Loading...
Draft Minutes 11-09-2010 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMNIISSION DRAFT MIl�TUTES 6:45 P.M. November 9, 2010 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling Associate Planner: Piu Ghosh Asst. City Attorney: Valerie Armento APPROVAL OF MINUTES None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR None ORAL COMMUIVICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MCA-2010-04 Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance. City of Cupertino Citywide Location Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 4-1-0, Com. Miller voted No; to approve Application MCA-2010-04 of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARING 2. DIR-2010-28 Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification Dayna Aguirre (PG&E) to allow three panel antennas and associated equipment Appellant Shaul Berger to be installed on an existing PG&E pole. Tentative City 11371 Bu6b Road Council date: December 7, 2010 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 9, 2010 Com. Giefer recused herself from discussion of the application as she resides within the noticing area Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification decision to allow the installation of a personal wireless service facility, consisting of three panel antennas and associated equipment on an e�cisting PG&E pole in front of 11371 Bubb Road, as outlined in the staffreport. • He illustrated photo simulations showing eausting conditions and the proposed cell site facility. • The appellant, Shaul Berger's eight appeal points were reviewed; details are outlined in the staff report. The eight appeal points were (1) Project is inaccurate; (2) Federal exposure standard cited by applicant is for an average slow-fading propagation environment; (3) An area with 2-story homes is uphill of the project; antennas must be 100 feet for people within 500 feet; (4) Radio pollution depends on radio signal strength and exposure time; (5) Project is located between schools and children would travel on the roads through the irradiated area; (6) Based on experience and judgment, it is not lawful to erect a high power antenna on a low height pole in a residential area; (7) He performed a detail calculation of the energy on the west and south sides of the antennas and demonstrated a dangerous exposure; and (7) Offered a recommendation that the city should install such antennas in the Cupertino hills addressing coverage issues on Bubb Road, Regnart Road and Lindy Lane. • He responded to the appeal points as illustrated on the Power Point presentation, and reviewed the graph showing the typical exposure from various radio frequency/microwave sources. • He noted that Federal Law 1996 Telecommunications Act states that no state or local government entity may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such emissions comply with FCC regulations. • Staff noted that the project is consistent with the city's Wireless Facilities Master Plan, and is consistent with the city's Wireless Communications Facility Ordinance. The Master Plan prefers existing vertical structures such as utility poles to mount wireless antennas to provide cell phone coverage to residential areas. The proposed facility is consistent with Federal Law as well as the PUC regulations set, governing the use of the power pole for these types of facilities. Given the low power of these facilities, sites in multiple locations will be needed to provide acceptable cell phone coverage, and one hillside site will not provide adequate coverage that is non-existent in parts of Cupertino. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Community Development Director. Colin Jung answered Commissioners' questions. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Shaul Berger, Appellant: • Said he was disappointed that he did not get any materials or input prior to the meeting to � better prepare for his presentation. He questioned why the applicant would not consider locating the antenna in the hilly areas, further away from the homes. He provided justification for his appeal to deny the application, and expressed his concern regarding the safety and health of the residents of the area, particularly the children, relative to the effects of radiation from the antennas. • Said in the past there were some other areas that were considered for the antenna location, such as the nearby 7/11. He said that the applicant's calculations were based on wrong assumptions; and when you use the wrong assumptions, you reach wrong conclusions. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 9, 2010 • He urged the Commission to reconsider the proposal because he felt it was not well reseazched and because of the long term effects on the health of the residents of the area. Com. Miller: • Said that the issue is that there is Federal Law that says the Commission is prohibited from rejecting an application because of radiation issues as long as they can show they are within the federal guideline; so it cannot be rejected simply because of safety issues unless the appellant can show that they are not within the federal guidelines. • If the appellant is trying to make an argument based on the technical aspects and the amount of radiation, he has to demonstrate that the calculations are not correct and not within the federal guidelines. Chair Brophy: • Reiterated that the Planning Commission under Federal Law, are subject to FCC rules, and cannot deny a project based on radiation effects, as long as the project meets the FCC standards. Dayna Aguirre, Sutro Consutting for T-Mobile, applicant: • Said they followed all the requirements per the city's ordinance. Com. Kaneda: • Said a comment was made that the antennas are directional and the calculations don't take that into account. Mark Newman, Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers: • Said that relative to the specific question about the calculations, the calculation methodology is one prescribed by the FCC and is included in the original report and their followup responses to the questions that were raised regarding the site. It is a direct line of sight calculation which takes into account the antenna azimuth pattern, patterned in a horizontal plane; it takes into account the antennas elevation plane pattern and the antennas tend to direct their energy toward the horizon. The elevation plane pattern is very narrow, about 7 degrees in width, they can reach the perimeter of the area they are trying to cover. • The calculations are correct and are done in accordance with FCC methodology and calculations not only take into account all the technical details of the site, but the surrounding area also. Said they have taken into account both two story buildings and also the variable pattern of the antennas. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Dr. Willie Lu, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the application. • Said he was a former FCC advisor. • He explained how the calculations are taken, and provided information on testing in center points and on the edge, and testing on the second story. He requested that the applicant redo the test and provide the public with a clear opinion. • He noted that the appellant's property was not the closest one to the antenna site and there were other residences in the transmission area that were exposed to more danger from the radiation exposure. He said the houses in the central area of the beam transmission area should be tested for exposure. He suggested that if the antenna could not be relocated, that it be placed higher on the pole at a height of 60 feet, rather than the proposed 44.6 foot height, to reduce the risk to the residents who are in the radiation pattern. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 9, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said that if the antenna is installed and test results indicate that the energy at Mr. Berger's second story is much greater, the city can insist that the cell phone company remove their equipment. Presently the testing is theoretical and the only way to actually test real conditions is to install it and go from house to house and test it. Chair Brophy: • The consulting engineer stated that the methodology they use is set by the FCC. Jei Chen, Cupertino resident: • Said he lived in close proximity to the proposed antenna location and was concerned about the effects of the radiation exposure to the residents of the area. He asked the audience to indicate who would want the cell tower in front of their home or in the back yard. He asked that the Planning Commission consider not only the benefit of the cell phone tower for cell phone users in the area, but also the negative effects it would have on the residents of the area. He said the residents wanted to protect themselves, the seniors and their futures. Madhu Gi, Cupertino resident: • Expressed concern about the potential health risks to humans, particulazly children. • She asked that they keep the interests of the community in mind before the interests of the business requesting the antenna. Mr. Prasad, Cupertino resident: • Said he was familiar with testing on animals and human beings. There are potential health issues with the children going to school in the area and families living closer to the area. He recommended that they move the antenna to a hilly region. He commented in other areas he lived in letters were sent to community members soliciting their input; however Cupertino does the opposite and considers an application without community input. Paul Petach, Cupertino resident: • Supports the application. • Said that several other technologic items used around the home had more radio frequency in them than the cell phone tower. The original mobile phones were 5 watts, 5,000 milowatts; • People are exposed to microwave ovens, portable phones, auto Onstar and hands free phones and they don't appear to be concerned; all ionizing radiation is harmful to skin. The emissions from cell phone towers is infinitesimal. He said he lives in the hills and would welcome a tower up there. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Valerie Armento, Asst. City Attorney: • As indicated, the current proposal complies with the FCC requirements; and under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the Planning Commission does not have the option to deny it based on health concerns if it complies with the Act. Therefore, if it were to be denied without substantial evidence that contradicts the evidence currently in the record, it would most likely bring on litigation, and without prejudicing the city's position, it would not be likely to be particularly successful on the part of the city. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 9, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said that Dr. Lu suggested raising it 9 feet which would create an additional margin of safety. He asked the applicant if they had considered moving the antenna up in some way. Colin Jung: • Said he did not feel that PG&E would allow them to raise the antenna any higher than it presently is because PG&E or the PUC requires a 10 foot safety margin between the wires, conductors and the antenna itself and they are at that limit. Dayna Aguirre: • Typically the radio frequency engineers always want to be taller; given when we looked at this facility, they wanted to get as much height on the existing pole as they could. Colin Jung was correct when he mentioned there was a geo 95 requirement as a safety zone, so that workers have a clearance of 6 feet. • With the particular location on tt�e top, it is held up by a high tension line; we would have to interrupt that line and place it somewhere else, and it would no longer be in line with the other poles. Locating it above the high tension lines is not a workable solution; because there is no way to mount above that node on top. She said in other cities they have done pole top extensions, with a 6 foot extension and the antennas placed above with a ray dome for better coverage. Chair Brophy: • Said that looking at calculations done according to FCC methodology, that are not only below the maacimum of allowable exposure but far below in the case of second floor, 22/100�' of 1%; there was no other issue than that, and because it was so far below, he was not sure there was any other option but to uphold the Director's approval. Com. Miller: • Suggested that there be a requirement that once the equipment goes in, more detailed measurements are taken at the houses in the area where there is potentially the highest exposure levels and test at least twice, perhaps after a year's time. If they are not meeting the FCC requirements, the applicant would have to remove the equipment or address the issue. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that they have included such a condition on prior applications about testing, and they could add it as a condition to the current application. Colin Jung: • If you are concerned about what is going to be generating once it is in operation, then you require a post-construction radio frequency study. If there are certain measurements you want taken, it can be specified in the conditions. The appellants are not happy with the ground level in the second floor exposure at the closest residence. He said he was taking measurements of the existing terrain; which given the height of the antenna and the height of the second story, you literally have to go out 800 to 1,000 feet from the antenna location before you get a level elevation where you are actually level with the site line of the antenna, about 800 to 1,000 feet. Com. Kaneda: • Asked if it was possible to make a policy to cover the requirement about testing radiation levels after a period of time; since the cell phone antenna applications come up time and again, and the ra.diation levels have come up less than 1/100�' of 1% of the FCC guidelines. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 9, 2010 • Currently, a condition is added to each cell phone antenna application and it is a reasonable precaution to have. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could do post-construction testing and would add the number 100 feet away also. Com. Kaneda: • Said the cell tower applications come up in his neighborhood regularly because of the poor cell coverage in Cupertino which is ironic considering Apple is headquartered there. • Said that the numbers given are based on the calculation of the worst case scenario where the beam is strongest, calculating what distance you go beyond the allowable levels; will go below the maximum levels and that is 12 feet away from the antenna. There are no houses within 12 feet and the calculation says that at the second story it is about 1/500� of the allowable levels which in fact are below the levels that are questionable for health concerns. • People are concerned about more radiation, electromagnetic radiation, but light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. It is possible that we will find out in 20 years or 50 years or one year that the RF is bad and causes cancer; but at this point decisions have to be made from the best information available. • He said he did not feel it was even a close call, and is so far below the allowable levels. He said he would support the application. Com. Miller: • As Com. Kaneda said, these type of applications come up all the time, and they are difficult for us, and my feeling is I want to support the community; and if the community is saying they don't want the service the applicant is offering, that is a problem, because I want to support what the community wants. However, federal laws are on the side of the applicant which tie the city's hands. The only way we can reject an application here for cell tower is not for health reasons, but on aesthetic reasons. No one has brought up any aesthetic reasons tonight. • The community can talk to the enabling property owner; in this case PG&E, who doesn't have any federal law against their side; they aze doing it for the revenue. • I am in the same position of having to support this even though I may not want to support it, simply because of the federal regulations that require us to do so. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 40-1, Com. Giefer recusing herself from vote; to deny the appeal and uphold DIR-2010-28, with the added condition that is requiring post-construction RF testing of the RF ezposures in accordance with federal safety standards after construction, and before full operation and after one year ezposures to be measured at the ground floor, the second floor of nearest residence and 100 feet away. Com. Giefer retumed to the meeting. 3. M-2010-06 Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (U-2007-03) Alanna Schroeder/Four Architectural and Site approval (ASA-2007-OS), Exception Corners Properties to the Heart of the City Special Plan (EXC-2007-OS), Tentative (Rocktino, LLC) Map (TM-2007-08) and Tree Removal (TR-2007-03) for the 10100 Tantau Avenue purpose of extending the expiration date of the approvals for five years. Tentative City Council date: December 7, 2010 Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a modification to a previously approved Use Permit, Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 9, 2010 Architectural and Site Approval, Exception to the Heart of the City Special Plan, Tentative Map and Tree Removal for the purpose of extending the expiration date of the approvals for five years, as outlined in the staff report. The applicant is requesting an e�rtension of the expiration date to August 21, 2015. • The City Council approved the project development on August 21, 2007, and on June 16, 2009 granted a one-year extension for the previous 6 approvals except for the Tenta.tive Map which expired on August 21, 2009; the Tentative Map did not need the extension at that time since its approval was valid through August 21, 2010. The 5 year e�rtension request is due to the ' economic conditions which make it not financially viable to construct the project at this time. • She reviewed the public benefit to the city wherein the applicant is offering to increase the monetary contribution to public improvements by an additional $25,000 for a total contribution not to exceed $75,000. The applicant is also requesting that a public improvement requirement from the original Council approval be modified to include a broader scope of intersection enhancements beyond the original pedestrian walkways. • The applicant is requesting to further extend the Tentative Map approval to August 21, 2015 to match the other approvals. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve tt�e modification application for the five year extension in accordance with the model resolution. Com. Giefer: • Said that the staff report states that one of the reasons one might want to eartend this is because the project provides significant public benefit; how is that defined? Aarti Shrivastava: • There are projects that provide either an intemal park, intersection or gateway improvements, and the Results Way project provided funds to improve the intersection in the Bubb Road area. In this case, the Tantau/Stevens Creek intersection has always been seen as something that needs additional work and staff feels it will go towards enhancing that intersection. • We are not actually improving the project, the intersection project at this time; there is money available to use within a certain amount of time, but once the improvement is identified, they will have funding for it. The sidewalks are put in by the applicant; but staff is looking at more right-of-way improvements in the actual intersection area; it is a difficult and unattractive intersection. Bruce Burkhart, Founder, Four Corners Properties: • T'here were no questions for the applicant. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • When the project first went through, there was a great amount of public support to make sure that there were trees retained. It is a good idea to have a project extended if there are financing issues; this is a very challenging time because of the recession. • She said that the `pork chop' that is at Tantau and Stevens Creek is a protection mechanism that protects cut through traffic from going into the Rancho Rinconada and Lorree Estates neighborhood; it was discussed in great length with the Main Street project that the desire of the neighborhood was to have the pork chop left there to make sure that they do not have cut through trafFic coming from Tantau South crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard running down Tantau and hitting Bollinger. The neighborhood needs to be protected from cross through traffic and the desire is to have the pork chop left there. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 9, 2010 • She said she was still waiting for the street trees to go onto the Main Street property because there are no trees there; if there is money available, some improvements can be made there. A crosswalk is needed from the east side of Tantau across to the Four Corners property, in front of the Lorree Shopping Center; and the old sTyle telephone poles still remain in front of the Lorree Shopping Center. The electrical has not been put underground in that area either. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Chair Brophy: • Said he was uncomfortable with asking for an increase in the amount of money for enhanced public improvements. It is obvious the reason why the applicant is asking for an extension of 5 years given the market place; and while the applicant offered to raise the increase, I am sure it was not raised by him. As a practical matter, he said they should keep it as the e�cisting package and not charge people for extending the project that is unchanged. He said he would prefer to eliminate the clause in the resolution labeled `enhanced pedestrian walkways'. Com. Miller: • Said he agreed. Com. Giefer: • Commented that when they approved the project several years ago she was not satisfied with the architecture. If they were going to reopen it up, she would like to discuss the whole project. If they discuss the conditions, she said she would look at it as a different project. Chair Brophy: • Said he did not support reopening everytliing. Com. Miller: • Said it was an approved project and likely the only reason it hasn't been built is because of the economy; and he did not feel it was the time to treat it as a new application at this point. He said they should be flexible with applicants who would like to build in Cupertino and add to the commercial base, particularly in light of the state of the economy. He added that he was opposed to reopening the application at this point and agreed with Chair Brophy's suggestion to leave the application as is and not add a condition asking for more money. Com. Giefer: • Said she was not comfortable with the suggestion; and if they not going to accept the additional condition, she would prefer to go back and revisit the application and not extend it, which is within their purview. Chair Brophy: • Asked Com. Giefer if she would accept it with an additional $75,000, but deny it for $50,000. Com. Giefer: • Said she wasn't thrilled about the architectural aspect on that corner when it was originally presented; and was supportive (as was the majority) of it from a revenue producing perspective. If the majority were again going to move forward on it, she said she would probably be supportive of not reopening it; but if there aze other things they don't like about the project, perhaps they could solve some of her prior concerns. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 9, 2010 Com. Miller: • Recalled that the property was primarily retail to service the office buildings in the immediate vicinity; and asked the applicant the reason for not moving forward with the project at this point. Bruce Burkhart, Applicant: • Said when it was designed, the goal was to have a bank branch, cofFee shops, Kinkos and a sandwich shop; dependent on the size of the retailer that wanted to go there and that is still the case. However, currently it is neither financeable nor in demand for retailers; from the office point, it is about 70% occupied. Chair Brophy: • Said the two key issues are raising the contribution; and along with that if it doesn't not pass, the pork chop issue that speaker Ms. Griffin referred to. He recalled they had a discussion about that in the Main Street project and there was a concern about trafFic, that unsightly as it may be, it may have served as a deterrent for cut-through tra�ic on Tantau. Com. Kaneda: • Said he understood the azgument for adding the $25,000; but he shared the concerns about the economy and supported not adding another percent to the construction cost. Vice Chair Lee: • Said she had no comment as she was not on the Commission at the time. Com. Giefer: • She recalled that she was dissatisfied with the architecture, but that she was the only one who felt that way. Com. Miller: • Said that if they do it and start reviewing architecture and changing the requirements, the applicant may not do it, and submit a new application at a later date when the economy improves. He said he saw no benefit to the city in pursuing this line. Chair Brophy: • Said he did not feel strongly about it; at this point, given the economy, he was not sure there would be benefits of asking the applicant to start over in terms of architecture and site design. He said he did not support reopening it. Aarti Shrivastava: • Suggested that if the majority of the Commission does not want the applicant to provide benefit, the ea�tension could be reduced to one or two years. Com. Kaneda: • Said he would support that or ask the applicant which he would prefer. Chair Brophy: • Said he was not comfortable with the process of charging $25,000 for 5 years, and nothing for a year or two. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it was not so much a question of money, but more of what happens in those five years Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 9, 2010 they cannot address. They give ten year approvals because they expect that things change over time and want to make sure that projects are able to address those things over time. Said it made sense given the economy to extend a project; this project did get a year eactension and if they go above that, the community is giving up something and should receive a benefit in return. It can be extended for a shorter period of time rather than give up the entire 5 years. Com. Giefer: • If there wasn't an exceptional public benefit, would staff had supported the extension for 5 years? Aarti Shrivastava: • Typically, we have not supported long extensions for projects primarily for this reason because we don't want to give extra long approvals; this project has had 3 years, an extra 5 would bring it up to 8. When projects have provided public benefit, we try to make sure it is commensurate with the size of the project and has a nexus around it. We think the community will be getting something and so it makes sense to give something to the applicant. Chair Brophy: • Asked Com. Giefer where she stood on architectural and site approval. Com. Giefer: • Said she felt the applicant was supporting the community, and therefore she would support the further development of the project and not raise greater issues. If they voted on it as it was presented with staffls recommendation, she would support the project; otherwise she would vote against it. Chair Brophy: • He said he had concerns with the concept of what he saw as selling zoning permission, but understood that the applicant wanted to move forward for a 5 year extension. He said he could support it if the clause remained on enhanced public walkways, • He suggested removal of the clause "removal of the pork chop" because there is still the right to consider that under any other relevant enhancements, because the language clearly implies that the pork chop removal is the path they are going in. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said staff could do that. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and unanaimously carried 5-0-0, to approve Application M-2010-06, with t6e removal of the reference made to removal of the pork chop as part of the enhanced pedestrian walkway. Chair Brophy declared a recess. 4. MCA-2010-06 Municipal Code Amendments to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development City of Cupertino Ordinance), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation Zone Ordinance), Citywide Location Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances Ordinance) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans Ordinance) Amendments are being considered in order to make the Municipal Code consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Elements adopted in Apri12010. Postponed from October 26, 2010; Tentative City Council Date: January 18, 2010 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 9, 2010 Piu 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 Apri12010, 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. Piu 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 sta.ff 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 R1 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 R1, 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 Rl 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 iry 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 lazger 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 first 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 e�ct 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 azgue 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 Rl 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 Plannirig Commission 16 November 9, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said staff would like to get comments on Attachment 1 and lA 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 tecluiical 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 fmd 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. Com. Giefer: � Said she was part of the development of the current R1 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 R1, 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 Rl 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. Com. 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. Com. 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 Matri�c report is very accurate; e�remely 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. He 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 "Rl 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 Rl 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 similaz 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. • He said if applicants have to go through it, the commissioners should aiso. Chair Brophy: • Said that the Commission's role is to focus on things related to the ordinance and some of these issues brought up aze 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 Coms. 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 R1 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 talces 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 lA; 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 R1, 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 Com. 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. Com. 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. Com. 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 another neighborhood, because of complaints from neighbors. Chair Brophy: � Said he did not want the Planning Commission involved with gates and fences. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the ordinance remains as is. Com. Miller: • Suggested having a subcommittee to look at Rl 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 Rl . • 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 Rl they weren't excited about reopening it again; one of the things people value is certainty and if the R1 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 theu 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 Rl 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: • Said he was concerned about hying 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 specificaily 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 fee. 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 CONINIISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting Housin� Commission: Meeting scheduled for November 10, 2010 Mavor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissioners: Meeting scheduled for November 10, 2010. Economic Development Committee Meeting: 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, particulazly 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 DIItECTOR OF CO1��IIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT Aarti Shrivastava reported: • The Council reviewed the appeal of the wireless facility on Results Way Nov. ls 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 the 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: Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 23, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary