Loading...
Draft Minutes 07-28-09CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. JULY 28, 2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: Leslie Gross APPROVAL OF NIINUTES• Minutes of the June 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Lee, and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the June 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. DIR-2009-04 An appeal of the approval of a Director's Minor Modification Daryl Harris (Hong to allow a 562 square foot addition to an existing single-family Residence) residence located in the Development District. Tentative 10928 Sycamore Drive City Council date: September 1, 2009 Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification to allow a 562 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence in the Oak Valley Planned Development District, as outlined in the staff report. • When the Community Development Director approved the 562 square foot addition, the neighbor whose property immediately abuts the subject property to the north, appealed the Cupertino Planning Commission 2 July 28, 2009 decision, alleging that the addition would block scenic views of the surrounding hills, which he felt would decrease his property values, would violate their assumption that the views from their property would be maintained, and would violate the open space design principles of the neighborhood. The appellant also was concerned that the new chimney along the northern side of the addition would be a fire hazard to the oak tree immediately adjacent to the chimney, their residence, and the Rancho Antonio open space. • The Community Development Director approved the addition based upon the findings that the R1 Ordinance does not protect views from single story projects, and typically single story projects do not require a planning application; the design of the addition will be consistent with the existing residence in style, materials and color; and the new fireplace will be gas burning, and meets all building health and safety requirements and planning development regulations. • The Planning Commission has the following options: uphold the Community Development Director's decision; uphold the appeal; or uphold the appeal with modifications. Staff answered questions about the application. B. Odelssi, Appellant, 10938 Sycamore Drive: • Said he purchased their home in 2000 because of the views it provided adjacent to Rancho San Antonio. One issue presented by the addition is that it blocks one side of the house and creates a dazk environment within the yazd and blocks the view from their house. The other issue is the 30-40 yeaz old Oak tree in question is close enough to the proposed chimney, and even though it is a gas chimney, there is potential risk to the oak tree. He said they were not opposed to the addition, but wanted to preserve the value of their house and remove any potential fire danger to them and the neighboring properties. • He suggested a compromise of a fireplace without a chimney. As far as the views aze concerned, removing the chimney definitely helps, but if there was any way for them to reduce the floor level of the addition, it would help with the preservation of the views. • He addressed the 5 foot setback, stating it was his understanding from the map that the fireplace would be 3 feet away from the fence; the chimney is designed to be only 3 feet away from the fence which puts is directly under the oak tree which is a concern. • He said he was also concerned that there was no communication with his neighbor recently about trimming the trees; his neighbor did not mention the proposed addition, and if he had known about it, he would not have trimmed his trees. He reiterated that he felt the 20 foot chimney would adversely affect the value of the house, and he did not want his home to be subjected to losing its value because the neighbor wanted to extend their home. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Regazding the 3 foot setback, he clazified that the normal setback for a building is 5 feet but allowances aze sometimes made for architectural projections into the azea up to 3 feet. In the past eaves, trellises, bay windows and chimneys have been considered to be architectural projections. He said appellant's photo was misleading, and the tree is actually located further away from the proposed chimney azea and would not be an intrusion into the root system of the tree as there was also a grade difference, making the root system lower than the subject property. Roy Hong, Applicant: • Apologized for not communicating their plans more effectively to their neighbor, and said he hoped that they could mend their differences. He said he was willing to give up the chimney. He explained that the reason for the proposed addition to the house was to provide more space for his family, as the children were now older. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 July 28, 2009 Appellant: • Appellant said that if the applicant was willing to remove the chimney, they did not have an issue with the proposed addition. Darrel Harris, Architect: • Said that a gas fireplace does not require a chimney. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; no one was present to speak; the public hearing was closed. Com. Miller: • Said he was pleased that the neighbors got together eventually to work out the issues. He said that the issue of views is presented to the Planning Commission on many occasions, and there is nothing in the city ordinance that protects views; and he did not recall ever voting in favor of protecting views on any previous application. It would have been extremely difficult to justify voting to preserve a view when it hasn't been done before. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried to uphold the appeal with the modification of the permit, removal of the chimney, but retention of the fireplace. • There are 7 calendar days to appeal the decision to City Council. Gary Chao: • Suggested that the appellant and applicant put something in writing to confirm their agreement and take the appeal off the City Council agenda. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion of the 2009-2010 Planning Commission Work Program. Gary Chao, City Planner presented the staff report: • Reviewed that in July 2009 the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission work program and provided some additional changes and directions. • The City Council agreed that the development of a Green Building Policy and Sustainable Land Use Policy were high priority items. Details of the policies were outlined in the staff report. The 2009-2010 budget does not include funding for the Green Building Ordinance and Land Use Sustainability Policy. Staff will pursue grants for the projects in combination with the Environmental Stewardship Task Force outreach; grant awards are expected to be announced at the end of September 2009 and funds will be available in January 2010. The Council will consider supplemental funding requests for the projects after September 2009 once grant awards are assigned. • Medium priority items includes Process Improvement Evaluation and Creation of a Strategic Plan and Incentives for Start-Ups. City Council concurred that the Planning Commission may initiate work on the medium priority projects by forming sub-committees with minimal staff time and no additional funding. • Low Priority items included Prototypes of Housing Element Sites; and Affordable Housing Element Sites. The Council did not wish to evaluate the Parking Ordinance Review. The Planning Commission may initiate work by forming sub-committees with minimal staff Cupertino Planning Commission 4 July 28, 2009 involvement and no additional funding. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: • Explained that although grant awards are expected to be announced at the end of September 2009, funds will not be allocated until January 2010. The idea was to preliminarily look at the facts, phase 2 recommendations, what the other cities are doing, and what some of the issues are, so that when public outreach begins, and there are a number of groups of people interested in participating, they have some of that material ready. • The other point would be to talk about the process until September and then when the amount of money is known, would have to make a decision about, do we have enough to do the process we think we want to do, or do we want to amend that; the October to December timeframe would be used to look at whether any changes are needed to the process depending on the funding. It is the time period where the task force will also be selected; there are many things to put into place for us to begin; she said they should be ready to move forward in February. • Consultants were selected who had expertise in facilitation as well as the land use component and with green building. When applying for the funding, they assumed they would have a consultant who would be facilitating the larger process who had land use capability as well as the facilitation piece and somebody with some expertise on green building who would provide ancillary expertise for the green building ordinance. Chair Giefer: • Said it was an exciting project to be a part of and is something policy-wise that they all felt was needed for some time. She said it made sense to wait to hold hearings or study sessions until they fmd out if they are going to get the grant money; but was concerned about putting it off until they actually get the money. She asked what they could do between the end of September and end of December. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff recommends not starting outreach until they actually have the funds; since they don't have the funding to do the outreach including the extensive community-wide notices, putting together the workshops, areas where the consultant would help. • It is recommended doing some background work in the meantime, refining the process, putting all the fact-based information together so that when they do go out to the community, they have a packet. Typically the consultant has helped put the packet together, and if the consultant cannot be hired until they have the funds, it makes it more difficult. Research can be done on what is out there so they can look at the various options, although not going through the process of deciding it until they hear from the community. • Staff suggests that if the Planning Commission wants to follow up on any of the other items, they might want to select subcommittees (except on the Economic Development part), to move forward and conduct research. Chair Giefer: • Relative to the Housing Committee, she said there could be a subcommittee of two commissioners to go to the Housing Commission meetings and better understand what is missing from land use. Aarti Shrivastava: • She said that the thought was, not so much going to the Housing Commission, but looking at what are the best practices out there, what are some of the things to consider; what are the pros and cons; what might work for Cupertino; those are some examples of research for any Cupertino Planning Commission July 28, 2009 and all topics and then discuss it at the meeting and the Planning Commission could decide to forward the information onto Council and the Housing Commission. • Said they had some information on municipal operations but don't have the baseline numbers for the city as a whole and aze getting that done. Erin Cook will do a short update to the Council at the next meeting; and the information will be forwazded to the Planning Commission as well. • Said they had a plan as part of the background work they could do in the work program to have Erin Cook report to the Planning Commission on the carbon footprint study. Chair Giefer: • Asked if any Commissioners were interested in pursuing participation as a subgroup on any of the other topics on the list. She noted they could act on the low priorities, but the medium and high priorities aze not presently available to them. Vice Chair Brophy: • Said he was interested in No. 3 (affordable housing and prototypes of housing elements) if someone else wishes; but that he felt it was premature to start forming committees on the low priorities. Aarti Shrivastava: • Summazized that Process Improvement is coming to the whole Commission and the Council; 4, 5 and 6 remaining. No. 3 will be in the August or September timeframe; it is on the work program. • Said the Council hasn't made a decision yet on the Steering Committee or Task Force reps; staff is working on a recommendation. Chair Giefer: • Said she concurred with Vice Chair Brophy and Com. Lee that it did not make sense to move forwazd on the low priorities and not act on the higher priorities, She agreed that they should wait and find out how they would proceed with the higher priorities, try to get as much traction as possible, and when appropriate have Erin Cook report the results of the carbon study; staff report on the business process improvement and if there is more to follow up on with regazds to the strategic plan and incentives for start-ups. Once they know if, and how much grant money will be received, they can follow Council's lead on how to begin to move forwazd with that. Chair Giefer opened the public heazing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said there were a number of things that have happened in Cupertino over the last six months which she felt was good that everyone be involved in; there are some things that have happened recently with zoning which aze disturbing but hopefully they will be hashed out in the time to come. • She addressed the unemployment rate in Cupertino, and the jobs/housing imbalance and said that it was critical for ABAG to be very cazeful when they make their projections about jobs housing imbalance in the coming yeazs. Cupertino, Silicon Valley, the tech industry is bang and bust, where start-ups aze going or they are down. • She said she hoped that nothing would be done to compromise the well being of Cupertino in the future. She said she anticipated the tech industry getting better and hoped it would reflect in Cupertino. She said she supported the green building concept. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 July 28, 2009 Chair Giefer closed the public heazing. Aarti Shrivastava: • Summarized that staff will provide the Council decision on the strategic plan and incentive for start-ups; Erin Cook will be scheduled to report to the Commission regazding the carbon footprint as well as the status of the environmental sustainability issue; staff will present the process improvement recommendations to the Commission in the August/September timeframe; it was decided not to work on the lower priority items at this time. Chair Giefer: • Asked staff to report on how the Council has determined how they are going to proceed with the Environmental Stewardship Task Force. NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No Meeting Housing Commission: No meeting. Monthly Meeting With Commissioners No report. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Said that once it is firmed up what the Council input is on the strategic plan, the Planning Commission may consider who the representative will be on the Fiscal Strategic Committee. Chair Giefer: • Reported on the recent installation of solar panels on her home. A 2.2 kw system was installed in early July and after 4 weeks of operation, two of which the photo voltaic system was kicked in, their energy bill was significantly reduced from the mid-$300s down to $65 for the month. She encouraged everyone in California to install solaz panels on their homes; it is a great way to solve the greenhouse gas issues, greener environment and save money. Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regulaz Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 11, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary