The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 02-15-2011 Item No. 15 Development Permit Process Review CP-2010-01 N � `11 � � C T : ' x ;,; < i I yr • : UPERTIN0 Development Permit Process Review CP- 2010 -01 Background: • Matrix Consulting Group completed a comprehensive analysis of the City's Development Permit Process in Nov. 2009 • Planning Commission reviewed the item on 4/13/10, 4/27/10 and 5/11/2010 • City Council heard the item on 5/18/2010 and directed staff to: • Conduct additional outreach and • Send notices to all property owners, contractors and developers who got permits within last five years Outreach WORKSHOP # 1 Noticing: • 5,300 notices mailed and • Notices in Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene and City website July 28th, 2010: • 19 attendees • Discussed themes from the Matrix's report: Simplifying, Technology and Cotrununication • Colrunents: • Development process needs to be simplified • Comprehensive online permit system is key • Simplification is desirable but do not reduce level of public engagement Outreach WORKSHOP #2 September 8th, 2010: • 28 attendees • Group Exercise & Discussion: Comparing the Cupertino's process with other neighboring cities (Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara) • Result: • In most categories, responses overwhelmingly indicated lowering approval authorities. • Others reiterated that lowering approval authorities is desirable but do not reduce public engagement. 1 • Planning Commission Recommendation NOVEMBER 9, 2010 LOWER APPROVAL THRESHOLDS City Council = Projects with EIR's or mandated Approval by State Law and appeals , = Projects that meet all I A zoning regulations n = Projects that are oval exempt from CEQA Planning Commission Recommendation NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT POLICY _ LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT 4 Inform the public - 4 Legal advertisements 4 Listen to and consider concerns in 4 Legal notices the decision. 4 Public hearings 4 Fnhonce outreach and information 4 JJewsoanrr ads /Cupertino Scene (ea dissemination. needed) 4 Websit5 4 2•e siorme • u 4 Work with the public to ensure + For aro iects o(5 units; 25 000 so. ft that concerns and solutions are retail /commercial /50,000 sa. ft. 2 incorporated in the report to office/industrial Si. decision - makers. o Neighborhood notice (500' min) Neighborhood mcetinas 4 Look» the pub5e fart atpuf is 4 Cdrwide postcolds t= to to uldar Alternatives Protect Type PC Recommendation Alternative Project that meet zoning PC Council approves - 2 50 regulations residential units and /or 50,000 . s.f. commercial and /or 100,000 s.f. industrial Projects that are exempt from Administrative DRC approves — Projects that are CEQA exempt from CEQA 2 Other Comments Individual Commissioners commented on: • Reducing R1 Ordinance requirements; and • Reducing Protected Tree Ordinance requirements Recommendation • Staff requests that the Council provide direction on the recommended: • Approval thresholds • Public engagement policy • Any other modifications or direction. 3 u a cc' A/iclii 4Fis--- n A Clothes Collection System use it again February 14, 2011 Mr. George Schroeder City of Cupertino Community Development Department Planning Division 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 -3202 Dear Mr. Schroeder, I work for USAgain, LLC, a textile collection and recycling company that has recently expanded into the San Francisco Bay Area. I am writing to support the current plans in the City to amend the City of Cupertino's current zoning ordinance, particularly the regulations applicable to clothing collection b ins found in Chapter 19.82 (Beverage Container Redemption and Recycling Centers). Per our discussions late last year we understand that clothing bins are considered "unattended containers" as defined in section 19.82.030 (B)(2)(a)(ii)(D). Unattended containers are allowed in commercial, office, industrial, and public and quasi - public zones and must comply with the standards listed in section 19.82.060 (B) 1 -21. Unattended containers require approval from the Planning Commission through an Architectural and Site Review application (see section 19.82.070 B). We believe that this process requiring public hearings and an application fee of $7,274 is onerous. We have recently had successes in working with communities on the implementation of meaningful regulations which would require operators to follow good business practices. And, we are currently working with the City of Richmond on such regulations. The premise of the regulations is to allow the community to know exactly who is operating each collection bin and how to contact them should an issue arise. The regulations also ensure the bins are not placed on sidewalks or block the flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Insurance and a performance bond to effectuate enforcement are other elements that are being included in the regulatory models. Finally, the regulatory model allows for enforcement and the issuance of fines for violations. The re -use and recycling of textiles is a very "GREEN" and sustainable business model. Adding a textile collection and USAgain recycling program to your community is a great way to increase Clothes Collection System the City's sustainability measurements, help save our valuable 1948 Sabre Street resources and reclaim thousands of cubic yards of landfill space. Hayward, California 94545 Ofc: 510- 690 -8630 Fax: 510 -690 -8619 www.usagain.com • usq 1 fl A Clothes Collection System use it again Furthermore, the addition of Textile recycling and re -use to the city's ordinance would help the City meet the requirements set forth in the recent Zero Waste legislation passed by the State Legislature. USAgain can provide the City with the actual amount of textiles diverted from landfills in the City of Cupertino because the textiles were placed in our collection bins. USAgain fully supports the adoption of fair and reasonable regulations to help legitimize our industry. The issues of prime importance are: municipal approval of the sites where the bins are placed, clear notice of the Owner and Operator of the collection bin displayed on the bin, requirement for proof of authorization to place the bins by the property owner or other authorized party, and the provision of general liability insurance. USAgain adheres to its own strict business practices that ensure the public is aware of who we are and what we do. Our collection bins are well maintained and serviced regularly to eliminate the incidences of overflows. Our employee drivers follow routine schedules with pre- determined routes. In addition, we maintain a 24 hour response guarantee. I have included the final approved version of an ordinance passed recently by the City of Wheaton, IL; USAgain was active in the development of the ordinance with other clothing and book collection firms. I am also enclosing a photo of one of our bins. Regards, Julie Watt Faqir Government Relations Specialist USAgain, LLC 1.faqir@usagain.com 415 -595 -9180 USAgain Clothes Collection System 1948 Sabre Street Hayward, California 94545 Ofc: 510 - 690 -8630 Fax: 510 - 690 -8619 www.usagain.com Consent Agenda Unfinished Business #1 ORDINANCE NO. F- AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS THAT LIMIT THE NUMBER, SIZE AND LOCATION OF DONATION DROP BOXES AS OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE CITY OF WHEATON WHEREAS, the City of Wheaton, Illinois ( "City "), has determined it to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, durability, morals and general welfare of the citizens of the City to amend the City Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations that limit the number, size and location of donation drop boxes as outdoor storage. WHEREAS, pursuant to notice as required by the Illinois Municipal Code and the City Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing was conducted by the Wheaton Planning and Zoning Board, acting as a hearing body on July 27, 2010, August 24, 2010, September 28, 2010 and October 12, 2010 to consider said amendments establishing regulations that limit the number, size and location of donation drop boxes as outdoor storage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Wheaton, Du Page County, Illinois, pursuant to its home rule powers, as follows: Section 1: The Wheaton Zoning Ordinance text is amended by adding the following language to Article 2: Donation Drop Boxes: A receptacle used for the collection of used clothing, shoes, books and small household items donated by the public for redistribution. Section 2: The Wheaton Zoning Ordinance text is further amended by adding the following language to Article 24.4: 24.4 Permitted Accessory Uses in Compliance with District Bulk Regulations. 4. Donation drop boxes if located in the C -1, C -3, C -5 Zoning Districts or on properties primarily occupied by an educational, religious, governmental or charitable use. The boxes shall only be placed with the property owner's permission and on properties that contain an existing and operating permitted or special use. No more than two boxes (side -by -side) are allowed on a zoning lot less than two (2) acres in size. No more than three boxes (side -by -side) are allowed on a zoning lot equal to or greater than two (2) acres in size. Each box shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and twenty -five (25) square feet in ground area. The boxes shall be located on a parking lot or other paved surface, not adjacent to the front building facade. The boxes shall not: be within 15 feet of the front property line, reduce the width of paved clear space for the passage of pedestrians to less than five (5) feet, be located within five (5) feet of a Fire Department connection, utilize any parking spaces required by Article XXII or disrupt the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The box shall include language discouraging the placement of items outside of the box. The name and phone number of the box owner/ operator shall be posted on the box. Upon telephone notification from the City of Wheaton Code Enforcement Department that materials are being placed outside of a box, the box owner/ operator shall have 24 hours to remove said materials. Failure to do so on three or more occasions in any calendar year may result in penalties listed under Article 5.14 of this Ordinance. Ordinance F- Page 2 of 2 Section 3: This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of the ordinances of the City of Wheaton, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. Section 4: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Section 5: This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form in the manner prescribed by law. Mayor ATTEST: Roll Call Vote: Nays: Absent: Passed: Published: 1-- cc .2 (0-I 1 ( EXHIBF *is ` Planning Commission Subcommittee Report on Process Improvements „ ., ` g P P t .➢ ■ s e ....upERTiiie the approval of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Chair Winnie Lee and Vice Chair Marty Miller formed a subcommittee to meet with staff for the purpose of identifying and recommending efficiency improvements to the current permit approval process. The effort is not yet complete. However, a request was made of the subcommittee to provide a report on efforts to date for the February 15 Council hearing. This report is in response to that request. To date, the subcommittee focused mostly on residential permitting. Based on comments from past residential applicants this report proposes ways in which the efficiency of Cupertino's permit approval process can be substantially improved. These improvements are intended to reduce processing time, staff costs, and project approval costs without reducing important noticing alerts to neighbors. The City, the staff, and the applicant will all benefit. A more efficient and business friendly process will help the City attract desirable businesses and needed development to Cupertino. This will ultimately improve the City's finances as desirable businesses are attracted to the City and more retail dollars are spent here. At the last Process Workshop, a participant testified that a business owner, who originally planned to locate in Cupertino, switched to Sunnyvale instead because of the difficulty in obtaining the necessary permits from Cupertino. A more efficient process will reduce staff time and cost spent working on issues that add little value to the process or the end result. Finally, a more efficient process will reduce uncertainty and business risk leading to lower project costs and better rapport with the business community. Some proposed changes only require a modification to the current process. Others require a modification to an Ordinance, including the R1 Ordinance as well. While some may be concerned about revisiting the Rl Ordinance, it has been opened up successfully in a limited way twice in the past 3 years. Recommended changes to the R1 and the BMR program will have an immediate positive impact. Please give it serious consideration. A list of changes and additions recommended to date include the following: 1. Provide comprehensive documentation of the entire process written from the applicant's point of view, including examples of filled in forms, detailed requirements, and expected deliverables for each step. The current process is not fully documented. It is complex and daunting to first time applicants, requiring a great deal of personal interaction with the staff. The lack of documentation on the complete process results in lots of questions and sometimes inconsistent interpretation by members of the staff leading to further confusion. The applicant must contend with requirements from Public Works, Planning and Building. In some cases these requirements appear to overlap or conflict. For example, the Building Department reviews site improvement plans that were already approved as part of the Final Map approval, requiring additional sets of plans to do so. February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 1 2. Allow more parallel processing and reduce sequential processing where possible. There are many different tasks that must be completed by the applicant on the way to obtaining a building permit. The current process requires many of these tasks to be completed in sequence. This is true even when there are no interdependencies. For example, architectural approval is not given until after Final Map approval is achieved. Yet these two activities are not, or should not, be interdependent and can be completed separately. Allowing more parallel processing will reduce processing time. Staff approvals that can be delayed until later in the process should be conditioned and delayed. For example, final approval of landscaping plans could be delayed and conditioned on the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Eliminate unnecessary and redundant steps. As an example, requiring an evaluation of trees that are either inside a building footprint, or requested for removal by the Public Works Department because they interfere with required site improvements seems unnecessary. 