Planning Commission

City of Sunnyvale Meeting Minutes - Final Planning Commission Monday, March 10, 2014 8:00 PM Council Chambers and West Conference Room, City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 NO STUDY SESSION 8:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chair Melton called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL - FINAL Present: 6 - Commissioner Sue Harrison Commissioner Larry Klein Chair Russell Melton Vice Chair Ken Olevson Commissioner Ken Rheaume Commissioner David Simons Absent: 1 - Commissioner Ralph Durham PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1.A 14-0308 Approval of Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 3, 2014 Comm. Harrison moved to approve the draft minutes. Vice Chair Olevson seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume No: 0 City of Sunnyvale Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Absent: 2 - Commissioner Durham Commissioner Simons City of Sunnyvale Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 1.B 14-0300 File #: 2014-7003 Location: 1372 Navarro Dr. (APN: 313-12-017) Proposed Project: DESIGN REVIEW to allow a new two-story single-family home resulting in approximately 4,000 square feet and 44% floor area ratio. Applicant / Owner: Elite Home Development / Ruslan Belkin and Johan Bastiaens Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Class 3 Project Planner: Shaunn Mendrin, (408) 730-7429, smendrin@sunnyvale.ca.gov Chair Melton pulled this item from the consent calendar, and discussed with Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, the frequency of occurrence of the architectural features of this home's roof and second story patio in residential Sunnyvale. Comm. Simons arrived at 8:05 p.m. Vice Chair Olevson confirmed with Ms. Ryan that this project is ready for Planning Commission approval, and has come before the Planning Commission because of the house size. Chair Melton opened the public hearing and upon seeing no speakers for this item, Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Harrison and Ms. Ryan discussed the building code requirements for habitable basements. Comm. Rheaume and Ms. Ryan discussed the home's window treatments. Chair Melton confirmed with Ms. Ryan that the site plan shows a screening hedge along the south property line, and could be added as a specific Condition of Approval. Roll call was retaken to record Comm. Simons' attendance. Vice Chair Olevson moved Alternative 2 to approve the Design Review with the added condition to require screening trees on the south side as shown on the landscape plan. Comm. Klein seconded. Vice Chair Olevson said he would have been able to easily approve this as a City of Sunnyvale Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 consent item, and that it is a nice design and will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Comm. Klein said this is a very good project in terms of design and that it is a large lot. He said that while he has a small issue with privacy and the setbacks, he thinks adding the shrubs to south property line will improve it dramatically. He said overall it is a good site plan and commends the applicant for adding a basement, which he said we see few of in Sunnyvale, and that as a homeowner with a partial basement, he is happy to have the extra space. Chair Melton said he will be supporting motion, and appreciates the applicants' attendance at the meeting. He said one thing called for in the General Plan is strong neighborhoods and he thinks that this addition is great and will increase the strength of the neighborhood. He said it will also help increase the diversity of architecture which will become a predominant theme of this neighborhood. MOTION: Vice Chair Olevson moved Alternative 2 to approve the Design Review with the added condition to require screening trees on the south side as shown on the landscape plan. Comm. Klein seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Commissioner Durham PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS City of Sunnyvale Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 2 14-0239 File #: 2013-7603 Location: 260-266 S. Pastoria Avenue: (APN: 165-12-017) Proposed Project: Appeal of a decision by the Director of Community Development to conditionally allow a: DESIGN REVIEW for a two-story, single family home of 3,009 sq. ft. and 45% Floor Area Ratio. Applicant / Owner: Clifton Wu Environmental Review: A Class 3 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. Project Planner: Timothy Maier, 408-730-7257, tmaier@sunnyvale.ca.gov Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report, and said the appellant for the project is requesting a continuance of the item to a future meeting and that the applicant wishes to have the item heard at this meeting. Chair Melton asked the Commissioners to state their preference to hear or continue this item while asking questions of staff. Comm. Rheaume confirmed with Ms. Ryan that the Heritage Preservation Commission does not have jurisdiction over this particular Design Review, and said he preferred to hear the item at this meeting. Vice Chair Olevson confirmed with Ms. Ryan that there are two addresses on one legal lot. Chair Melton said the Commission will presently hold a public hearing on this item, and opened the public hearing. Eva Mortensen, the project appellant, said she asked for an appeal because approval of this application would affect her home, which is on the heritage inventory list. She said anything impacting her home should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission which would not meet again until April. Clifton Wu, the project applicant, presented slides with photos and site information of his current home, the home being proposed and discussions with his neighbor. Comm. Simons asked Mr. Wu if he is happy with the design outcome of his proposed home after having complied with City standards, to which Mr. Wu replied that he is unhappy with the design but has accepted it to move forward. City of Sunnyvale Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Chair Melton discussed with Mr. Wu the sloped roof feature of the front elevation. Comm. Harrison confirmed with Ms. Mortensen that her home was on the heritage inventory list when she purchased it but was unaware as it was not disclosed by the previous owner. In response to Comm. Harrison's inquiry, Ms. Mortensen said when Mr. Wu's home was a rental property, there were many public safety issues, but that her main issue is the size of the proposed home. Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Simons discussed with Ms. Ryan the frequency of requests for different styles of architecture and the appropriateness of variances for architectural styles. Ms. Ryan noted that it is difficult to obtain a variance for architecture. Vice Chair Olevson moved Alternative 1 to deny the appeal and approve the Design Review. Comm. Klein seconded. Vice Chair Olevson said that changing the character of a neighborhood is always a little difficult, especially for existing neighbors, but he is convinced that this home will be a substantial improvement to the existing neighborhood. He said he was unaware of the allegations of nefarious activity in the area, but that it suggests that putting in a new, well-designed single-family home will improve the neighborhood, and he thinks the project should go forward. He said he is not convinced that moving an historic home to an existing neighborhood constrains the existing neighborhood from the development and zoning in that area. Comm. Klein said he understands a lot of the issues the appellant is raising, and that one thing the applicant did is comply with the design rules. Comm. Klein said he lives in the heritage district and understands what the appellant is saying about making sure neighbors do not affect your property, but that with the heritage district the restrictions apply to the heritage inventory property, which the subject property is not. He said he likes the roof line in the front, and that the applicant has reduced the scale of home. He said the biggest issue is that he thinks this is a neighborhood in transition, and if you City of Sunnyvale Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 look at neighboring streets a lot of the older homes are being replaced at this time. He said he thinks the applicant has tried to be a good neighbor and hopes that both the applicant and appellant can work out these issues, and that the replacement of any homes that may have some nefarious activity associated with it is better for the City overall. Comm. Simons said he was listening closely to the appellant's issues and understands that living in a heritage house has certain restrictions, but it does not impact the neighbors with homes not designated as such. He said one thing he would bring up to the appellant is that with some neighborhoods with individual blocks that have a certain character, the only way to tamp down on the expansion of larger houses is to do a single-story overlay. He said Eichler neighborhoods tend to be the ones pushing for a particular overlay, but that there are other neighborhoods that would fit that have fewer two-story homes. He said that is something the appellant could look into if the different heights of homes is a great concern, and that neighborhoods must be proactive to get it developed as it is not something the City hands out easily. He said he can support the motion, and that he finds that certain kinds of architecture that people may want to introduce into the City are challenged. He said the setback and height rules limit variations in types of architecture in the City. He said he thinks the first story is quaint and the applicant may have been looking for a 1920s style cottage home, which is very desirable. He said whether it is a colonial style house it basically could not be built due to second story setbacks and certain height issues for the roof. He said he is really interested in seeing Sunnyvale have good architecture, and he thinks our rules might allow looking into this long term, but that this does affect this situation. Comm. Harrison said she lives in a house that was moved to where it is now but is not on the historic register and understands the concerns about a house with a certain character and that what is around it affects it. She said she will be supporting the motion because she understands that the applicant has a right to do what is within City guidelines. She said she echoes Comm. Simons' concerns about the proposed home looking like a modern second story sitting atop a quaint first story and will support any study issue that would look into allowing homes to be more cohesive. Chair Melton said he will be supporting the motion, and that as he listened to the testimony from the applicant and appellant, he thinks this comes down to the rights of individual property owners and the rules set forth in the Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC). He said the applicant's testimony about the tree in the backyard does not sway him in any direction, and that what the rules of the City of Sunnyvale Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 SMC tell him is that this item is not under the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission. He said that he does not find that the status of the appellant's house has any impact on the status of the applicant's house and that the applicant is building within the design guidelines, so he will be supporting the motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Olevson moved Alternative 1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve the Design Review with the attached Conditions of Approval. Comm. Klein seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Commissioner Durham City of Sunnyvale Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 3 14-0069 File #: 2013-7860 Location: 479 N. Pastoria Avenue (APN: 165-30-002): Zoning: M-S (Industrial and Service) Zoning District Proposed Project: Discussion and Possible Action on an application for a 2.17-acre site: USE PERMIT to allow a new 52,394 square foot, 4-story office/R&D building (with surface and underground parking) resulting in approximately 55% Floor Area Ratio. Applicant / Owner: ArchiRender Architects / Peery-Arrillaga Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration Noren Caliva-Lepe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, and said that revised draft Conditions of Approval (COA) were provided on the dais. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, clarified that the data sheet incorrectly noted that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a deviation and is instead a threshold for review by the Planning Commission if greater than 35%. Vice Chair Olevson said he appreciates seeing in the report the financial impact of the proposed project on property taxes. Comm. Simons and Ms. Ryan discussed sidewalk widths and landscaping and their consistency with Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines. Chair Melton and Ms. Caliva-Lepe discussed the addition of bird-safe building guidlines to the COAs, to which Ms. Caliva-Lepe added that the applicant is amenable. Chair Melton confirmed with Ms. Ryan that there are no line-of-sight illustrations. Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Huiwen Hsiao, architect for the project, displayed illustrations of the project while describing the proposed site. Comm. Simons asked if artwork being incorporated into the design of the building was considered, to which Mr. Hsiao responded that his client preferred to have an independent art piece. Comm. Harrison and Mr. Hsiao discussed features of the building to prevent west-facing glass from overheating, the selection of water-efficient trees and the plan for on-site renewable energy. Chair Melton closed the public hearing. City of Sunnyvale Page 9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Vice Chair Olevson and Ms. Ryan discussed this project's impact on the Citywide development pool. MOTION: Comm. Simons moved Alternative 2 to recommend to City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with the modified conditions: a) The project meets VTA Pedestrian Guidelines; b) Recommend that businesses at this site join any future Peery Park transportation association; c) Request that the layout of the site for secure and unsecure bicycle parking be reviewed via information-only by the Sunnyvale Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC); d) That tree selection include native, significant-sized species; e) Recommend LEED certification include cool roof features. Comm. Klein seconded. Ms. Ryan asked Comm. Simons for clarification of the added modification to have the BPAC review the layout of bicycle parking. Comm. Simons clarified the modification, and said he has seen many plans for development projects go through with poor and unusable placement of bicycle parking, and that the BPAC would only review the layout to provide feedback to staff, not take action on it. Comm. Simons said many recommendations are common sense, like reducing the heat island effect of higher density development in the city and that he does not think the City has any firm goals about how to reduce that. He said BPAC review of the placement of bicycle parking is useful, and that the Planning Commission never gets feedback on large developments, except when things have already been built and the outcome is not as well done as it could have been. He said one thing he has noticed over the years with sidewalks is that there are a lot of issues with industrial areas not being comfortable enough for people to walk through buildings, and in higher density projects if a sidewalk is too narrow it does