112-K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9, 2010 meeting.pdfCupertino Planning Commission 11 November 9, 2010
ATTACHMENT K
Pin Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Said that the current ordinance amendments presented are proposed to make the zoning
ordinance consistent with the housing element adopted in 2010; the environmental
determination is that it is CEQA impacted because there are no environmental impacts.
• In April 2010, the City Council adopted the housing element and also adopted some associated
Municipal Code amendments; however, since then additional changes have been identified
related to consistency or conformance with both the housing element and also with other
chapters of the Municipal Code. The layout is also being changed to improve readability and
trying to eliminate redundancies or discrepancies.
• She reviewed the amendment details for Chapter 19.48 — Planned Development (P) Zones;
Chapter 19.124 — Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances;
Chapter 19.72 — Private Recreation (FP) Zones and Chapter 20.04 — Specific Plans, as outlined
in the staff report.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the recommended amendments.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as no one was present to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve Application MCA-2010-06 per the model resolution.
5. CP-2010-01 Review of the Management study of the Permit process and
City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit
Citywide Location services and organizational history. Continued from the May
8, 2010 City Council meeting; Tentative City Council date:
February 2011
Chair Brophy noted that the presentation is for discussion purposes only, no motions will be made;
discussions will include what should be covered and establish a formal public hearing to discuss
what recommended changes will be made.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the Council reviewed the documentation that staff provided the Planning
Commission as part of the matrix report, and they wanted staff to conduct two workshops
where everybody who had gone through the permitting process were noticed as well as
interested parties in the last five years. Two different workshops were held. Consultant Ken
Rodriguez will discuss what input was heard from the workshops and what the compilation of
the data is, and Piu Ghosh will review the technical details.
Ken Rodriguez, Consultant:
• Reported on the two workshops held and applauded staff on the excellent job of documenting
the workshops.
Pin Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the staff report relative to the development process review; Matrix Consulting
Group prepared a comprehensive analysis of the city's development permit process in
November 2009; Planning Commission reviewed it in April and May and the City Council
also reviewed the item in May. City Council directed staff to conduct additional outreach into
the community and sent notices to all property owners, contractors and developers who
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 9, 2010
received permits within the last 5 years. Outreach efforts included the mailing of 5,300 notices
and notices were also placed in Cupertino Courtier, Scene and the city's website.
• The first workshop was held on July 28, 2010; 19 attendees including 4 Planning
Commissioners. Different themes were identified within the Matrix report, including
streamlining, technology and communication. The main comment from the meeting was that
the development process needs to be streamlined; a comprehensive online permitting system is
key; and that streamlining is desirable as long as there is no reduction in the level of public
engagement that the city currently does.
• The second workshop was held on September 8, 2010; a group exercise and free discussion
was held, details are outlined in the staff report, Page 5-3; the only change recommended
related to parcel maps, that those could be approved administratively. No changes were
suggested to the single-family review process; however, changes were suggested to the
exception processes. She reviewed the recommended changes as outlined in the staff report.
• Relative to communication, the attendees at the second workshop discussed at length the
noticing process. Some members of the community, especially applicants, felt that the
requirements were onerous, while others were satisfied with the level of communication and
felt that any streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input. Staff is
suggesting a new enhanced public engagement process called ACT — Advise, Collaborate, and
Team Up which was explained in detail on Page 5-5 of the staff report.
• Relative to technology, at the first workshop, 7 of the 15 attendees indicated support for a new
online permitting system; preliminary discussion held indicated support for roughly a 4%
increase in fees to cover the cost of the system.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission comment on the proposed changes and
submit any other proposed modifications or recommendations to be forwarded to City Council.
Com. Miller:
• Said that lowering the level of approvals is a good idea which is one way to improve
efficiency. Also staff suggested an online system to improve efficiency. The Matrix report
has a number of suggestions in terms of reducing some work which they felt was unnecessary.
It was suggested that two story residences be treated the same as one story as far as the
approval process is concerned.
• One area that wasn't adequately addressed is the actual processes that staff currently has in
place and how they can be improved.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Noted that the flow chart in the staff report outlines the processes which change depending on
what the applicant provides; every one of the processes follow the flow chart, except for RI
which staff can provide.
• Staff is also looking at many of the administrative changes and to make those in-house
improvements. The flow chart except for the RI, doesn't include story poles; and the tree
removal process is different. The process is what you see in front of you, changes depending
on who is applying, how much information they provide.
Com. Miller:
• Said that he felt the flow chart does not help an applicant in terms of what steps he has to take,
and that is where the exercise could be valuable because the output of the exercise could be put
online for clear understanding. None of the steps are clear in the ordinance or guidelines it is
very confusing for a new applicant. He suggested addressing it as a Planning Commission and
make improvements and submit something to the Council.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 9, 2010
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said she was attempting to differentiate between ordinance amendments and internal
processes. The application packet addresses many of the questions and staff is looking to
improve it and customize it for RI vs. all other applications. The flow charts describe the steps
in a process and what meetings are needed to go through it, and the application packet walks
the applicant through each paper to provide in order to complete the application.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt the application packet was not fully complete as to the current requirements.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she has followed the process from the beginning and felt there was too much change
happening. She said the way Cupertino does business now protects and maintains strong
neighborhoods and asked why would they want to change it? Cupertino's process has evolved
over a number of years to be uniquely Cupertino's. The city has politically active residents
who are trying to maintain the true nature and strength of their neighborhoods and she saw no
reason for change. She said she felt there were many outside forces beyond Cupertino that
don't like the way that Cupertinians do things and she had concerns that some of those people
are influencing this beyond the point they should, such as the anonymous focus groups in the
Matrix report. Relative to the many reports, she did not want a lower level of authority, but
things to stay as is. She wanted to make sure the neighborhood notification continues and that
the neighbors remain involved; as they are the heart and soul of Cupertino.
Kevin McClelland, representing the Board of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
• In favor of application.
• Applauded the review of the process and the work that has been done so far; it is a step in the
right direction.
• He disagreed with the previous speaker regarding her comment about standards being lowered
to make it easier for people to conduct business in Cupertino; he saw no evidence where
standards are being lowered.
• He suggested having a better timeframe on some of the approvals and response times to help
keep projects moving along; many times information can be missing or there can be snags that
stall or slow down a process.
• He also suggested having better timeframes and perhaps alternatives for the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings to ensure that everyone is heard, and the meetings
have a distinct timeframe and be completed in a shorter timeframe.
• They support the online system which would help to not only save the city money but also
streamline and help the process.
Bob McVie, Cupertino resident:
• Said he supported the online system as it would save staff time and provide access to the
public on a readymade basis. Item 3 is important where overwhelmingly the group members
were looking at streamlining but didn't want a reduction in the level of public engagement;
they do not want to revert back to the 1990s after going through 10 years of developing what
they now have.
• Referring to Attachment 1, Collaborate level, it mentions greater than 25 units, 25,000 sq. ft. of
retail, commercial, industrial; all three categories are major developments in Cupertino;
Cupertino is a small city. He recommended those be reduced to a lower level of 10 to 15 units,
10,000 sq. ft. of retail and about 25,000 sq. ft. of office;/industrial. He recommended
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 9, 2010
increasing the neighborhood notice which is at 500 feet minimum to 1,000 feet, because in the
past notifications wouldn't get to the citizens of Cupertino, but only to the developed
commercial properties.
He said he appreciated the process; it was informative for all and allowed the public to provide
input at those meetings.
Darcy Paul, Cupertino resident:
• Said he supported the streamlining process for development permitting. Relative to noticing,
he applauded the Commission for considering expanding the general notice which will benefit
public input.
• He said he felt the three minute limit for each speaker makes it arduous because some meetings
go until 2 or 3 a.m. which is not necessarily an effective process. He said he was not
suggesting eliminating the public input process at meetings, but try to make it more efficient if
there are comments prior to the meeting, being processed by the city. He said with respect to
being able to integrate some modern technologies and using online tools, he supported being
more creative about how to process public input in that manner
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Chair Brophy:
• Reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to put together an agenda for formal
consideration.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that a major or minor permit depends on the size of the project and that decides whether
the Commission or Council hears the items.
• If it is a conditional use or CG ordinance, it has certain uses that could be approved at staff
level and certain uses for Commission approval; everything cannot be put in one box. They
could say the more intense or more controversial uses get reviewed at the Planning
Commission and the larger projects get reviewed at the Council level. She noted that they have
taken every project individually, but if they are combined in one application, the highest
approval body will review it.