4. Eliminate staff review of architecture. In most cases, homes in Cupertino are designed by licensed architects. In those instances where they are not, they could be reviewed by the City's architect, or an independent architect chosen by the applicant. Large and prominent projects should continue to be reviewed by the City's architect. However, staff in general does not have architectural training. Consequently, staff comments tend to include personal preferences and biases. Some architectural mandates and design criteria lead to conformity and the pallet of the City becomes very dull as a result. For example, limitations on the size of the second story led to the proliferation of the "wedding cake" design across the City. By comparison, Mountain View does not do architectural review on any single family homes. Yet, Cupertino's two story homes do not exhibit any better architecture than Mountain View's. The section of the RI Ordinance permitting second stories with square footage greater than 45% of the first story is particularly onerous. Four sided architectural review is required and staff reviews these homes at great length and in great detail. The amount of relief that staff expects is especially challenging for smaller lots where space and flexibility is limited. Meeting staff's exterior relief requirements often results in poor interior functionality of the home itself. Yet, after considerable time and expense on architectural details, privacy landscaping requirements essentially hide the sides and rear yard from neighborhood view. Staff has also required that a tree be planted in the center of the front yard to obscure the architecture from the street. A better approach is needed. February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 2 5. Eliminate requirements that add very little in value in comparison to their cost in time and dollars. Staff requires that story poles outlining the ,second floor are placed in exactly the location that the walls and corners they represent will be built. Staff also requires that the poles define corners and roof elements in great detail. These requirements are very expensive to implement. They require an engineering survey and a time consuming construction process. The poles stay up for about 6 weeks and are then torn down and disposed of. But, the level of detail that they represent is nearly impossible to visualize in practice. Because they only outline second story elements, they have the potential to give a misleading impression of the actual size of the home. Also required are renderings that are much more effective in giving residents an appreciation of what will actually be built. While renderings are very effective, story poles are very costly and add little value. They should be eliminated. When new Ordinance rules are recommended, a cost benefit analysis should be performed and their impact on existing rules should be evaluated before formal approval. 6. Staff requirements for landscaping should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and modified. Staff currently requires that the entire parcel be landscaped before a Certificate of Occupancy is given unless the applicant can unequivocally demonstrate that 2500 square feet of landscaping will never be exceeded. As an alternative, staff will accept the posting of an expensive bond to cover hypothetical landscaping costs. This requirement cannot be found anywhere in the Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance. In fact, the Landscape Water Efficiency Checklist states that if no landscaping is being proposed, then nothing more need be done by the applicant. In most cases, a builder will landscape the front yard for curb appeal, but not landscape the backyard. Even when the backyard is landscaped, the landscaping is minimal and as inexpensive as possible. Backyard landscaping is a loss leader for a builder because new home buyers typically want to design the backyard landscaping personally. Even if the builder puts landscaping in, it is usually replaced within a short period of time. Staff's landscape requirements are very expensive and are not an effective solution to insuring adherence to the Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance. 7. Eliminate unnecessary requirements for copies of architectural and engineering plans. As an example, a separate and full set of plans are required for a minor exception. This is true even though the minor exception plan set is no different than the plan set required for the home itself. If the new Permitting software enables the submittal of plans electronically, it will address this issue. However, until that software is implemented, unnecessary paper generation requirements should be eliminated. February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 3 8. Review and modify fees and the fee structure Fees should be based, as much as possible, on Planner time spent. For large projects that require more time than a benchmark project, additional fees should be charged on a time and materials basis to ensure cost recovery. Currently, Cupertino does not charge for time spent with potential applicants until they fill out an application and make an actual submittal. The City should answer preliminary questions without charge. However, if an applicant wants staff to review a preliminary site plan, or design, and give meaningful feedback, Council could consider charging a modest fee for that service. San Jose follows a similar process and offers several upfront fee options for preliminary reviews. Once Council approves changes to the current permitting process, individual fees should be reduced or increased as appropriate. Consider collecting impact fees at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or Close of Escrow, instead of when the building permit is issued. Buildings do not have an impact on the City until after they are built. Consequently, it doesn't cost the City anything to delay the fee collection until after construction is complete. However, in the current economic environment, obtaining construction loans is very challenging. Because impact fees are a significant expense, delaying their collection until later in the project will reduce loan requirements and make obtaining a construction loan easier. 