends a representative to the Economic Development Committee to help enhance awareness and communication with the business community. The Economic Development Committee is an ad hoc committee. There are no term limits, the same representative may be re-appointed or a new representative may be selected. 12 DISCUSSION Chair and Vice Chair: The selection of the Chair typically is the Vice Chair, who is Paul Brophy (re-appointed in February 2013, second term ends 2015). The selection of the new Vice Chair typically is based on seniority and rotation. The following Commissioners are listed below based on seniority and rotation: 1. Winnie Lee – re-appointed in February 2013 (second term ends 2017) 2. Alan Takahashi - appointed in February 2013 (first term ends 2017) 3. Margaret Gong - appointed in February 2013 (first term ends 2017) 4. Don Sun – appointed January 2011 (first term ends 2015) Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Administrative Clerk Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Attachments: 1 - Planning Commission Committee Appointees 2 - Tentative 2014 Planning Commission Hearing Schedule G:\Planning\PDREPORT\MISCELL\2014\pc appointments 1-28-14.rtf 13 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE APPOINTEES updated 2/6/14 Planning Commission Meeting / 2nd & 4th Tuesday, 6:45 p.m. - Chair – Vice Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Design Review Committee / 1st & 3rd Thursday, 5:00 p.m. - Chair - Commissioner tbd- alternate Economic Development Committee/ To Be Determined – representative tbd– alternate (City Council representatives: Rod Sinks, Orrin Mahoney) Environmental Review Committee / 1st & 3rd Thursday, 9:30 a.m. – representative tbd– alternate (City Council representatives: Barry Chang, Rod Sinks (alternate)) Housing Commission Meeting / 2nd Thursday, 9:00 a.m. – representative Mayor’s Monthly Meeting/ 2nd Wednesday, 4:00pm, Conference Room A Winnie…February 12th …March 12th …April 9th …May 14th …June 11th …July 9th …August 13th …September 10th …October 8th …November 12th G:\Planning\MISCELL\pcreps.doc 14 ◄ Dec 2013 ~ January 2014 ~ Feb 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 HOLIDAY 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Council meeting 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Planning Commission meeting 15 16 17 18 19 20 HOLIDAY 21 City Council meeting 22 23 Housing & Planning Commission meeting 24 25 26 27 28 Planning Commission meeting 29 30 31 Notes: 15 ◄ Jan 2014 ~ February 2014 ~ Mar 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 City Council meeting 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Planning Commission meeting 12 Mayor’s monthly meeting 13 14 15 16 17 HOLIDAY 18 Joint City Council & Planning Commission meeting 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Commission meeting 26 27 28 Notes: 16 ◄ Feb 2014 ~ March 2014 ~ Apr 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 Joint City Council & Planning Commission meeting 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Planning Commission meeting 12 Mayor’s monthly meeting 13 14 15 16 17 18 Joint City Council & Planning Commission meeting 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Commission meeting 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: City Council will also be discussing their Work Program this month 17 ◄ Mar 2014 ~ April 2014 ~ May 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 City Council meeting 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning Commission meeting 9 Mayor’s monthly meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 City Council meeting 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Planning Commission meeting 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: 18 ◄ Apr 2014 ~ May 2014 ~ Jun 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 City Council meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Planning Commission meeting 14 Mayor’s monthly meeting 15 16 17 18 19 20 City Council meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 HOLIDAY 27 Planning Commission meeting 28 29 30 31 19 ◄ May 2014 ~ June 2014 ~ Jul 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 City Council meeting 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Planning Commission meeting 11 Mayor’s monthly meeting 12 13 14 15 16 17 City Council meeting 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Planning Commission meeting 25 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: 20 ◄ Jun 2014 ~ July 2014 ~ Aug 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 City Council meeting 2 3 4 HOLIDAY 5 6 7 8 Planning Commission meeting 9 Mayor’s monthly meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 City Council meeting 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Planning Commission meeting 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: 21 ◄ Jul 2014 ~ August 2014 ~ Sep 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 City Council meeting 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Planning Commission meeting 13 Mayor’s monthly meeting 14 15 16 17 18 19 City Council meeting 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Commission meeting 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: 22 ◄ Aug 2014 ~ September 2014 ~ Oct 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 HOLIDAY 2 City Council meeting 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Planning Commission meeting 10 Mayor’s monthly meeting 11 12 13 14 15 16 City Council meeting 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Planning Commission meeting 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: 23 ◄ Sep 2014 ~ October 2014 ~ Nov 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Council meeting 8 Mayor’s monthly meeting 9 10 11 12 13 14 Planning Commission meeting 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 City Council meeting 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Planning Commission meeting 29 30 31 Notes: 24 ◄ Oct 2014 ~ November 2014 ~ Dec 2014 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 City Council meeting 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Planning Commission meeting? 11 HOLIDAY 12 Mayor’s monthly meeting Planning Commission meeting? 13 14 15 16 17 18 City Council meeting 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Commission meeting 26 27 HOLIDAY 28 HOLIDAY 29 30 Notes: More Calendars from WinCalendar: 2013 Calendar, 2014 Calendar, Reference Calendar 25 ◄ Nov 2014 ~ December 2014 ~ Jan 2015 ► Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 City Council meeting 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Planning Commission meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 City Council meeting 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Planning Commission meeting 24 HOLIDAY City Hall closed 25 HOLIDAY City Hall closed 26 City Hall closed 27 28 29 City Hall closed 30 City Hall closed 31 HOLIDAY City Hall closed Notes: 26 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: January 28, 2014 Applications: U-2013-09 Applicant: Benjamin Himlan (Off the Grid) Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Blvd. (APN 326-31-022) APPLICATION SUMMARY: Use Permit (U-2013-09) to allow the operation of a weekly mobile food market in the parking lot of an existing commercial establishment. 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 / Office / Residential Zoning Designation Planned General Commercial and Residential P(CG, Res) Lot Size 232,959 sq. ft. (5.34 acres) Existing building area (no change) 67,144 sq. ft. Existing building height (no change) 45 ft. Existing parking supply (no change) 376 stalls Hours of operation: Current Whole Foods Market hours 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week Proposed hours for Off the Grid 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM, every Tuesday Project Consistency With: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes Environmental assessment Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: Application Request The applicant, Benjamin Himlan, representing Off the Grid is requesting a Use Permit to operate a weekly outdoor mobile food market at the Whole Foods Market on 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The mobile food market is a collection of individual food truck venders that COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 27 U-2013-09 Off the Grid January 28, 2014 gather weekly and operate similar to a farmer’s market. The General Commercial (CG) Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit at Planning Commission Level for any commercial uses which are neither permitted uses nor excluded uses and which are, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, consistent with the character of the general commercial zone. Other Community Markets Cupertino currently has two outdoor markets operating weekly events. In 2000, Cupertino’s original farmers market at Vallco Shopping Center was approved on a temporary trial basis and obtained a permanent approval in 2002. Currently, the Vallco farmers market operates every Friday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. In 2011, a second farmers’ market at the Oaks Shopping Center on Stevens Creek at Highway 85 was approved operating every Sunday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Existing Center and Surroundings The project site is located within the parking lot of Whole Foods Market, on the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road. To the west of the site is the Cupertino Sports Center and Schell; to the east is the Stevens Creek Office Center; to the north is the Abundant Life Assembly of God; and to the south and across the street is a commercial shopping center and the Union Church of Cupertino. The nearest residential property is approximately 265 feet away from the property line. DISCUSSION: Mobile Food Market Operation The applicant is proposing a Tuesday market with opening hours from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Typical setup and clean up times are approximately 1 hour before and after the opening hours for a total timeframe of 4:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m. The proposed market area is the most southerly parking lot aisle, encompassing 38 parking stalls, which the applicant estimates can accommodate a maximum of 9 vendors who will be offering a range of specialty food items (See figure on right). Key Issues Staff has identified the following key issues and placed conditions in the resolution to address them. • Parking - Should parking demand for the site exceed the parking supply the applicant is required to come back to 28 U-2013-09 Off the Grid January 28, 2014 obtain another Use Permit to create a formal shared parking agreement between Whole Foods Market and the adjacent Abundant Life Assembly of God Church. • Outdoor Live Entertainment –Amplified entertainment activities are prohibited at the market, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development for special events. • Cleanup - The applicant will be responsible for cleaning up the parking lot after each market event. • Review of Operations – Staff is recommending an automatic one year review of the permit. Traffic Off the Grid held a trial event at Whole Foods Market on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. The event involved setting up mobile food trucks in the second row of the parking lot and the City Traffic Consultants were present to observe the traffic and parking conditions. Traffic was observed during peak traffic periods of the event and congestion was found to be within acceptable City-adopted traffic congestion standards. Traffic operations were observed to function adequately during the event. Little to no queues formed at the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road parking lot entrances. Based on the Traffic Consultant’s recommendation, the applicant has agreed to move the truck setup are a to the parking aisle closest to Stevens Creek Blvd. and block off access to this parking aisle to minimize any vehicular conflict or queuing near the driveway entrance along Stevens Creek Blvd. Parking Presently the Whole Foods Market parking supply exceeds the City’s parking requirements by aproximatly 95 parking stalls. Vendor and customer parking will be primarily in the Whole Foods Market lot and secondarily in the adjacent Abundant Life Assembly of God parking lot. During the trial run the studied parking area had little utilization and adequately accommodated the market area vendors and established customer parking demands. OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW The City’s Public Works Department; Building Division; the Santa Clara County Fire Department; Cupertino Sanitary District; and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department have reviewed the request and have no objections to the project. Their pre-hearing comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves a negligible expansion of use and section 15332 (In-Fill Development) because the proposed use occurs within the city limits and is surrounded by urban uses. 29 U-2013-09 Off the Grid January 28, 2014 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. Project received: November 5, 2013 Deemed incomplete: December 5, 2013 Deemed complete: January 16, 2014 Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until March 16, 2014) 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 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)  68 notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site (10 days prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to the hearing) CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the request since it is not anticipated to have significant impacts to the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed market provides an opportunity for the community and neighborhood to gather in a commercial location. Prepared by: Kaitie Groeneweg, Planning Department Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Draft Resolution U-2013-09 2 – Project History & Business Description 3 – Traffic Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) 4 – Plan Set 30 U-2013-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A WEEKLY MOBILE FOOD MARKET IN THE PARKING LOT OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 20955 STEVENS CREEK BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: U-2013-09 Applicant: Benjamin Himlan (Off the Grid) Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 326-31-022) Subject: Use Permit (U-2013-09) to allow the operation of a weekly mobile food market in the parking lot of an existing commercial establishment. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Conditional 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 held a public hearing on January 28, 2014 in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) 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; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission hereby approves Application No. U-2013-09 based upon the findings described in section II of this resolution, the public hearing record and the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 28, 2014, and subject to the conditions specified in section III of this resolution. 31 Draft Resolution U-2013-09 January 28, 2014 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set received August 5, 2013 consisting of ten sheets entitled “Off the Grid: Cupertino @ Whole Foods” except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 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. OPERATIONS a) The market shall be operated with the area delineated on the site plan exhibit. b) The market is capped at a maximum of 9 trucks/vendors. c) The market is approved to operate on Tuesdays between 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., allowing for one hour set up before the market opens and one hour for break down and cleanup after the market closes at 9:00 p.m. d) The market shall be swept cleaned and all trash removed at the end of each market event. 4. OUTDOOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT Amplified entertainment activities are prohibited at the market, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development for special events. 5. NOISE CONTROL Noise levels shall not exceed those as listed in Community Noise Control Ordinance, Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 10.48. If there are documented violations of the Community Noise Control Ordinance, the Director of Community Development or Noise Control Officer has the discretion to require noise attenuation measures to comply with the ordinance. 6. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT Should parking demand for the site exceed the parking supply the applicant is required to come back to obtain another Use Permit to create a formal shared parking agreement between Whole Foods Market and the adjacent Abundant Life Assembly of God Church. 7. TEMPORARY SIGNAGE The applicant shall apply for a temporary sign permit for any signage used in conjunction with the event. No signage is approved as part of this use permit. 8. BUSINESS LICENSE The business owners and individual vendors shall obtain a City of Cupertino business licenses. 9. PREMIT REVIEW A permit review shall be conducted by staff after one year from approval. If complaints have been received regarding market operations that have not been addressed immediately by the applicant, then the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the permit at which time, the approval may be modified or revoked. 32 Draft Resolution U-2013-09 January 28, 2014 10. 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. 11. MODIFICATION OF MARKET OPERATIONS The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the operation of the mobile food market to address any documented problem or nuisance situation that may occur. 12. REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use permit have not been implemented, or where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code. 13. EXPIRATION If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for two year or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit application must be applied for and obtained. 14. 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. 15. 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. TRASH FACILITIES Per Public Works Department requirements, the property owner must ensure that all lids for trash, recycling, and yard waste bins remain closed when material is not being deposited into them. Bins are not to be overfilled; material is not permitted to be stockpiled alongside bins and the area in and around the bins shall be kept clean at all times. A yard waste bin is required at the property for food 33 Draft Resolution U-2013-09 January 28, 2014 waste and organics. Lack of compliance with the City’s litter control measures will result in a notice of violation and a fine. 2. EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM Expanded PolyStyrene Foam (EPS Foam) will not be permitted for use during the event. It is the applicant’s responsibility to inform the food vendors of this restriction and to ensure EPS foam is not used or distributed. 3. TRASH CLEANUP Within 24 hours of each event, the applicant is required to clean off trash and litter all on-site storm water facilities (the storm water treatment swales in the Whole Foods Parking lot), all areas within 25 feet of the event location, and the adjacent public sidewalk, curb and gutter areas. The applicant and vendors are not permitted to spray down the event area to address clean up or spills. On site storm water facilities connect to the public drain system which ultimately flows to creeks and the bay. SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS Location of food trucks shall not obstruct required fire department emergency access and fire applicances. SECTION V: CEQA REVIEW The conditional use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15301 (Existing Fac ilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves a negligible expansion of use and section 15332 (In-Fill Development) because the proposed use occurs within the city limits and is surrounded by urban uses. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Don Sun, Chair City Planner Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2013\U-2013-09 res.doc 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Project Update The General Plan Amendment process began in March 2013 with City Council authorizing a project to analyze increasing development densities City-wide and particularly at seven opportunity sites. In addition, in November 2013, City Council authorized a project to update the Housing Element as required by State Law. Among other required updates to the Housing Element, it must provide an inventory of land adequately zoned or planned to be zoned to accommodate the City’s fair share of housing allocation. The City’s current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as determined by ABAG for this Housing Element planning cycle is 1,064 units. The City must adopt a State Housing and Community Development certified Housing Element by January 31, 2015. Additional information about both the projects is available online at www.cupertinogpa.org. The following is a list of anticipated public meetings and workshops through March 2014. It is anticipated that the environmental reports will be prepared over summer 2014 and the projects will be presented for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council in early Fall 2014. Feb 13 Housing Commission Public Workshop and Meeting 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., City Hall EOC Room Housing Element: Housing Element Update overview and discussion Feb 18 City Council and Planning Commission Public Workshop and Meeting 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. – Workshop; 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. – Meeting; Cupertino Community Hall General Plan Amendment: Concept Alternatives Report presentation, discussion, and direction. City staff and consultants will update the Planning Commission and City Council on the project, discuss the Concept Alternatives Report, and present feedback received from the study area stakeholders, workshop participants, and other community partners in the process. The Concept Alternatives Report evaluates how well each one of the land use alternatives achieve urban design, mobility, economic, environmental, and community health indicators. City staff and consultants will initiate the EIR and Draft General Plan Amendment process after the Planning Commission and City Council give their direction on their preferred alternative. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org 51 2 Mar 4 City Council and Planning Commission Public Workshop and Meeting 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. – Workshop; 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. – Meeting; Cupertino Community Hall Housing Element: Housing policy and sites discussion and direction Mar 11 Environmental Scoping Meeting 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., Cupertino Community Hall General Plan Amendment and Housing Element: Environmental scoping discussion for the EIR. This meeting gives the community the opportunity to comment on what topics and concerns the EIR for the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element should address. Mar 18 City Council and Planning Commission Public Workshop and Meeting 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. – Workshop; 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. – Meeting; Cupertino Community Hall General Plan Amendment: Draft General Plan Amendment concepts and direction. City staff and consultants will update the Planning Commission and City Council on the project, and solicit their feedback on the direction of the Draft General Plan Amendment. Please note that these dates and times are tentative and may change. Upcoming Dates: Date Event Time Location Wednesday, Jan 29 State of the City Address 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Quinlan Community Center 52