not allow three to four people walking in between buildings. He said following VTA design guidelines is a very desirable thing, that the architecture of the building is nice and modern and that he while did not add a condition for the art, he generally likes seeing less individual pieces of art that can be moved and more artwork incorporated into the architecture. He said he thinks it improves the level of interest in the buildings and is overall a better thing to do long term to place higher emphasis City of Sunnyvale Page 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 on the architecture. Comm. Klein said he will be supporting the motion and was able to make the findings. He said he wanted to commend the applicant for several items, including lot coverage as the project design maximizes landscaping by putting parking underground which makes the project a lot more appealing. He said it is a unique building on a site that has been vacant for many years and will make a good addition to this area of Peery Park which needs livening up. He said the applicant is going to LEED gold and hopes the applicant can get as close to platinum as possible, and looks forward to the project moving forward. Vice Chair Olevson said he can make the findings as presented by staff, and clarified with Ms Ryan that the sidewalks in the motion are public sidewalks running north and south on the east edge of the property along Pastoria. Vice Chair Olevson said the architectural design adds interest by itself without external artwork, and that he likes the generous entrance and exit in two places on Pastoria so that we are not looking at congestion in one spot. He said he likes the exterior multi-leveled areas where people can go outside to relax. He said it will be a nice addition to the city and hopes it will fit in with the Peery Park Specific Plan (PPSP). Chair Melton offered a friendly amendment for bird-safe design guidelines, clarifying with Ms. Caliva-Lepe that a condition can be added which would require revisions to the project before building permit issuance, with the condition being that the design shall comply with bird-safe design guidelines. Comm. Simons clarified with staff that bird-safe design guidelines have not already been incorporated into the conditions, and Ms. Caliva-Lepe said it has been discussed with the applicant who is willing to make the changes. Comm. Simons asked what the changes would be, to which Ms. Caliva-Lepe responded that the guidelines discuss a funneling effect between trees and buildings and that the placement of trees could be modified to reduce that effect. Comms. Simons and Klein accepted the friendly amendment. Chair Melton offered another friendly amendment to remove the information-only review of the placement of the secure and unsecure bike lockers by the BPAC. Comm. Simons reiterated that he thinks feedback from the BPAC will be very useful to the Planning Commission as he has seen different projects that have had unfortunate placement of these features that the Planning Commission has accepted. Ms. Ryan suggested taking plans of several previously developed projects to the BPAC for feedback. Comms. Simons and Klein accepted the friendly amendment. City of Sunnyvale Page 11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Chair Melton said he will be enthusiastically supporting the motion and thinks the high quality of the design will be a great addition to the City's inventory of Class-A office space. He said as with another Peery Park development recently recommended for approval to the City Council, the topic of the Balanced Growth Profile (BGP) and Citywide development pool occasionally comes up and a joint study session between City Council and the Planning Commission will be taking place soon, so he does not view anything on the BGP and the development pool as a hindrance to making the findings for this project. He said the PPSP is coming along, that City Council is maintaining jurisdiction over certain sized projects in Peery Park and that this project will go to City Council for consideration. He said when the PPSP is completed all developers, city staff, the Planning Commission and City Council will all be marching to same drummer in regards to develoment in Peery Park. He said he appreciates the comments from staff about the line-of-sight renderings being unecessary because a nearby project is in the direct line-of-sight on Mathilda. He said he found interesting the topic of ground soil in this area and that the aerial photos he reviewed show that since 1900 nothing has been built on the site except townhouses briefly in 50s, and that this may be the cleanest soil in the City of Sunnyvale. He said this is a great project that he looks forward to coming to completion. FINAL MOTION: Comm. Simons moved Alternative 2 to recommend to City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with the modified conditions: a) The project meets VTA Pedestrian Guidelines; b) Recommend that businesses at this site join any future Peery Park transportation association; c) That tree selection include native, significant-sized species; d) Recommend LEED certification include cool roof features; e) Design shall comply with bird-safe design guidelines. Comm. Klein seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Commissioner Durham City of Sunnyvale Page 12 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 4 14-0202 File #: 2013-7081 & 2013-7132 Location: 610 E. Weddell Drive (APN: 110-28-001) and 520-550 E. Weddell Drive (110-14-190 & 191). Proposed Project: Discussion and possible actions on: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from Industrial to Residential High Density for 610 E. Weddell Drive and 520 E. Weddell Drive (Parcel B only); REZONING Introduction of Ordinances to Rezone from MS-PD (Industrial & Service/Planned Development for 610 E. Weddell Drive and M-S/POA (Industrial & Service/Place of Assembly) for 520 E. Weddell Drive (Parcel B only) to R-4/PD (High Density Residential/Planned Development) for both properties. Applicant / Owner: Sares - Regis Group (610 E. Weddell Drive); Raintree / Kohl (520-550 E. Weddell Drive) Environmental Review: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. Ryan Kuchenig, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, and clarified that the number of affordable units listed on page 12 for the Raintree site should be 27 and not 55. Vice Chair Olevson and Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, discussed the utilization of transit near the site. Vice Chair Olevson clarified with Mr. Kuchenig that the applicant is asking for the maximum bonus density as part of the Raintree proposal at the 550 E. Weddell site. Vice Chair Olevson and Ms. Ryan discussed the Tasman / Fair Oaks Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan extension. Chair Melton opened the public hearing. Ken Busch, with the Sares Regis group, gave a presentation while discussing aspects of the project. Rob Steinberg, the project architect, presented illustrations and discussed the design features of the project. Mr. Busch finished the presentation for the Sares Regis group with a discussion of proposed amenities. Rick Price, with Raintree Partners, gave a presentation of the project context. Jason Check, with Raintree Partners, discussed the General Plan Amendment and presented images of the site and its surroundings. Jack Jones, a Sunnyvale resident, said he supports both projects and commented on the need for rental housing. City of Sunnyvale Page 13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Comm. Rheaume confirmed the current zoning of the existing property at 550 E. Weddell Drive with Mr. Kuchenig. Comm. Simons and Ms. Ryan discussed impacts of the site being considered a major residential thoroughfare, the annexation of the site into the Tasman / Fair Oaks Bicycle and Pedestrian plan, expanding pedestrian amenities, and discussed sidewalk widths. Chair Melton commented on the popularity of the 610 E. Weddel site among developers, and discussed with Ms. Ryan the level of interest in the 520 E. Weddell site. Comm. Simons moved Alternatives: 1) For 610 E. Weddell Dr. (Sares - Regis): a. Adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan from Industrial to Residential High Density b. Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from M-S/PD (Industrial and Service/Planned Development) to R-4/PD (High Density Residential/ Planned Development) 2) For 520 E. Weddell Dr. (Raintree Partners): a. Adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan from Industrial to Residential High Density b. Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from M-S/POA (Industrial and Service/Place of Assembly) to R-4/PD (High Density Residential/ Planned Development) 3) Extend the Boundaries of the Tasman / Fair Oaks Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan to include 520 E. Weddell Dr. and 610 E. Weddell Dr. Vice Chair Olevson seconded. Comm. Simons said one thing he will be talking about in the future regarding this project is making sure it is compliant with the level of density and the sidewalks. He said this is not place to discuss architecture, but that it is important in the design of the project that we create as best a connection as possible to light rail and the pedestrian realm. He said this project, while being next to a freeway, may be one of the better sets of projects meeting the goal of supporting people, using mass transit and ride share. He disclosed that he City of Sunnyvale Page 14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 met with one developer to discuss the design and planning of the project and that in the discussion, while not important for this motion, one thing that is good for these projects is a ride sharing option from Zip Car or any other type of auto sharing company. He said this has one of the bigger impacts on reducing the number of cars onsite, more than other amenities, and is really excited to see that the applicant is setting up agreements with companies operating with the concept of car sharing, which will be important for the city in the future. Vice Chair Olevson said in looking at these sites it is sometimes difficult to separate the projects from the zoning and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but because of the sequencing we have done, it does make it easier to look at potential rezoning absent of any individual project. He said when looking at the proposed rezoning and the amendment to the Tasman / Fair Oaks Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan, he asks if it will have a positive or negative impact on the neighborhood, and that Fair Oaks north of 101 is becoming a very attractive street to drive down with lots of mature trees and a sense of place that is developing. He said he looked at whether or not this will enhance what is already going on and at the numerous letters received when developing the EIR from those who propose supermarkets and parks for these sites, but he said our history has shown that private money is not interested in these places for those applications. He said instead it appears that a residential application, especially along the green belt, is a superior alternative, so it is inherent upon us to change the zoning so this type of project can move ahead. He said the projects fit into the surrounding neighborhood, are less dense than some and more than others, and that whatever project we eventually approve will be better for the neighborhood than the current zoning designation, and because of that he will be supporting the motion. Comm. Klein said he will be supporting the motion and was able to make the findings to recommend to City Council the rezone of the two projects and to extend the Tasman / Fair Oaks Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan plan. He said in terms of this area, what really sold him as far as the continuation of the EIR, which pointed out possible issues with densities, and in looking at the letters from the public that demonstrate a mixture of people who support the project and those hoping that nothing at all goes there, is that there are appropriate mitigation measures that can be put in place to ensure issues with density will be handled accordingly. He said the other thing that really struck him as shown in Attachment 8 is seeing where high density residential is placed within the City. He said it is close to mass transit and City of Sunnyvale Page 15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 major freeway intersections, which points to this Fair Oaks and 101 intersection as a natural place for high density residential. He said there are definitely issues with high density here and that is what the EIR is for. He said some of the good things are already being heard, such as ride and bike sharing and access to transit, and when looking at specific projects in the future there will be ways that handle some of the density at this location, so he will be supporting the motion and making the recommendation to Council. Chair Melton said he wanted to spend a few minutes describing his decision-making process and said one recommended finding that leapt out to him that asks if the contemplated legislative action serves the public interest, and asked himself is what that means. He said he thinks that means the public interest talks about the good of the many versus the good of the few, that it is not black and white and sits on a continuum. He said finding whether these two contemplated legislative actions serve the public interest is difficult, is not a slam dunk in his view, and he thinks the public interest changes slowly over time, if at all, and does not change over night. He said he thinks it is meaningful to look at how these sites are currently zoned and covered in the General Plan (GP), and that previous City Councils all the way back to 1955 deemed it to be in the public interest that these properties were zoned and covered in the GP as industrial. He said he needs to see something that shows him that it is appropriate and really in the public interest to change something that was previously deemed to be in the public interest. He also noted that the public interest question being addressed looks solely at the General Plan Amendment and the rezone and not the development project. He said to evaluate the issue he listed the things that are in the public interest and those that are not. He said it is time to put the EIR to work, and that there has been a lot of effort by the consultant, City staff, the Planning Commission and soon the City Council to create and presumably certify the document and that now is the time to see how the EIR will guide the decisions made. He said the first thing for both sites is that, situated as close as they are to the freeway, they would require the use of hospital quality air filters for dwelling units, which he finds absolutely astounding. He said both sites will require the use of MERV 13 and/or MERV 16 air filters, and found that they are air filters used for hospital and general surgery. He said the EIR talks about excess cancer risk from US Highway 101 traffic for both sites and both will require MERV 13 or 16 air filters, which means that future Sunnyvale residents, potentially including the elderly, the hard-working Silicon Valley engineers, low-income people, or mothers and their newborn children, will be told for the first time that they have to live in a site that requires a hospital quality air filter to get air that does not have deisel particulate matter and potential carcinogenic effects, which he City of Sunnyvale Page 16 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 finds to be absolutely shocking. He said that when the projects come before the Commission, he looks forward to the discussion during which someone will show him in the GP that hospital quality air filters are part of what we are in the City of Sunnyvale. He also noted that excess cancer risk measurements are worse at the 520 E. Weddell site than they are at the 610 E. Weddell site, and that also not in the public interest is the concept of the slippery slope on air quality which means we could be on the cusp of saying for the first time that the use of MERV 13 and 16 air filters is acceptable. He said this will make it easier to say okay again for the next time we want to do a project that has questionable air quality since we have done this before. He said these projects are already deemed to be in the public interest as zoned and contemplated in the GP. He said regarding the 520 site he finds not in the public interest that it is less consistent with neighboring land use than the 610 site which stitches in beautifully with the adjacent uses. He said for both projects, things listed as in the public interest include that they provide much needed housing and affordable housing, and are near transit. He said the 610 site is coveted by developers so the improvements to the greenbelt are more likely to come to fruition, and that the existing terrible structure is more likely to come down. He said the 610 site will serve the public interest by ridding potential crime and public nuisance situations on the small section of the greenbelt, and that the 610 site fits well with the neighboring mobile home park and residential low-density uses. He says that as much as he is concerned about the required use of the hospital quality air filters, he can find that both projects are in the public interest so he will be voting yes, but wanted to be clear that it was a close call for him. FINAL MOTION: Comm. Simons moved Alternatives: 1) For 610 E. Weddell Dr. (Sares - Regis): a. Adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan from Industrial to Residential High Density b. Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from M-S/PD (Industrial and Service/Planned Development) to R-4/PD (High Density Residential/ Planned Development) 2) For 520 E. Weddell Dr. (Raintree Partners): a. Adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan from Industrial to Residential High Density b. Introduce an Ordinance to Rezone from M-S/POA (Industrial and Service/Place of Assembly) to R-4/PD (High Density Residential/ Planned Development) 3) Extend the Boundaries of the Tasman / Fair Oaks Area Pedestrian and City of Sunnyvale Page 17 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Bicycle Circulation Plan to include 520 E. Weddell Dr. and 610 E. Weddell Dr. Chair Olevson seconded. Motion carried by the follwing vote: Yes: 6 - Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Commissioner Durham City of Sunnyvale Page 18 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 5 14-0124 Discussion and Possible Action to Introduce an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 19.32 of Title 19 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to Modify the Height Requirements for the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (Non-Townhouse), (Study Issue, 2013-7143) Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report. Vice Chair Olevson and Ms. Ryan discussed architectural and legal distinctions between ownership and rental properties. Chair Melton and Ms. Ryan discussed the history of, and contributing factors to, the increase in the height of residential developments. Comm. Klein and Ms. Ryan discussed the incentive-based code provision that allows a height bonus if parking is provided below grade, and discussed the history of height requirements. Comm. Simons commented on the changes in the starting point of height measurement of a development as a contributing factor to the increase in allowable heights. Chair Melton opened the public hearing, and upon seeing no speakers for this item, Chair Melton closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Olevson moved to recommend to the City Council Alternatives 1 and 2 to introduce an ordinance to amend Chapter 19.32 of Title 19 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to modify the height limit for non-townhouse style development within the R-3 zoning district to match the standard for townhouse style developments (3 stories, 35 feet) and modify the underground parking height incentive to include R-3 projects. Additionally, incorporate the new Design Guidelines into Section 2 of the Citywide Design Guideline Handbook Comm. Harrison seconded. Vice Chair Olevson said going back to his earlier discussion, if developments look the same, we should have the same standards, and that he would want the same height limit for a condominium development sitting next to a townhouse development. He said we have different levels of standards which unduly complicates what is going on, and that the simplification of codes and guidelines is one goal of good government. He said this seems like an easy one to support, and as Comm. Simons rightly observed, we have changed the City of Sunnyvale Page 19 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 standards over time without changing rules. He said he hopes his fellow Commissioners will support the motion. Comm. Harrison said she thinks this is well thought out and makes sense. Chair Melton said he will be supporting the motion and the thing that leapt out to him is another evolution of the R-3 zoning district. He said in the past we encouraged townhouse-style ownership, and we are now encouraging underground parking, which he thinks is a great and clever thing and a great analysis by staff. MOTION: Vice Chair Olevson moved to recommend to the City Council Alternatives 1 and 2 to introduce an ordinance to amend Chapter 19.32 of Title 19 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code to modify the height limit for non-townhouse style development within the R-3 zoning district to match the standard for townhouse style developments (3 stories, 35 feet) and modify the underground parking height incentive to include R-3 projects. Additionally, incorporate the new Design Guidelines into Section 2 of the Citywide Design Guideline Handbook. Comm. Harrison seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Commissioner Harrison Commissioner Klein Chair Melton Vice Chair Olevson Commissioner Rheaume Commissioner Simons No: 0 Absent: 1 - Commissioner Durham City of Sunnyvale Page 20 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 6 14-0309 Standing Item: Potential Study Issues for 2015 Comm. Harrison suggested that a community benefit district or sense of place designation be part of the Peery Park Specific Plan (PPSP). Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, said a study issue is not a timely way to deal with this item and that staff and consultants will be looking specifically at Peery Park and what is needed to implement the plan. Comm. Harrison said Comm. Simons brought up variances in height limits in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts with regard to accomodating different styles of architecture, and said it would have been more cohesive to have the property discussed tonight have more than one steeply peaked roof. Ms. Ryan said that would be a study issue, and noted that there is other thinking behind individual design reviews. Comm. Harrison referenced a housing impact fee going into a pool for affordable housing only for developments over a certain size, whereas school fees are assessed on any projects over 500 square feet or for an addition or renovation to a house which feed into school fees. Ms. Ryan said staff is currently updating the housing element and looking at the housing impact fee now for new residential developments, but not addtions to homes. Hanson Hom, Director of Community Development, said last year the City Council adopted revisions of the for-sale portion of the ordinance that triggers inclusionary requirements for projects greater than eight units, and that staff is looking at the rental nexus study to possibly impose an impact fee for residential rental housing and that through that discussion a threshold can be confirmed to determine the smallest level of housing development that might be subject to that fee. He said the study is complete but that during a study session with City Council questions arose regarding studying the housing linkage fee for non-residential development. He said both studies will go to the Housing and Human Services and Planning Commissions for a recommendation before a Council decision. Comm. Harrison suggested a study of a standing rule regarding reduction of the heat island effect. Ms. Ryan said staff will return with more information. Comm. Harrison discussed the installation of and attachment to the purple pipe. Ms. Ryan said staff can provide information regarding the long range plan for a reclaimed water system. Comm. Klein suggested that design guidelines for parking structures be reevaluated. City of Sunnyvale Page 21 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final March 10, 2014 Comm. Simons said that the Lawrence Expressway redevelopment may present a study issue and an opportunity to take advantage of construction and incorporate purple pipe into the project. NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS COMMISSIONER ORAL COMMENTS Chair Melton said this is the third consecutive Monday meeting of the Planning Commission and gave kudos to staff for working hard and getting all of the documents out for the meetings. He also thanked the Planning Commission members for reading through all of the material and coming prepared to make decisions, and gave kudos to the recording secretary for drafting the meeting minutes in a compressed time. STAFF ORAL COMMENTS Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, provided an update of the projects in the Peery Park district, and asked the Commission for thoughts regarding moving the Planning Commission meetings to an earlier time. Ms. Ryan confirmed May 12 for the joint study session with the Planning and Housing and Human Services Commissions regarding the Housing Element, and May 20 for the joint study session with City Council regarding the Balanced Growth Profile. She noted that the Climate Action Plan will address some of the issues the Planning Commission has brought up, which will come before the Commission in April. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. City of Sunnyvale Page 22