9. Review the BMR program and reduce, eliminate, or offer an in lieu fee option. The BMR program is not the most effective way to provide affordable housing and has been subject to abuse. It is a very expensive program and the burden of that expense is completely borne by the land owner, builder, and buyers of the homes on a particular site. Yet it is a City wide benefit. In the current economic environment, costly BMR programs have stopped projects from moving forward in Bay Area cities. Mountain View has an affordable housing program which permits the builder to pay an in lieu fee instead of building the units if the difference between the market sales price and the affordable sales price is greater than a threshold amount. Consider evaluating this program for implementation in Cupertino. The Matrix Report and the Community Workshops were helpful in identifying areas of opportunity to improve the application permitting process. This report, as a supplement to those efforts, has briefly outlined progress to date on identifying additional opportunities for process improvement. The current process is not well understood and consequently leads to confusion, time wasted, and less than optimal results. It is our recommendation that the Council allow the subcommittee's review process to continue to completion. Winnie Lee, Planning Commission Chair Marty Miller, Planning Commission Vice Chair February 14, 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee Report Page 4 �� ■■/ ct c / - � S- l I E XI I1 • 4,75 Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Matrix Consulting Group /Management Study of the City of Cupertino Permit Process Attachments: Matrix Report February 15, 2011 .pdf From: Darrel Lum f mailto:drIum(apacbell.netj Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: City Council; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang Cc: Winnie Lee; Marty Miller; Paul Brophy; Lisa Giefer; David Kaneda; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Fw: Matrix Consulting Group /Management Study of the City of Cupertino Permit Process Please find attached SOME of the comments, concerns and recommendations, dated February 15, 2011, regarding the Matrix Consulting Group /Management Study of the City of Cupertino Permit Process. Thank you for your consideration of the attachment at your February 15, 2011 City Council meeting. - -- On Mon, 5/17/10, Darrel Lum <drlum(d!pacbell.net> wrote: From: Darrel Lum <drlumpacbell.net> Subject: Matrix Consulting Group /Management Study of the City of Cupertino Permit Process To: citycouncila,cupertino.orq, "Kris Wang" <KWanq(a�cupertino.orq >, "Gilbert Wong" <GWonqacupertino.orq >, BChang cupertino.orq, "Orrin Mahoney" <OMahonev a(�cupertino.orq >, MSantoro(a�cupertino.org Cc: pauldbrophya,yahoo.com, "Winnie Lee" <winnieleedds(c�vahoo.com >, Igiefer a(�sbcglobal.net, dkaneda(c�ideasi.com, mmiller c(D.interorealestate.com, planning cupertino.orq Date: Monday, May 17, 2010, 10:18 PM At meetings during the past few weeks several members of the public have discuss the recommendations by the Matrix Consultant Group. Please find attached a synopsis of the comments, concerns and recommendations from those discussions. Thank you for your consideration of the attachment at your May 18th City Council meeting. 1 Cc21(s /u COMMENTS REGARDING MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PERMIT PROCESS MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP FEBRUARY 15, 2011 We would like to thank the Planning Staff for the bar graphs comparing Cupertino's levels of review with other cities'. It made the comparisons easier. "Focus GROUP PARTICIPANTS VIEWED CUPERTINO'S PERMIT PROCESS AS ONE OF THE BEST IN SILICON VALLEY" Matrix Report, page 2 "THE MATRIX REPORT NOTES THAT CUPERTINO'S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS REQUIRES MORE LEVELS OF REVIEW WHEN COMPARED TO SIMILAR CITIES." Planning Commission Staff Report /April 13, 2010 /page 2 IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE 2 STATEMENTS? IN STREAMLINING THE PERMIT PROCESS DO NOT REDUCE THE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR PROJECTS. We would also like to thank the Planning Staff for compiling the 12 page "Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for Projects Approved between 2007 - 2009 ". However, with regard to the following, the current higher approval authority should be retained for future similar type of projects for the reasons noted. Current Group Approval Recommendation Authority Villa Serra (ASA- 2007 -03, etc) CC PC page 1 of 12 City border Homestead Road landscape entrance to City Stelling Road narrowing Stelling Road landscape exception for setbacks public park Cupertino Village (ASA- 2007 -10, etc) CC PC page 2 increase of commercial Tantau (ASA- 2007 -14, etc) CC PC page 2 Heart of the City exception Results Way (ASA- 2008 -05, etc) CC PC page 5 retention of commercial Shashi Hotel (ASA 2008 -07, etc) CC PG page 5 North De Anza Conceptual Plan Learning Game (ASA - 2009 -01, etc) PC Ama in page 9 opposite North De Anza Conceptual Plan area PW Market (ASA- 2009 -07, etc) CC PC page 10 retention of commercial appearance entrance to City De Anza Blvd landscaping City border Homestead Road landscaping Civic Park (M- 2009 -01) CC PC page 11 modification to be reviewed by original approval authority Results Way (M- 2009 -02) CC PC page 11 modification to be reviewed by original approval authority Adobe Terrace (M- 2009 -07) CC RC page 12 modification to be reviewed by original approval authority Kiddie Academy (U- 2009 -09) CC R page 12 within Heart of the City Specific Plan Comments: The Consultants do not seem to recognize the importance of notification to this community. Cupertino's noticing requirement should be as extensive as necessary for each project. A recent community issue: First awareness was an inquiry from a resident about the notices posted on the property: � Y Then in the October 22, 2010 Cupertino Courier, in Letters, a letter, "The area in question is in the city center and a part of the heart of the city plan. Given that the letter was sent only to residents living within 300 feet of the area. I feel compelled to inform all Cupertino residents...." However, except for the posted notices on the property and the letters sent to residents living within 300 feet of the area, the rest of the community was unaware that there may be changes to this Heart of the City site. It appeared that most of the discussion was in the print media: October 31, 2010 The Cupertino News "Doom and Gloom for Trees - Protest Chopping Them Down" by Donna Austin. In the October 29, 2010 Cupertino Courier, in Letters, letter from the Director of Community Development. In the November 26, 2010 Cupertino Courier an article, "The November 17 decision (was) made by the city's director of community development,...." "Cupertino city staff sent: letters out to homes in the immediate area to inform neighbors of the proposal." "There was a two -week notification and comment period that concluded on Oct. 15." "There is currently an appeal period going on through next week. The decision can be appealed to the planning commission." Having the information discussed primarily in the media made it difficult for the community to comment within the specified time periods. Data about Development projects should be readily available to the public We would like to direct you the City of Menlo Park and the City of San Jose development webpages: City of Menlo Park title page > City Project Pages > Community Development > Community Development Department /Project List /Current Development Projects > i.e. Menlo Gateway Project. see attachments Search ('ily t'odes I City liotmc I ( Ont'dCl Vs Sp, City of Menlo Park City*trvfc MingBuailpea GtyI partnxntN ty ex Pag City DAMP; CigCnmmi� inn . „ . . O ' ' ; - 111 a ' '; - . -', - .,, 1147: : ::-:i#11 :- , 3 , -' ) N 4''''''' ..,::::'":41044:,,,,94-.14'.;‘: er: 14 P ark : { Ct Of Menlo rri 1 c ,„,, nd " a ., . — ,, ;. , -- ,'';',.-;,,:',• !I. , ' . i;- - 7.:„...,...... - - t - , ,*- ftklect- _ . _ = :=. - - Search ,............ k„'- - ,, ,.. if, : a s . ; t r i oft l i, r L I- - c , 1. ,': 'v 1 l ;71 '-:, e fu P° at:,: r \": Gur a ,.. k - ,.. - Choo 6 (:a ' :i: 'I t c) a ' ; ' le f r o ! t o c n ijr'-' e l n t i pr(jjEct' 'ma 0 ' Conyrnitnily --., , „,., ,,,. ,, , , ,,r ,.... 7,,,J , ,fto, cr ., -.. , ,,,_,, ,, ,r_ic , : c , t ns, g ir , 197 0 L ri , jit c : \ f e n r d o O 1 0t h 3 : - ..- 1)e% elopitient: NI Building � Corn/nuniiy '. `:u�� /�Y��O��DL i}��1�leDl ��.�m� Together �� - eC1 �,iSi CITY vr MENLO PARK Current. 1)eveloprnent Projects PENDING PROJECTS: ~ xooc/ Camino Real Project ^n.vpu°='^o"`m.u^"�/zs units m.`z3 acres between College Avenue end Partridge «"^"uo "^s/oum/.p n.,/. . Derry Mixed-Use Project pss'eo Chalk Grove ^"°".°&n"o'nr0 Derry Lane) ^ proposed construction m`oocondo mats and ,1»zs square Te.*'",".""","/a^,^","^^ and the Menlo Park o"/u=."station. . 1460 El Carnm°m"/ p°� square foot comm"=m/ x".mm and /awsu'"~s',*.s°,^.fs 1 tie v,n°t^/s not yet "**,construction. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROJECTS & CITYWIDE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: . s/ Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan . l'iliv : ^'. u.,.u,,,," /"..n-te°. plan for the areas surrounding uCamino '',. .nxsv,mosp.x.m.~ . WiIIow Business Area/M-2 Zoning PIan lie: av°,","m" "v \o°o,p/'.uusoia»z°" with °,. Business Area located near the intersection w mmx° Road °pua"yf,rms,*°�°zv ^ Housing Element Update Tim r**."wr process m updating the Housing Element m the General Plan. The Housing c/"=em provides goals, poo,m". programs for the planning and development ahousing *m`yxr"tx=City, ~ Dumbarton Transit Station Are pun lox City is pursuing "p"o for area surrounding ^ potential transit station near the intersection w the aow= Road and smv*muExpressway. . Gross Floor Area (GFA) Revisions The City "/ Menlo m,^ has adopted " Zoning Ordinance amendment w clarify the definition v/ Gross Floor Area m m"m specifically identify feat .ms^/a building that are either included v,excluded ^ �"^m"�/"�"�" Ordinance Update fr:coo.' The City /^cot sme,au" comprehensive update of the commercial use . "",°u",."" and =m./^i""",, the z""/"xu,vu""`° (oft x"io / ending completion "/ the s,Camino R°*kD""°m=, a,(4 - ;.me mx��t, � APPROVED PROJECTS: . Menlo Gateway Project (Bohannon Hotel-Office) ^o; `tioo.cenendence i'irive 8, 101-`5u Constitution Drive) An aj-p n .`w m *.^nu/ approximately oo4.rz*,nvae feat of "m~.,e0o'v�."x.te? ' ^m , as=c°" , ° , . "^ w^" - la" ant, and associated ,ommv=ia. facilities = two sites located near the os-m,x4iaespc"*/ This ,~,e,,"^�p,'m tor construction. . Burgess Gymnastics Center ' Art "' v=,.v;""wx" .. kik toe """mn sv=iasmm and gymnastics center and the rr,."�st-tic.oc"or u^ pvier' is: not yet under construction. ` 110 and 175 Linfield Drive '^""n,,v=o on "°~residential units. This project /" under """st,""*"". . 1mmo Camino Real Project ,Lo "vp,="v construction ^,,w.ma°,""re feet a commercial space near downtown ".^ the m""/" Park, C"n,"a^m:"". property Was rezoned from c'+ (General Commercial. Applicable moCamino Real; mp'o'p/""o°uo"='"r"="x.r^up*°c not yet "" ter construction. . 1706 El Camino Real Project approved project w^"mmis.°" existing ~°°wry.o,8o square-foot commercial ^"om"y,m°.° , '' n",w,v°e°°u"= , v and construct " new /°"'*^p,m,166 square-foot office building for ~e"icaw=re/ office use and *" related site improvements. ru" project is not yet under construction. COMPLETED PROJECTS: . ^m/"ya Family Gymnasium The City i"*°.°p=^°."^' now 2o.9oo square-foot gymnasium »m"°"" t o f MOnlo Park �` z • , '`" ' . get4;;C If < . ' ° e; . , t "'t, Cam " ' .rry t 3o� l� ai s i on8 � ,t -r'ra: � ar �r �� }1 rt,^,stsi C(MMIJNIT ' _ r'' e ' 1 ' '1 ' 4`..;1. DEVELOPMENT '.. w 111 3 ➢ — � t C1= - * DEPARI'MINT Project I)escription z x ;. '- rr The City of Menlo Park has approved amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Map proposed by the Bohannon Development Company to construct the following: ,.,,,.. .a:. Maxi • Three office and R &D buildings (694.669 square feet) x s -_ . Hotel (171.563 square feet: 230 rooms) *:-3.' a m a .. w« a ; . " . Health club. serving hotel guests and the public (6£,519 square feet) �� . Cafe /restaurant (4,245 square feet) o, y °, t 1 w -•-. , . • Neighborhood serving retail and community facilities (10.420 square feet) , . Three parking structures The development would take place on two sites totaling 15.9 acres located near tre US101 /Marsh Road interchange The specific sites are located at 100 to 190 Independence Drive and 101 to 155 Constitution Drive. Current Status In June '2010, the City Council voted to approve the City Council and Commission Meetings proposal. subject to voter approval of a ballot • City Council measure for the November 2, 2010 general Regular Business) election. For more information about the ballot Tuesday, June 22, 2010 measure (Measure 7), please see the City's o Staff Report Candidate and Ballot Measure Information page. o Video Measure T was approved. and the project approvals became effective with the certification of • City Council the election results on December 7, 2016 (Regtear Business) Tuesday. June 15. 2010 o Staff Report ' o Presentation Contact Person o Memorandum o Video Thomas Rogers. Associate Planner E -mail throgers @menlopark.org Phone. 650 -330 -6722 • City Council (Public Hearing) Tuesday, May 25, 2010 Staff Reports and Related 0 Staff Report Documents: o Presentation o Video 2010 (2) • City Council Staff Report - June 22, 2010 • City Council . City Council Staff Report - June 15. 2010 (Regular Business) • City Council Staff Report - May 25, 2010 Tuesday, May 11. 2010 • City Council Staff Report - May 11, 2010 o Staff Report o Presentation [4.2 MB) o Video 2010 (1) . Planninq Comm ssion • Planning Commission Memorandum - May (Regular Business) 3. 2010 Monday, May 3, 2010 o Planning Commission Staff Report - April o Memorandum 19, 2010 o Minutes • Citywide Postcard Notice - April 2010 o Video . City Council Staff Report - April 6, 2010 • City Council Councilmember Report Planning Commission Memorandum - February 23. 2010 (Public Hearing) • City Council Councilmember Report Monday, April 19. 2010 Memorandum - January 12 2010 o Staff Report City of San Jose > Pending Land Use Application as of 7/1 5/2010 > Tree Removal. see attachment CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA Department of Planning. Building and Code Enforcement 200 E. San a Clara St., San Jose CA 95113 SAN JOSE (408) 535-3555 (408) 292 -6055 Fax Pending Land Use Applications as of 07/15/2010 CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY File Number Status Filing on: Project name(Application name) Project Manage Tree Removal , : .;4. - TR09 -283 Recomd Approval ov a1 11/12/2009 TR09 -283 ( ) Jeannie Ham West Side Of Montalto Drive 220 hei southerly Of Shawnee Lane ( 245 ) Description:Tree Removal permit to allow removal of one multi - trunk Pine tree approximately 144 inches in circumference on a single family residential lot. TRIO - 097 Rec.+md Approval 04129/2010 TRIO - 097 ( ) Northeast Side Of Almaa_r, Road 375 Feet Southeasterly Of Cloterhill Drive ( 77 ) Description:Tree Rem; i Pcmtit to allow the removal of one t 1 t Privet Tree, approximately 66 inches in circumference. located in the front of a single- family resit TRIO - 135 Notice Sent 06110 "2010 TR10 - 135 ( ) West Side Of Playa DeT Po 60 Feet Southerly Of Stardust Lane ( 35 ) Description:Tree Re. i+ . _. Permit to allow for the pre: n -,, renmsal of one (1) tree (unknown spec,est- approximately 60 inches in circumference located in the from residence. The tree , ,.s r.:11hied without getting a Tree ROM. al Permit as required. TRIO - 139 N,� ,< "ent 06 1 - 1 1 010 i R10 - 139 ( ) Southwest Corner Of \\ sh Coon And Shearuater Dm:. ( 31 ) Description:Tree Remo' .t. ' e71:: to allow the removal t . 1 ■ ,.-e Canary Is! and Pine Tree . ariroumately 120 inches in circumference, located in the front ■ and of t TRIO -147 Notice Prepared 0&212010 TR10 -147 ( ) Northeast Side Of Meridian at em ,e 160 Feet Southeasterly O; i33^rssom Hill ,oad ( 24 ) Description:Tree Removal Pe o' t to remove one (I) Chinese Dm Tree immuring approximately 63 inches in circumference located in the rear yard of a single fami/ TRIO - UnderRe'ie;t 0709'2010 TR10-158 ( ) Cast Sid, Of Hampton Drive 1s, Northerly Of Olive Bra.-is Lane ( 6 ) Des iption :Tree Removal Pemur to allow the removal of ore , : ! Monterey Pine tree. app+ osimately 95 inches in circumference, from the rear yard of an existing si resia_me llenarlmant of Planninn .P0U 4: aryl Rnrin Pnfnrra.mv .t Comments: Incomplete projects should not be scheduled for public hearings. Hearing Schedule /City of Sunnyvale. see attachment THE PROPOSED HEARING SCHEDULE IS TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO AGENDA LENGTH, PROJECT COMPLETENESS, OR OTHER FACTORS. CLOSING DATES ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - 2:00 P.M. Applications must be delivered to the WEST CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Planning Division at the One -Stop Permit Applicants must attend or your application could be Center by 5:00 p.m. on the dosing date continued to a later date. The Administrative Hearing is to be tentatively scheduled for a public an •opportunity for the project applicants and community hearing. Applications lacking required members to be heard in a public forum prior to a decision information will not be accepted. being made. The applicant is given an opportunity to make PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC) a shoe: presentation prior to members of the public speaking on the item. If you need more information about 10:00 A.M., WEST CONFERENCE making a presentation, contact the project planner. The ROOM, CITY HALL Administrative Hearing Officer will typically make a It is essential that applicants attend. The decision at the hearing. Any person aggrieved by the purpose of the PRC is to review public decision may appeal it to the Planning Commission within hearing applications for technical 15 days of the date of the decision. A written letter and compliance with City standards and application fee is required to file an appeal. specifications, provide the applicant with PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - 7:00 P.M. early information about City requirements and determine project WEST CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL completeness. The PRC is made up of Applicants should attend. This meeting is an optional various City Divisions (Planning, Building, "briefing' type discussion between the Planning Engineering, Fire Prevention, Traffic, Commission and City staff members for certain Trees and Water Pollution Control). PRC applications. Consult the project planner to see if your is generally reserved for complex project is scheduled for a study session. The study session projects and not all public hearing is not a public hearing and the applicant does not make a projects will be reviewed by the presentation. - No•decisions are made. committee. Contact the project planner PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING - 8'00 P.M. to see if your project is scheduled for PRC. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Applicants must attend or your application could be PRC review does not constitute a continued to a later date. This hearing is an opportunity recommendation of approval or denial of for project applicants and community members to be the project. The project must proceed to heard in a public forum prior to a decision being made. hearing before a decision is made on the The applicant is given an opportunity to -make a short application. presentation prior to- members of the public speaking on the item. If you need more information about making a PROJECT COMPLETENESS presentation, contact the project planner. Some decisions by the Planning Commission may be appealed; others are iTheenwietoomieekonsecanot..besseMedelled final. If appeals are permitted, any person aggrieved by fearptAl . To proceed with the the decision may appeal it to the City Council within 15 • proposed hearing date, the project must days of the date of the decision. A written letter and be deemed complete either by the PRC application fee is required to file an appeal. or the project planner (if no PRC is required). The deadline for submittal of CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 7:00 P.M. missing material is usually 12:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL noon on the Tuesday the week following Some applications that go to the Planning Commission the PRC meeting. Major changes or must .also be considered by City Council. The City Council information requirements resulting from will typically hear an item 2 -5 weeks following the the initial review will return to PRC prior Planning Commission hearing. City Council decisions are to being put on a hearing schedule. final. Please contact the project planner for the scheduled City Council hearing date. One -Stop Permit Center - City Hall - 456 W. Olive Avenue (408) 730 -7444 Planners and Building Division staff are available 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. www.SunnyvalePlannint.com / www.SunnYvaleBuilding.com Rev. 12109 (white) In December 2010 the City of