Loading...
111-J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop.pdfATTACHMENT J A01oval Authority Owner with a large lot could potentially subdivide into many parcels — therefore even minor subdivisions should beconsideredattheOty[ound|—JenGriffin Glad the item at last night (9/7/2010)'s CC meeting was considered at their level. --Jen Griffin if you have one acre in the middle of town -- the project meets all development standards--- shouldn't need to be considered atCCLevel. There needs to be triggers/thresholds in place that would aUnvv minor/straight forward subdivisions to be approved atthe Planning Commission. |frules are inplace — projects should beapproved administratively. Concerned that by moving projects to a lower level —you lose public input opportunities. —Keith M. MV seems to have a lower threshold for approvals — how has it been working for them over there? —Amar Does MVhave firm guidelines over there? —Keith M. it's the culture inCupertino. MV respects its own culture. If we do that then perhaps things could be approved at a lower level. ^ Cupertino is one of the youngest, out of the cities being compared. We have a long history of residents' involvement. VVehave torealize we are being compared to other cities with longer history/culture. —Jen Griffin 7-map—Gormore should Qodown toplanning commission. --K4.Burns Residential AppLqvals Glad Cupertino is at its level where it is because we have limited space/high property value. Yes,it's along battle to develop something in Cupertino, but it is worth it. We are unique and worth it. —Jen Griffin Why ioCupertino atahigher level? —Bob K4cK. Clarify yard interpretation. Matrix believes residential projects/process is the problem. That's unfortunate. Doesn't acknowledge community interest/background/issues. it's good to have open communications about project/developments. -- K. Murphy Have we looked to see if our current system is working effectively? There could be some improvements that could bedone tothe work process and that should belooked atfirst. --Norm Focus group (matrix) is all developers. Which means what's in place is working for them. — Bob McK. We should make the process asefficient and easy aowe can. --S. P|autz. When people are following all the rules, not pushing the envelope, the process should beeasy. They should not be penalized. Time ismoney due tochanging market conditions. --K4.Burns When someone purchases a property, goes in for permit, once receive approval, the house goes right back on the market. This is a concern. See a lot of properties that are owned by banks, empty lots. — Jen Griffin. Projects that are stalled, how do they fit into the building permit process? --Keith M. Cellular antennas, if can't be seen from the public, shouldn't they be approved at the staff level? ---John There was a cell phone tower that was approved at the staff level. Missed the issues pertaining to landscaping that would have been minimized if there was public input/review. —K. Murphy Based onother cities, weare out ofline and should bemade similar. —Scott Pi There seems to be a parking issue city-wide, so would like to see the parking process stay at PC level. —Bob Minor exceptions should be approved at staff|eve|—majorexcept at PC. Shops in Cupertino because accessible. Some centers are tight in their parking lot — safety concerns. If can't find parking, people tend iugoelsewhere. --/enGriMhn Parking is an important issue —should be maintained at current level -- there needs to be address of commercial vehicle parking to minimize parking on public streets. Are there ever applications where they want to put in more parking? —Paul P. What are considered Parking exceptions? What about Alternative transportation? Should beencouraged. —Paul P. Where's the parking in Cupertino? Policy? Or process? —Miller If other cities could set things down at a lower level, why not in Cupertino? —Catherine C. Minor uses =DRC Majnr=P[ Minor mods =DR[/PC—John V. Even if approvals are shifted to a lower level, they can still be appealed to a higher reviewing board. —Paul B. Cost ofappeal? —Bob McK Perhaps if process is reduced, then appeal $ should be lowered or waived. To not hinder folks from appealing. Things that may appear trivial are important to others. It's not a political issue if the entire street/property owners have concerns about a project. It means people want to preserve their neighborhood integrity. —Jen Griffin. Pg.47 Bullet 1(K4atrix).--K.Murphy Bylooking atthe chart, you get the sense why projects/CC mee{ingstakeso|onQ. "it gets political/individual feelings come in at the CC level. Where as other lower review levels are more technical andeasiertmQetthrVugh.--M Burns In working with the city, they were very professional but their hands were tied and had to be resolved at a higher Because unclear rules/guidelines, it will be hard to make crisp decisions. -..—Cox. Best rules/policy dealt with city of Santa Maria. Decisions were crisp/objective. We are forcing people to go through various review processes, encourages people to put their personal stamp on projects. --K4.Burns The process currently reflects democracy as a result of citizen's efforts. Hate to see the city going back to "stealth process" without proper public participation. --BobK4cK. Aileast people are involved —process may take longer Need clear guidelines/criteria but over time they get diluted modifications made. People surprised by bad development. With good clear guidelines both for big developers and small projects and everyone keeps to them. -- Keith M. If there are people living outside of the City wanting to change our process, they need to explain why. —Jen Griffin Planning Commission is where public input ought to happen. Show developers the issues so they can consider them. --K.Murphy Alot ofthe concerns relate to commercial projects. Concerned about the residential process. Perhaps process should be made easier for residential review. Maintain the current commission review level. --Amar Process could be moved down to DRC level and yet still sufficient public input opportunities are provided. —Scott P|autz Easier process may work for projects working within the box. For those working outside of the box, still require the higher level of review. —Norm I -low does City enforce unpermitted activities? How do we monitor construction? OLher things to cover: In difficult economic times, tenants need to be able to move in quickly. Current process takes too long. --John Cupertino commercial/off ice tenant spaces tend to be rnore expensive. We are constrained. 18% occupancy rate — can't really be compared to much larger neighboring cities. --Jen Griffin We are not other cities, but we are competing with other cities. Some of the tenantsthat are looking tocome into Cupertino compares us with other cities in terms of ease of process --Kevin D. Need to make sure we stay competitive. Does Cupertino have an economic development person that helps the City to compete with other cities and entice business? --K.Murphy Public input is integral to whatever process we end up with. Have lost tenants because process took too long --John It's a constant battle to keep tech in Cupertino. Currently there's a good balance. People need to realize that it's a privilege to be located in Cupertino. Otherwise, the city would be all residential. Tenants always compare us with other bay area cities. Puts a lot of pressure on builders and developers. It is a balance between residential/commercial. It's that balance that is keeping up the property value. —Scott Plautz Matrix report talks about the politically changed environment. It doesn't have tobe. Encourage developers to outreach tothe public and work together. —Bob K4cK.