Loading...
Exhibit CC 10-18-2011 Item No. 9 Development Permit Process i I 9 CC /ohjk C U PERTI NO Development Permit Process Review MCA-2011-02 Background: • Analysis of the City's Development Permit Process completed by Matrix in November 2009 • Participants ranked Cupertino among the top three cities,relative to their experiences in nearby communities in the Silicon Valley. Background —Planning Commission and City Council heard the item in early 2010. —City Council directed staff to conduct additional outreach-5,300 notices mailed. —Workshops conducted in July and September 2010. —Recommendations presented to Planning Commission on November 9,2010. —City Council reviewed recommendations on February 15,2011. —Council directed staff to prepare Municipal Code Amendments and Public Engagement Policy and to review noticing radii for certain projects. Background (CONTD.) Planning Commission Action on 3/22/2011 • Recommended the Municipal Code Amendments(Resolution 6625) • Recommended adoption of the"Public Engagement Policy"(Resolution 6626). —The Commission recommended revising the policy to say"Suggestions for Public Engagement." 1 Municipal Code Amendments—Title 19 Zoning c. Differentiate Public Hearings required by State Law from Public meetings(no difference in process) d. Noticing Radius—Consistent with State Law with the following changes to the current ordinance • Wireless—reduce to radius to 300 feet from 1000 feet • Tree removals with Public Hearings—change from 500 feet to adjacent notice(most often combined with another project with larger noticing requirements) e. Site Signage—Require on-site notification similar to that required for Two-story homes in the Rl zoning districts for larger projects 5. Uses-Consolidated uses for similar zones into tables 6. Moved Chapters—readability and logical placement 7. Codified OP and MP zoning regulations Municipal Code Amendments-Titles 2, 9, 14, 16 and 17 1. Minor clarifications -E.g.Title 2-language re:term of office 2. Chapter 16.08(Retaining Wall Screening) —Consistent with previous discussions and direction from City Council 3. Reordering of Chapters -E.g.Moving Chapter 19.81 to Title 9,Chapter 9.16 4. Moving Chapter 16.28,Fences and Title 17,Signs to Title 19. Municipal Code Amendments—Title 18 Subdivision 1. Simplify process: —Parcels Maps,Improvement Plans and Extensions of Parcel Maps—Administrative approval —Extension of Tentative Subdivision Maps—Planning Commission 2. Conformance with State Law 3 Recommendation • Staff requests that the City Council: —Conduct first reading of Draft Ordinance with modifications discussed —Model Resolution re:Adoption of Public engagement policy(see updated Resolution provided as a desk item) 5 Gary Chao From: Gary Chao Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:01 PM To: Gary Chao Subject: FW: Development Permit Process From: Kevin Dare jmailto:kdare @shpco,com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:22 PM To: Gary Chao Subject: RE: Development Permit Process Gary The proposed changes will expedite and streamline entitlement processing through the City of Cupertino. Making these changes will make Cupertino more competitive in attracting investment and tenants to the City. Good job. Kevin 1 Cc OM/( Grace Schmidt 9 From: Grace Schmidt Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 10:44 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Second Reading of the Development Permit Process Item for Nov. 1 From: arenna5000Ca>vahoo.com fmailto:grenna5000 @yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:01 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: grenna50000yahoo.com Subject: Second Reading of the Development Permit Process Item for Nov. 1 Dear Planning Department: Please postpone the Second Reading of the Development Permit Process item from the November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting. The item is only being heard on October. 18, 2011 by the City Council. The documents are 300 pages long and have numerous large changes in them. There will be huge changes in public policy. The public has not heard anything on the Development Permit Process since February or March, 2011. It would be nice to try to refresh the public about the Development Permit Process before the City Council votes on this item. This process has been under discussion for two years and no one has heard anything for nearly six months. The only thing that has come out of this since February, 2011 was the opening of Rl. The opening of the R1 Ordinance dominated most of the summer. There has been no update on what is being proposed for the Development Permit Process. Looking at some of the documents for the Development Permit Process I see that there are 300 pages. I am hoping that all these pages are not new changes. There is also a lot of documentation dealing with how the public is notified or not notified about building projects. The noticing of neighbors seems to be in the documents. The changes are trying to reduce the noticing from 300 feet. I don't know who that is helping. It seems like it would not help the public. I am very concerned with all these changes that are being proposed and to have the City Council vote all this into law in a space of 14 days is inexplicable and shocking. It is very inappropriate to have the Second Reading only [4 days after the First Reading when the public has not heard anything on this item in six months. It is not good policy. It would be much better for the public's benefits to have a general discussion of the Development Permit Process on October 18. Then the public can give their input on how good or poor they felt the Opening of the R1 Ordinance was as part of the Development Permit Process since a lot of the Development Permit Process seems to be taken up with the R1 Ordinance and the changes made to it this summer by the City Council. Then the Second Reading should be postponed to a later date in November or December. The public will have more time to give their input on the proposed changes to the Development Permit Process. Also, it is hoped that at the Second Reading, the public will be allowed to give their input before the City Council actually does the Second Reading. The City Council read the Second Reading of the R1 Ordinance in 1 August, 2011 before the public was allowed to give their input. It was highly unusual and very distressing. I am hoping that this was an oversight in parliamentary procedures on the City Council's part. I do not think doing the Second Reading before public input is correct parliamentary procedure and I hope that something like this does not occur again without an explanation by the City Council or officials as to why it is occurring. Please postpone the Second Reading of the Development Permit Porcess to a later date than November 1, 2011. The public needs a refesher course as to what is being changed in the 300 pages or more of documents. R1 is fresh in our minds and I am hoping there is more than just changes for R1 in those 300 pages. The Public Engagement Document is still making me very nervous. I am still not sure why or am convinced after two years why we are changing anything and for whom. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin 2 CC 10l«'1I ( `� Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:47 PM To: Kimberly Smith; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Development Permit Process Review FYI..... From: Gary Chao Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:47 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: FW: Development Permit Process Review From: Edward Chan jmailto:echan @kcrdevelopment.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:41 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Gary Chao Subject: Development Permit Process Review Aarti and Gary, In reviewing the Simplify matrix on page 630 of the staff report, KCR is in support of the proposed changes. We believe that the proposed amendments will help to simplify the development process for the City. Thank you for your hard work. Best regards, Edward Chan KCR Development --Please note our new address and my new phone extension below. Thanks. 19620 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200 Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-343-1088 ext. 103 Fax: 408-343-1089 1 CC fO/(1ft( k d a ,a F f.. CI e S F' n n s S O i a t e S October 18''',2011 Aarti Shrivastava Director of Planning City of Cupertino Dear Ms.Shrivastava, We have enjoyed working with your staff on a number of projects in recent years,including the Cupertino Crossroads improvements. You have a very well-informed and responsive team. We appreciate it. I do have a comment however, about the city regulations on development. We have close to thirty years experience working on projects throughout the Bay Area,from Sonoma/ Napa/Marin counties to Contra Costa/Alameda to Sant2 Clara,San Mateo and San Francisco,as well as doing projects all along the Western seaboard. In general,we have found our Bay Area errs on the side of protection relative to other areas where we have worked. My consistent impression,and the impression of my staff and my clients, is that in an already restrictive area,Cupertino is among the most restrictive. As you are aware,every city tries to strike the right balance between protections/regulations to assure bad projects are not built,and reduced regulations and/or incentives so that good projects are built. While review is an essential responsibility of government public heari igs on minor issues have a chilling effect on good development, taking time and available funds away from quality design and implementation and funneling them into procedural entanglements. I would encourage the city to empower you and your department with greater authority to review and approve smaller projects with relatively minor impacts,and save major public review for the projects that merit the full lens of public opinion. I hope these comments are helpful. / Charles F:Kahn,AIA, F F I'D AP h n , e s i g n a s s o c t a t e s .c am telephone: 510.841.1')')5 fax:510.841.1225 1810 sixth street, berkeley, ca 9471.