Palo Alto "Under the banner of increasing transparency in Palo Alto's consideration of proposed developments or projects, the City Council will soon be taking up several issues of vital importance to the public's right to know what's going on in their community or neighborhood." "The policy would require city staff reports to be submitted one to two weeks before a meeting where they are to be considered. It would also essentially ban late submissions of significant plan changes." "The new policy would require plan changes by developers to be submitted by noon five working days prior to the meeting to allow for adequate staff review and analysis and to ensure public access to materials. If items are not submitted by this date or if staff determines additional review is needed, staff will reschedule the item to a future council meeting." The $5000+ postal cost for city -wide noticing may not be cost effective. What is the Criteria of city -wide noticing? Please note the page on which the first notice of the Matrix compared with other City of Cupertino notifications: 2010 Newspaper Notices Housing Element Cupertino Courier /page 6 1/6/10 Cupertino Courier /page 2 1/13/10 Senior Housing /Mary Ave Cupertino Courier /page 2 1/13/10 postcard Heart of the City Cupertino Courier /pagel 3 1/27/10 Cupertino Courier /page 4 2/3/10 postcard Housing Element Cupertino Courier /page 2 2/24/10 Land Use Cupertino Courier /page 2 3/10/10 Water Efficient Landscape Cupertino Courier /page 2 3/10/10 Historic Preservation Cupertino Courier /page 2 3/17/10 Homestead Square /PW Cupertino Courier /page 2 3/24/10 Matrix Report Cupertino Courier /page 28, 4/23/10 Historic Preservation Cupertino Courier /page 2 4/30/10 Matrix Report Cupertino Courier /page 2 Since it is not always possible to assure a specific location in the local newspaper, perhaps it may be recommended that notices be placed in the Legal Advertising - Public Notices Section of local newspapers. See attachment • I „. - ,.... _ , , .. „ . ,,, , L: , . L ega iAd ver t rs , , ,,......„, ,,,, , : r.,, I 4 ' r r ..®. -.. ............ ,.......... ................ .......■.. r t �.e.nr a la�� Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notic NOTICE OF APPLICATION public noli ce emotion r .0 1:00 p m p - Mtn Trustee- MONICA, The following public project from California day through Friday '',. ` 17373CA Loan No. ciary , will sell a' SO p 1217 Wildwood pp d staff re ortReports , are 3003081647TNte Order auction sale to 1 SELL ALCOHOLIC BE hearings will be held by Act Environmental Quality location 121 AGES City City of6 W . Oliv at Guidelines ut provisions and City i the n l Ave. nu/4 pr fore th OW ` h ay g NO ICE O T F R-CA-MN cashier fork Gate. of F O f l e A 456 . Sun W. r pa sn In n the the Council file number/ proposed Use Plea e public hearing. NOTICED TRUSTEE'S cashiers s check on: JANUARY 1a9 , 20 2011 Olive Avenue. Sunny - pproj eet Chamber 4 0fR n F a on Ma P f e flingse the, the Plan. SALEYOU ARE IN INEE by a state ate or orna T Whom hom R May Con- vale. Kuchenlg.. 408.7300.77 431. February . w purpose of t 8:00 e:0f Permit ermit to allow. Us a new fling, Division 'Secretary 4O n FAULT DATED A DEED 06. bank, a cashier' ce tern: o F p.m., for the purxrose of telecommunications fa- at ) 340.0.7446 to o con. TRUST DATED 7/19/12 006. drawn by y s a stet The Name(s) of the 1.ZOning Administrator rkuchenig®cLsunnyvale considering: cliity (AT&T) „. within a firm availability of the UNLESS YOU TAKEN) eral credit unlol Applicant(S) is /are: Hearing in the West .taros monopaim. 'report. Copies are avail- TION TO PROTECT YOUR cashier's check OLLEH SANTA CLARA Conference Room on a p p I i c a n t/ o W n e r able at the following lo- PROPERTY, IT MAY BE by a state or lei LLC Wednesday, February location 1250 Lakeside Realcom Associates / cations: One -Stop Coun- SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. savings and ioa The applicant(S) listed 16, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. to location 1111 W. El Ca- Dr. (APN: 216-43-035) Executive inn Inc. ter in City Hall, Refer- IF YOU NEED API EKPLAt4 alien, savings a above Is /are applying to consider the following mino Real (APN: 161 -23- file number / proposed environmental reviewA ence Desk of the Sunny- ATION OF THE NATURE tion, or savings the Department of Alco- items: 001) prolect2010 -7808 Spe- Mitigated Negative Dec- vale Library and the OF THE PROCEEDINGS specified in sec holic Beverage Control the number/ proposed cial Development Permit laration has been pre- City's Website after 5:00 AGAINST YOU,YOU of the Financial to sell alcoholic bever- location 704 Daffodil Ct. project2010.7757: Spe- to allow the continued pared for this project, p.m. at SHOULD CONTACT A and authorized age at: (APN: 215-07-002) cial Development Permit use of an existing cell finding that It will not www.sunnyvale.ca.0ov LAWYER. MT4/ 011 bu d ieS be het 595 E EL CAMINO REAL file number/ proposed to allow three additional on wheels site ocated have significant ne9a- at SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 - Droject2010.7918: Use rooftop wireless on a vacant lot In the tive effects On the envi- a C C o m m 0 d a t I o n 5 A CALIFORNIA CORPO duly appointed 1942 Permit to allow modifi- telecommunications an. Lakeside Specific Plan ronment. Pursuant to the Anted- RATION OBA MERIDIAN as shown below For the following type of cations to an existing tennas (AT &T) on an ex- area. project planners h au n n cans with Disabilities TRUST DEED SERVICE as right• title, and License: telecommunications fa- !sting shopping center apVplicant/ownerA T & T Mendrin, 408.730 -7429, Act, the City of Sunny- the duly appointed conveyed to an 41.ON -SALE BEER AND citify (AT &T) at Braly building. Mobility / Aircoa Equity smendrin@cl.sunnyvale, vale will make reason -. Trustee under and pus held by the hue WINE - EATING PLACE Park including the In- applicant/ownertrillium interests ca.us. ble efforts t0 accommo- suant to Deed of Trust the hereinafter (Pub SUN 2/4, 2/11, 2/18) stallation of three new Consulting / Marie And environmental re JlewA date persons with quail. Recorded 07 /28/2006, panel antennas and as- Vincent Cala Et Al Class 1 Categorical Ex- fled disabilities. If you Book, Page, Instrument pursuant to the sociated equipment on environmental reviewA em lion relieves this information and oppor- require special accom- 19037882 of official re Trust. The sale a PG &E tower. An addi Class 1 Categorical Ex project from Ca lifornia tunities to comment modation, please con. cords in the Office of the made, but with. Looking for more tional cabinet is to be emotion relieves this Environmental Quality project Information tact the Planning Div'. Recorder of Santa Clara convenantorw placed within the exist - project from California Act provisions and City Project information and Sion at (408) 730 -7440 at County, California, exe expresse or in Customers? b a s e of enclosure oer. the Act provisions and City p planners 1 au n n meno environmental 5 available vane of thi days. aring.a AN UNMARRIED RIED MAN as po55 regarding or Community NevnpaP applicant/ownerAT &T / Guidelines Mendrn, 408 -730 -7429. for review in the Plan- (nub Sun 2/4) Trustor, FIRST FEDERAL brances, to pay reach over 400,000 City of Sunnyvale project plannerN o r e n smendrin@cl.surnyvale. ning Division at City. Hall BANK OF CALIFORNIA, A maining prince{{ readers per week! environmental reviewA Calera, 408- 730.7637; cards. between the hours of FEDERALLY. CHARTERED of the notes (s) 408/7001025. Class 1 Categorical Ex- ncalivagteci5Unnyvale.ca 8:00 a.m.-12:00 noon and SAVINGS BANK, SANTA by the Deed Of' PUBLIC NOTICE 9 •• fla lnllu Ich,..r,yw be held b}the City it fit ny,al at City Hall, 45fiN(liiw w'. lib, Avenue, bum wale (l��,C Cai ?tiiitlnitj� Outreach Meetli I. By the Planning Commission 111 Mc Council Chandler on Bun49, Feb. aary 28, 2011 at 8:110 p.m., and -. By the Clly Council in the Council Chamber 1 Tllesday, March 29, 2011 at 7:0(0 p.0,. for the purpose of considering: N Application 447.51 Ave A (APT Appli -601) I5i Lawrence Station Area Pia ple e Number/ 20111.7456 and 2016 -7731: f related proposals on a 7.3 xn• site: Proposed Profeet • General Plan Amendment from 11 11111 IIndustrial to Residential Iligh Density) to 11'58 ;U tlnduv rinl to Residence l Medium Density•), • Ramie from on St11N elopm nt) to M.0 • rrWo.3 /rt3 (Ind5nduettisl a Wa(mn d S : Delany Resid Get involved .. and share your ideas! ctuinLA'lonnCd U� clip i) to M 4I'fWR- 3 PI7llnd ervuxllndushml to Residential/Medium Density Residential (Planned Development): • Special Development Permit to Ilow 132 townhotne.style condominium tans; - -. • Vesting 0.1.33,0 Map 10 MloW 132 condominiums and 34 common lots f O” 0)1��t ',_< y ' - �e Applicant /Owucr Taylor hlarri<,m ('A I.1 C Environmemn0 R f 5 1 n•iroamental Impact Report (I lit) p 1 pr pared and certified f the . : 'a u-s F t Sunnyvale Industrial 1 Residential (fe l PI A nendmenr and e - 0 d de tial .i, . 3 - ' 1 4 y ', , „ . '-wx -� g �� -� _ JnJ pnxnt. <12oM) In Pl with C I f proton. ,mnmenla( Quality Act prrn•,nionx. '"'8 ru+- 4 ° g g M --, An Addendum m the 3.1R l h prepared f h pr 0 pd `n1+ ' , p 7 Project Planner Marna liar*, 403.730-70h, ho Igap nY I ux N. ' c A i ,. 4 ° 't t k ` l . . Redone heap ' p ty'" 8 L Duane Ave. f p✓ " - '�"..r .. et`": Rezone from M•sATRM-0 1/1.8)17R/R-3/PD /PD to 1/1.8)17R/R-3/PD : 5 - - mrii/ 41st" '••4,4T" — Sr _ d i : � iuN a font a.SA `� r0,l :. arN t f " (r • Study area within ahalf- -mile radius surrounding Lawn gg ` m "'t"' Iles. eel =O � = Caltrain Station t n it " t.`t . _ ` D 4 ' nities and constrai �- s - . ,.amino • , _ Discuss existing conditions, opportu E E � ° 1 1:11111= ; " " °" ` �"� $ f' Discuss appropriate mix of land uses and their locati I 1 Illlla ' tr +� + " a - i access /circulation enhancements and overall neighborh � .,�: :. Discuss character CS 4 . t ♦ r� For more information 0 f Oa �� „_.....m.. Corrr(rct Sul "aclnt [ Bose, Pr(�j(ct pia Information and Opportunities l6 Comment (408) '3 ®� / �� o Protect Intimation Pngecl f i d emu nunem:d M u man n i ' 1 bk 1 fr review in the Plnnm fig Divisi City C Nit between Ile hours 1800 n, 500p Mnday through(idily a Stun Report Raports are available the Friday Mitre the public hearing. Please contact the Planning Division Secretary al 14,00) 740 -7440 to confirm availability oflhe tenon. Conks are available at the follontny, locations' t On til r.. ter in (' Ilan. Reference Desk of the Sunnyvale I.ihtary and the City's websile after 5.00 p. la, a1 a an5teeaeav - 0/ 1 the proJ(4c't wens/it! Acenmmadailons Pursuant to the Ameriunts with Disabilities Act, the City,ofOmmyralc will make reasonable efforts to accommodate perrmn with qualified disabilities. If you requiie special accommodation. please wyv '.Law renceSt ation.inSuIlf1VVale.C0 mnlaCt the Planning Division at (408) 730 -7440 at least five days in advance of this head tg. - - - 34 SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS FEBRUARY 4,20)1 This has a public notice for a public hearing as well as a notice for a community outreach meeting. It would standardize the location of noticE Posted Agenda should be complete as possible: Agenda regarding Matrix Cupertino Planning Commission meeting agenda for November 9, 201 posted on City of Cupertino website: OLD BUSINESS 5. Application No.(s) CP- 2010 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Staff Report Agenda items 1 to 4 are described, item 5 has no descriptior In contrast the same Cupertino Planning Commission meeting agenda for November 9, 2010, available at City Hall and Community Hall meeting site: OLD BUSINESS 5. Application No.(s) CP- 2010 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's Permit services and organizational efficiency. out about a project, it's too late to have a significant voice in design, height, open space or parking." "The proposed change would require notices to be sent within 10 days of when a developer files an application with the city. The current rule provides that notices be sent two weeks before a public hearing, which could be months later than the application filing." "The early notification has raised concerns with builders because a project may be in the formative stages and draw unwarranted criticism from residents." "Developers also worry that early neighborhood involvement could result in many community meetings that could delay the project, which could have serious financial impact." "Conversely, it is often argued that money already invested into the plans for a project is reason for approval." Comment: Successful community meetings are the meetings conducted in a good faith. The Marketplace in Cupertino conducted several meetings to address neighborhood concerns with successful resolutions. Main Street Cupertino met with the community several times with significant public input. For some applicants the purpose of having a meeting was only so that it can be said that they have met with the neighborhood or the community. Regarding Recommendation #12: The number of appeals that are possible for planning permits should be limited to one appeal. Matrix /page 23 Comment: Insufficient Regarding Recommendation #104: The Mayor, (City Council,) (Planning Commission) and City Manager should develop alternatives for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings for City Council meetings (and Planning Commission meetings) in the early morning. City ordinance 2.08.090 states that the Closed Session should be at the end of the City Council meeting. City ordinance 2.08.090 states that the City Council may establish time limitations, etc. However, time limitations should not defeat the purpose of a public hearing: to have meaningful public comment and participation. On page 105 to 106 (Item #5 and Recommendation #111) of the Matrix report the recommendations to reduce the length of Planning Commission meetings seem to be more appropriate for the City Council meetings. In forming an agenda consideration should be given to the potential length of the meeting and at what point items of significant public concern may be heard. Walnut Creek's five member council meets twice a month. If an item has not been addressed by 1 1 p.m., the council postpones it until next week.