• She said when it was fast brought to the Planning Commission the Planning Commission did
not want to open up the R1, but they heard in meetings some comments from people saying
that it was onerous and they thought they would bring it back to see if the Planning
Commission did have any comments to move forward. The last time the R1 was looked at was
in 2009; it has been through three or four reviews in the last 8 to 10 years and the last set went
through a fair amount of vetting by the community as well as Planning Commission and
Council. There is also design review, story poles and noticing, and comments can be
forwarded to staff.
Chair Brophy:
• Relative to tree removals, especially in the case of owner -occupied houses, there were opinions
that the process is onerous. What are the thoughts on tree removal, whether or not the problems
arise are greater than what the social benefits are.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The ordinance states that if a tree is dead or in a very hazardous situation, if staff can
determine the condition and not have to see an arborist, there is no requirement for an arborist
report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 9, 2010
On occasion, there are reports that the tree appears healthy but there is something going on
inside the tree, and more information is needed; if staff cannot make a determination, an
arborist report is required. There is no charge if it is determined dead or hazardous and a
replacement schedule per the tree ordinance is worked out at no charge. If it is a protected tree
per the ordinance, the ordinance requires tree: replacement; if it is non -protected tree, they do
not require replacement.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the tree ordinance, if a tree dies of natural causes whether protected or not, it has
lived and died on its own and there should not: be a requirement that you have to replace it with
two more protected trees. He said he had difficulty with that concept.
• Said that staff spends an inordinate amount of time on architectural review; it is not done for
one-story buildings but is done extensively for two-story buildings. Suggested that it is an area
where significant improvements could be made in efficiency and how to do things with no loss
of quality in eliminating or changing the process.
• The new ordinance that allows square footages on the second floor greater than 45% of the
first floor have requirements that it would have to be a definable style and need to have four-
sided architectures.
• It may make sense but then it is required that all those sides be hidden behind privacy
protection. He said he was at a loss to see where the benefit is of spending time and effort on
getting very detailed architecture, particularly when the buildings are small and lots are tight,
and then hiding that beautiful architecture behind a barrier of landscaping. He said it was an
area that should be looked at.
• Many cities require story poles but Cupertino takes it a level that no other city does; requiring
that an engineer go out and survey the exact location where the story poles are to be planted in
the ground, which is an expensive proposition, from $2,000 to $5,000 for poles that will stay
up for a month. The city also requires that all the corners and ridgelines be detailed in plastic.
He said when looking at the plan and looking at the story poles he could not distinguish all the
detail and doubted that anyone else could. He questioned the value of the expenditure which is
another area to look into.
• Relative to noticing, he said he did not see; a reason to send out detailed floor plans to
neighbors; what goes on in the interior of the; building is a private matter of the homeowner
and does not have to be disclosed to the neighbors. It is appropriate to put a four sided
elevations to see the site plan, the grading, drainage, but not floor plans; why should the
neighbor have the right to comment on the location of someone else's bathroom.
• The other issue with the R1 ordinance that creates much conflict, is the concept of
compatibility with the neighborhood and mass and bulk; they are very subjective and it causes
endless discussions and arguments. Relative to compatibility and conformity, he referred to the
Willow Glen neighborhood in San Jose, where every house is different than the neighbors, yet
the neighborhood look good and one couldn't: argue about conformity or compatibility there.
One of the reasons Cupertino is now allowing a larger second story is because people have said
that Cupertino has the wedding cake look and they want to get away from that. The
compatibility stipulation in the ordinance goes to the same question and it does not allow for
creativity for designs that could fit in with the; neighborhood or are not allowed because they
don't look like the ranch house next door. It is another area where it is right to look at the R1
ordinance.
• He cautioned about reopening the R1 ordinance because it is a risky thing; however, it could
be opened in a limited way and agree to address certain things and agree to send that request
onto City Council.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 9, 2010
Aard Shrivastava:
• Said staff would like to get comments on Attachment 1 and IA which are the heart of the
recommendations; Attachment 1 tries to put a level of certainty into projects where both the
applicants as well as people understand what the requirements are.
• The second takes it to the technical level and compiles data received from the group
workshops along with the recommended public strategy. The site signage is a great idea, it
addresses people who may not have been in the noticing radius; renters, people who moved in
new and weren't updated on the metro scan; it addresses a lot of issues and we have looked at
this from all angles and tried to find the best way to inform the public as well as a creative way
to get input. We believe for larger projects, the neighborhood workshops are a better way than
the three minute input at meetings.
Corn. Giefer:
• Said she was part of the development of the current RI over the past 8 years, and many of the
points that Com. Miller brought up were the things that were put in the R1 because that was
what the public was most fearful of; they felt a lack of control; they felt they didn't know what
was going on in residential development; they had no way of understanding what was going to
happen in properties adjacent and across from them. She recalled that they sent out the floor
plans because some people's living rooms or family rooms would be facing a neighbor's
master bedroom; and they discussed what the appropriate level of information given out should
be. She suggested that if they reopen the RI, they tie it in with the they had with green
building where they lowered the overall FAR, and the greener the building is, the more FAR
you are entitled to.
• She said that story poles do work, but if there is new information to make the process easier for
the developer, they should consider it.
• Said that no more angry groups are coming to meetings which happened during the two story
development issues, because neighbors know what is going on, and she said she did not want
the future Planning Commissions to have to deal with that. She said if they are going to look at
R1 or send it to Council then they should look at FAR, and reducing the overall FAR in the
city; if you want to increase your FAR back up to the current levels, then build a greener home.
• She said it would be helpful to know exactly what information is required for various permits
and try to transpose a timeline.
Corn. Kaneda:
Said he did not like the fact that two stories are treated separately from one story; the argument
for not having a stricter review on one story buildings is that you have a fence in between and
it more or less blocks the view between houses; but at the street level, architecture is
architecture and it can get ugly or nice.
He recalled his personal experience, when his architect told him not to try to do a two story
house in Cupertino because he would have to go through an architectural review and it is not
worth the hassle. He decided on a one story, although he preferred a two story home.
Corn. Giefer:
• Said during her remodel they did not experience major problems; her pool plans were lost
three times and they had to make one phone call about a framing issue but it was worked out.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said he was interested in people's experiences with the R1. On a commercial level, the Matrix
report is very accurate; extremely cooperative and very organized.
• Said he liked the idea of computer permit streamlining, and suggested that the Council go to
Apple and partner with them and beta test the whole system with them.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 9, 2010
Cupertino is a place where people want to locate because of the school system and a nice
community, and building a single family home is probably the only time they will do that. The
process is confusing, it could be simpler for first timers, and with the help of technology staff
will be able to put many of those printed documents on the computer.
He said he was hopeful that all the things discussed will be translated into that process and it
will make it easier for the first time person. Fle said some communities because of budget cuts
are forced to cut down on staff, and people going to their city hall are forced to locate the staff
through phone lines in the lobby area, which is impersonal.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Noted that the planning department hours have been extended to improve customer service.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that having a process online similar to "R1 For Dummies" would make it simple for
people going through the process. Details explaining what the documents consist of, etc. and
what to expect when attending a design review meeting or Planning Commission meeting,
would be extremely helpful to people because not everyone utilizes an architect.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Once you get the process online, people could study the process and complete the paperwork
in their own homes; it is a daunting process for people to appear before a Planning
Commission meeting or City Council meeting.
Com. Kaneda:
• Suggesting making available a set of drawings for the public to look at as part of the process.
Staff said she would discuss it offline with Com. Kaneda.
Com. Miller:
• He said a detailed flow chart was needed, showing each step including the deliverables, what
the city is expecting you to submit, what the dependencies are for doing those submittals;
going through it step by step would provide a birds eye view of exactly what each process
involves and where. When it is laid out, you can see where improvements can be made and
staff can possibly make some modifications afterwards, and that could be the basis of
documentation to go online for an applicant to look at and get a better idea up front of what
needs to be done. It is a valuable process to go through and they can find places to make
improvements.
• Provided an example of an R1 approval requirement of providing the interior square footage of
the proposed house. Staff requires the applicant to provide drawings of squares inside the
house which would indicate the total square footage. If the application was designed on a
CAD system, it is a more efficient and accurate way to provide the information. There are
other similar areas where improvements can be made, and by flow charting it out and seeing
all the requirements, staff can then look at them individually and make suggestions for
improvement.
• Reiterated that they were asked to look at the process, and he felt he could not do an evaluation
of the process without knowing exactly what the process is, and asked for more detail to better
understand the process, where it works and where improvements can be made.
9 He said if applicants have to go through it, the commissioners should also.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that the Commission's role is to focus on things related to the ordinance and some of
these issues brought up are not ordinance matters, but work processes, and he was not sure
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 9, 2010
they were set up for resolving those types of issues. If it is not in an ordinance, it shouldn't be
a matter for the Commission to resolve.
Said they need to resolve the R1 issue; he agreed with Corns. Giefer and Miller, that some of
the process is unduly complicated, but to the extent that they have generous FAR scores, he
was not sure they were willing to reopen that issue. They reviewed in in detail and the Council
expressed their opinion in no uncertain terms and notwithstanding the Commission's
unanimous view that they were not going to touch the FAR matter.
Said he was reluctant to reopen R1 unless there are specific ordinance problems such as the
story poles not requiring a formal engineering survey or the corner and ridgelines detail,
because he did not feel they were providing much value.
Piu Ghosh:
• Said they do require story pole certification; however, it does not have to be by a surveyor, and
can be done by a contractor. They must be presented at the correct height and location, which
has been a contentious point in past RI appeals.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Story poles requirements are part of the ordinance and staff will implement whatever the
Planning Commission and City Council decide should be implemented as part of the
ordinance. If the story pole requirement is removed, they won't have to do it any longer.
Whatever requirements the Council decides, staff wants to ensure that the applicant is able to
self -certify without staff having to go and check every detail because that takes extra staff
time. She said she understood the issues, and perhaps they could be argued in relation to the
ordinance to say that many of the story pole requirements are onerous, and that people who
have gone through the process are best able to bring those comments in.
Com. Miller:
• Suggested a subcommittee of two commissioners to meet with staff, and present findings to the
Planning Commission.
Com. Giefer:
• Suggested that it be Planning Commissioners who were not involved with the original R1 so
their discovery would be original and not be tainted by prior hearings and feedback, which
would provide unbiased information.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt they would lose experience and knowledge that is valuable in the process, if they
took that approach.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Having gone through the R1 process recently, it is appropriate to bring a lot of this; staff was
hoping to get more comments on Attachment 1 and IA; I am not saying that other changes
don't have to be made, but if we could get some of that to see if we are in the right direction, or
not, and then we can look at Rl, we will bring the comments to the Council about generally
trying to streamline the R1 requirements.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was not sure he agreed with the comment about noticing, as they were already covered
under zoning amendments up to 1,000 ft. and to the extent you have an industrial parcel in
Vallco.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 November 9, 2010
Corn. Giefer:
• There are special cases where you have the best intentions, with 300, 500 or 1,000 square feet,
but only one neighbor would actually get notice, but others are interested; with RHS adjacent
property owners were included because the parcels were so large that notice may have been
sent to only one resident.
Valerie Armento:
• Said that an ordinance sets the minimum standard that is going to apply uniformly throughout
the city; there is nothing that prohibits noticing extra or additionally in those types of
situations, but it sets the minimum requirement which is going to apply across the board; so
you want to set something that is reasonable and not overly burdensome in the grand scheme
of things recognizing that in special cases, you can always notice in addition. Keep in mind
that going to the the 500 or 300 foot level know, as they drive or walk by the site. It will be
another requirement that will end up in the handout.
• The Wireless Ordinance states that it should be a specific radius noticing or two properties on
either side of the subject property.
Corn. Miller:
• Said feedback from neighbors said the most effective thing when changing the ordinance was
putting up the renderings; people walking by can see them and get a good visual idea of
exactly what the house is going to look like, which is far superior to the story poles and
anything else done.
Corn. Kaneda:
• Expressed concern about the issue of whether or not to allow balconies on homes in Cupertino.
He said he did not personally care whether or not balconies were permitted, but he noted the
inconsistencies in some neighborhoods where; balconies were permitted and within a five block
area, balconies were not permitted in anol:her neighborhood, because of complaints from
neighbors.
Chair Brophy:
0 Said he did not want the Planning Commission involved with gates and fences.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the ordinance remains as is.
Corn. Miller:
• Suggested having a subcommittee to look at R1 and bring it back to the Commission.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said they did not address R1 because it was heard loud and clear that the Planning
Commission did not want to open up the R1.
• Relative to the R1, staff hoped it would be more of a streamline process for revenue producing
projects in the city. Having just gone through an R1 they weren't excited about reopening it
again; one of the things people value is certainty and if the RI is reopened every year it is not
providing the best service to their customers.
• However, if there are things that both the Commission and Council think should be removed,
staff will address it, but their focus is going to be on trying to make the ordinance clear about
the process, trying to make it clear for the commercial developments and the larger projects
providing that protection to neighbors to add noticing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 9, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said he would like to avoid getting involved with second story decks because they can't be
addressed without going into the whole R1 ordinance. He was not opposed to minor
landscaping and exterior enhancements for condos, but not interested in working on changing
wood fences to wrought iron fences, etc. He said he would rather not deal with the core of the
R1, but focus more on internal work processes rather than ordinance processes.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said staff was looking at internal work processes, and working with applicants and any
comments from commissioners would be welcomed.
Staff is not looking at all Matrix recommendations relative to the R1 specific ordinance
amendments; they have gone to the two public meetings and are bringing back the
recommendations for the ordinance amendments. Staff is also working on the internal staff
improvements as well as the online permitting process. They have received a lot of positive
feedback on the online permitting, we are seeking funding for it.
Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission.
Com. Giefer:
• Concurred with Chair Brophy, but does not feel as part of Matrix, they should open it up.
Com. Miller:
• Said he disagreed; the architectural review is such a huge resource and expensive process for
both the city and the applicant that it screams out for review. It is an area they could save
countless hours of staff time and thousands of dollars of applicant time by doing a better job. It
is such a sore point with every applicant who comes in and has to go through it. There is no
better time for improvement than now.
Chair Brophy:
• Said if there are large homes on small lots, there is an inherent potential for being intrusive to
the adjoining houses, and he preferred not to reopen it.
Com. Miller:
• Said there were two separate processes, one for one story and a different one for two story
houses. There are actually duplicate processes going on because the two story homes have to
be reviewed by the city architect and then reviewed again by staff, the applicant gets two sets
of changes, one from the architect and another one from city staff.
• It is a problem particularly for an applicant who hires an architect who has an opinion; they go
and get reviewed by the city architect and he may have a slightly different opinion; and then
they get reviewed by the staff who may or may not have architectural experience. All this has
to go into a mix and come out, and it is a very long, expensive process, and I don't see where it
adds any quality whatsoever to the end result. We can let it go on, but that is not my
preference; my preference is when there is a problem, fix it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the homes that are above 45% are because of specific guidelines; the ones below are not.
Staff comments along with the architect's comments are integrated as early as possible; the
idea being to integrate all comments from different departments as well as the consultants; the
person is always working with one staff planner.
Com. Kaneda:
0 Said he was concerned about trying to balance two things; if you totally let it go it reverts back
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 November 9, 2010
to the reason they started trying to put controls on it in the first place, which is the monster
homes where you build a straight wall up to the edge of the allowable property envelope. The
other option is to follow Palo Alto which has a DRC and they look at everything; it is overly
onerous but they have beautiful homes. He said he did not like the past layer cake architecture
which encouraged one style of building which is not particularly attractive; the Spanish style
development architecture that developers use up and down the peninsula. He said he did not
like seeing every house in Cupertino looking like that.
Said his sense was to give it some time and see if the problem looks like it has been taken care
of to see what the results are before tweaking it more.
Com. Miller:
• The two story process that people have been complaining about has been in place for five
years; the way to put controls on it is to be more prescriptive and put more guidelines and
requirements in the ordinance, but give the ,applicant's architect flexibility to choose among
them. Presently they are subject to staff saying; they know there is a set of guidelines, but this is
the one they want you to follow. He said he would like to eliminate that issue as well.
Com. Giefer:
• Said they just changed the first to second FAR to specifically address architectural
differentiation last year.
Chair Brophy:
• Com. Miller gave the example of the Willow Glen neighborhood where you have homes quite
different from one another and where there is no problem. The reason why that worked and is
not working as well any longer is because the; homes were much smaller relative to the size of
the lots; when you were building homes at 15 or 20% of lot size, you could build whatever you
wanted and your neighbor may not like it, but it didn't overwhelm him. In Willow Glen today,
homes are being torn down and large homes are being built.
• Said he did not feel the process addresses the issue; one ordinance says you can put a very
large home on very small lot, but it has to be good architecture; and the reason clients are
unhappy is because you cannot build 45% homes that are good architecture on a standard lot in
a California suburb.
Com. Miller:
• Said he had no objection to lowering the FAR and if other commissioners feel the same way
and want to do that with other recommendations, send them to the Council for their reaction.
• Relative to story poles, he said he questioned their value, but was willing to get input from the
residents. He said he felt the use of renderings provided a very clear picture of what is going in
there. There is a height limit and story poles are intended to see mass, bulk and height and
they have setbacks and height limits to address those issues. If someone is building something
within those guidelines then- they have a strong argument for getting approval, even if their
neighbor doesn't like it; otherwise they can change the guidelines which is what is being
discussed.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she would not support a minute order, because it is outside of the matrix. She said they
should focus on things such as policy; the feedback received and the direction they started out
with on the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 November 9, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Said he understood the direction was to look at the permitting process and suggest
improvements, and that is why he wanted to see flow charts and deliverables. From that, they
may decide that there are some changes to the ordinance that make sense based on that review.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she had no problem with the flow charts and looking at the process. That is something
they can handle as they have discussed wanting to review that.
• Said she heard Com. Miller's ideas on this as a developer and recalled sitting through long
meetings where the community felt the city had abandoned them, and people who have lived
here their entire lives didn't have a say in things; which was a concern in terms of where they
are headed.
Com. Miller:
• Commented that open hearings have been held where the public can attend and give their
input.
Following discussion, there was a straw vote 4-1 not to forward a minute order to the Council.
Com. Miller:
• Said he understood the objective was to look at the permitting process, but felt he could not do
so without knowing what the process is. He suggested a subcommittee be formed to address it
and bring it back to the Commission. He volunteered to serve on the subcommittee and
suggested another commissioner also serve on the subcommittee.
Com. Giefer:
• Cautioned the Commission on bias; and suggested they get fresh ideas and let people who
haven't dealt with this before, review it and see what they come up with to get a new
perspective.
Com. Miller:
• Said he felt there was no substitute for having someone who understands it to begin with; who
has been through it, followed it and gone into detail, and doesn't have to spend a month getting
up to speed.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Volunteered to be on the subcommittee.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Recommended that staff bring the Commission's input on Attachments 1, 2 and a
recommendation that two commissioners would work with staff to provide their input on
processes; staff will continue to take input from applicants throughout the process and look at
improving it offline.
Next step would be to go to the Council with Commission's recommendation on the broad
brush area to say, they have heard your comments on Attachments 1 and 2 on the collaborative
process, reducing the number of units to 15 in order to require neighborhood meeting; didn't
hear any changes to the retail or office; there wasn't a majority vote to make any changes to
the R1, and that we work with two commissioners and involve applicants in trying to make the
process more user friendly.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 November 9, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Suggested waiving the $162 appeals fee, since it doesn't cover the costs associated with an
appeal, and sends the wrong message to residents.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the appeals fee was established to discourage frivolous appeals and it doesn't begin to
cover the costs which range between $5,000 to $6,000. Staff feels having a nominal fee helps,
but if the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation, they will bring it forward to
Council. She noted that if the appeal is upheld, the appeal fee is returned to the appellant.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he felt the fee discourages frivolous appeals and is warranted.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that in the interest of democracy, the few frivolous appeals they receive, is worth not
having a fee.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was neutral on charging an appeals fete.
Vice Chair Lee:
• People appeal because they are upset so it is not likely that charging them a fee of $162 given
will generate a large number of new appeals.
Com. Miller:
• Said there should be an appeals fee, even if it is a small barrier to frivolous appeals. If the
appeal is granted, the fee is not charged to you which seems to be reasonable and the appeals
are usually done by several people or an entire neighborhood and the $162 fee divided
amongst neighbors would not seem to be a hardship in Cupertino. The Council decided on the
fee not long ago.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Relative to signs for tree removal, the draft states that a sign needs to be up; and if it with
another application, they need to have an ASA and have to remove a number of trees. A TR
could be put up; however, if it is one person in the home that wants to cut down one tree, it
should not be required if not associated with a major sign approval.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• This wasn't an addition by staff; it is a current requirement in the ordinance; the tree ordinance
was reviewed in 2007 and it was added at that time. Any recommendation can be brought
forward to the Council.
Com. Giefer:
• Said her experience is it is usually a planned. development because somebody moves in and
doesn't understand there was a landscaping plan approved as part of the overall development,
even if it is 5 homes. If a home is a part of a planned development, a replacement plan is
needed in order to remove a tree. People may be caught off guard because they did not realize
the planting was approved as part of the development.
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 November 9, 2010
Valerie Armento:
• Cautioned the Commission that they were conducting a process study to focus on the process,
and discussion should not drift into regulations.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Reviewed the tree removal process. If a heritage tree is removed, it is to be replaced by one 48
inch box tree. The heritage trees are specific historic trees that are mapped in the city, with tags
on them; protected trees are five species used for landscape plans approved as part of a planned
development. An arborist is consulted to determine the best replacement for the site because
of possible overcrowding.
• If the homeowner does not agree with the tree replacement, they would have to appeal to the
Planning Commission or decision maker.
• Explained the different options relative to tree replacement for various reasons.
Com. Miller:
• The Director has the discretion to do what she wants, including not replacing the tree. If the
reason for removing a tree is because there is crowding among the trees, it would be better for
the remaining trees to have that one tree removed; does the ordinance require the replacement
of the tree that was removed?
• In general the tree ordinance is somewhat onerous on the homeowners. We view the trees as a
community good, but it is an individual cost and there is some level of unfairness and some of
the expense associated with permanent removal and the replacement by more trees tends to be
costly. Requiring signage is just another expense that may not be necessary. I think we should
look at single family residences and planned development. He explained the requirements for
tree replacement when trees are removed.
Chair Brophy:
• Said it seemed unreasonable to have to replace a large tree that has died of natural causes; trees
grow from small to large and it is expecting a lot to replace a tree that has died of natural
causes.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed with Com. Miller, that if you require privacy planting and then in later years
when the trees are overgrown, they have to be thinned out; the person who was originally
required to plant all the trees should not have to pay an in -lieu fee in addition to removing the
tree; it adds insult to injury.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the R1 process allows a neighbor to waive a planting requirement; if the neighbor
says they don't need the new trees planted, it is still part of the waiver and is acceptable.
Aarti Shrivastava summarized:
• All the ordinance recommendations have been identified in the packets; relative to the
administrative process, staff is redoing the handouts; lunch time counter has been
implemented, and there will be an internal meeting to see if the process can be streamlined,
and staff will meet with the subcommittee as well. There are specific ordinance issues that are
identified that the staff will bring it back to the full Commission for consideration.
• She confirmed the 15 unit reduction in the collaboration section as well.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 November 9, 2010
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting;
Housing Commission: Meeting scheduled for November 10, 2010
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Meeting scheduled for November 10, 2010.
Economic Development Committee Meetine:
Com. Miller provided the following summary:
• The commercial environment has been decimated; there is concern that there is something like
a couple of trillion dollars worth of building loans coming due over the next three years and
some people felt that they would be taken care of in some way; other people thought they
would create another crisis. Aside from that, though most of the participants felt they were
cautiously optimistic that we had reached bottom and that in various places around the Bay
Area, we were starting to see some small evidence of new development going on, particularly
in the East Bay; there was some concerns about the legislation coming out of Sacramento and
the amount that it was adding to the cost of construction; specifically new EPA requirements
from the federal level as well as SB375 and AB332, and they even attached a number to it
indicating that that would cost at least $6 per square foot to everything they did. Also, they are
hoping as we move forward that the money situation loosens up, because it presently is
extremely difficult to get loans.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava reported:
• The Council reviewed the appeal of the wireless facility on Results Way Nov. I't and directed
staff to work with the applicant to find an alternate location on the front portion of the site
closer to McClellan, to see if that could be identified. If they could, the item would come back
to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. If they can't identify an
alternate location, then they would go back to t:he Council.
• On the modification to the Shashi hotel, the Council. approved the modification, but they raised
the parking ratio to .75 per room (the Commission had recommended .6). The valet service
would stay in place and they also wanted the Council to get an update of the parking annually
for the first three years of operation.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled f�lFN v�ember 23, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabet is, Recording, Secretary
Approved as presented: December 14, 2010