PC 04-08-08CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. APRIL 8, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty
Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: 'Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve the March 11, 2008
Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the March 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Corrections: Page 10, middle of page (Giddy Wordell): "Builder Green" should read
"Build It Green"
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the March 25, 2008
Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING: None
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 8, 2008
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Discuss possible preliminary review for major development projects.
Chair Miller:
• Said that at the last City Council meeting, he proposed looking at ways to improve the
application review process. The Council remanded it to the Planning Commission to evaluate
and make recommendation back to the Council.
• Firstly, what are we trying to solve? Said he looked at some things in the city; one being that
development of significant areas of town seem to occur in a somewhat piecemeal fashion.
Secondly, development approvals seem to take a long time and engender a great deal of
discourse; and they are expensive and painful.
• First, the developer needs to get staff approval. If the Planning Commission disagrees, then
the plans get revised and go onto the Council; if there is further disagreement, the plans get
revised again; and in addition to that, at all the hearings there is neighborhood input to
consider.
• Said he found over the last few years that the Planning Commission's input on large projects
seems to happen too late; by the time it gets to them, the developer has already invested a great
deal of time and effort in a design and spent a lot of money on plans and displays and is not
motivated to make significant changes.
• There are some possible solutions to this: First, which we are not going to discuss tonight, is
doing more master planning in the area, and that was something that when we reviewed the
last General Plan, we added as an objective in the General Plan and then we went on to do the
North Vallco Plan and now there is an effort to do a master plan for South Vallco. The other
possibilities seem to be this idea of a conceptual review, and there are likely some others we
can discuss tonight.
• The City of Glendale had a presentation at the Planners Institute recently. They have a
separate Architectural Review Board (ARB separate from the Planning Commission. I was
disappointed there I was told that the Planning Commission doesn't really have a lot to do in
the city, so it seemed like the first thing that would happen when an application would come
in, it would go to the ARB for a concept review, and then back to the staff, and then it was not
clear to me if the Planning Commission got to hear major developments, but it went on to
Council.
• Los Gatos' model uses a conceptual review, and it is an informal setting, not a public hearing;
they have a 7 member Planning Commission, 3 members serve on the Conceptual Review
Committee (CRC) along with 2 members of the City Council. They do the review up front
when the developer first comes in; then it goes back to the staff and finally after they put
everything together, it comes back to the Planning Commission and on to the Council. The
Assistant Director of Community Development there said that it was working well for them,
and that it made staff's job easier, and also the developers were happy with it, because they got
early input from both the Planning Commission and the City Council and that was included in
the discussions that staff had with the developer. He said they were happy with it, and felt it
helped facilitate the process they have been doing for 4 or 5 years.
• Palo Alto has a conceptual review as well, but is a separate review board that does that, as
opposed to the Planning Commission.
• A model to consider would be that we would hold a public session study session with the
Planning Commission, the staff and the developer; not necessarily a citywide noticed session.
Secondly, we do a joint study session with the City Council, staff and the developer. We have
done that in the past, and I never really felt that worked well, from the Planning Commission
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 8, 2008
standpoint. Maybe it was just the cast of characters, but it seemed like the Council had
everything to say and the Planning Commission's remarks were fit in at the end.
• Another possibility is the Los Gatos model with two Planning Commissioners and two City
Council members; and in that case, it could be public or not necessarily be public.
• The last option would be to create a separate Design Review Board or Conceptual Review
Board.
• The purpose tonight is to have an open discussion; what does the Commission feel; is this
worth pursuing. If it is worth pursuing, what solutions should we consider; should we do some
further research and then bring it back to the Commission, and make a recommendation to the
City Council, or where does the Commission feel we should go from here.
Com. Brophy:
• Is this conceptual review process voluntary for the developers?
• In Los Gatos or Glendale, are the neighbors receiving formal notice of the hearing?
Steve Piasecki:
• It is required in Los Gatos. The first thing to settle in such a process is what is the threshold;
what size development would go through this process.
• Los Gatos residents do not receive formal notice of the hearing; it is an informal process held
in a public forum. The objective is to have input of the Council, Commission about hot topics,
things you should be aware of; and given that kind of development in this community, and it
helps put the developer on alert.
Com. Rose:
Asked how to avoid giving someone direction in such a meeting that when it then comes
before the full Planning Commission later, and the majority is not in favor of it, the developer
has already gotten his feedback.
How do you make sure that the fine line between touching base early vs. you are now part of
the formal process; how do you make sure we are not leading expectations up that just because
something occurred in this forum, it doesn't mean it is going to happen once it hits the
Planning Commission.
Chair Miller:
• Glendale has a separate Board so that question wasn't relevant there; but Los Gatos' answer
was that they seem to be offering advice that both the Planning Commissioners and the City
Council members were offering advice freely. Everyone understood that there wasn't a
majority there and they couldn't guarantee that things were going to go that way. You also
have to be careful you are not reviewing the application; you are hearing what he has to say
and you are giving feedback as to if it sounds right, you are pointing out issues that they need
to address, but I don't think you want to be directing a developer into a specific channel.
• One of the challenges in setting something up like this is to have a set of guidelines that we
follow that make sense. The intent is to make it more efficient and more effective and not to
make it worse.
• The developer's cost for the meeting in Glendale is $400.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said staff would check on Los Gatos' developers' fee. Similar to Cupertino, Los Gatos is a
full cost recovery city, so we would expect they would pay the freight. There may be some
efficiencies on the back end if you do this on the front end; but I would expect that it is going
to be more costly for the applicant and more time consuming. The idea that we are going to
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 8, 2008
streamline probably won't happen, but that is okay because maybe we will have fewer
hearings; and that would be your streamlining.
Said that both the applicant and the public have the expectation of a fair and impartial hearing;
so the fence you have to walk is providing input, and yet not obligating yourself in any way, so
that you don't give the impression that perhaps two Planning Commissioners already have. A
good example would be to set the threshold and then take some past applications, and ask how
would this be different. The idea of fair and impartiality is extremely important; that is why we
live and breathe on it as process.
Com. Brophy:
• Said as the newest Commissioner, he was the least familiar with the issue, but speculated that
to the extent the staff provides input to a potential applicant that turns out to be a variance
from how the Commission or Council acts; it is not because the staff doesn't understand what
is happening in the community; it may be more likely the case that when many unhappy
neighbors show up that the Commission and Council see matters in a new light, and a new
policy is set.
• Questioned how helpful it would be to developers if they don't have the feedback from the
community at large.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said much of what was described is accurate; and it is usually matters of degree. A neighbor
may say that parking is an issue; the Commission agrees and says get the parking up. It
usually is an escalation of the issue and it may be one that we are not tied into. In the case of
Cupertino Village where we did advise the applicant; we didn't get as far as the Commission
did and that is good, you were able to add on to it and make it better.
Chair Miller:
• Said the question was relative; if there was a minority of Planning Commissioners or City
Council members, and that is only one model, it could be the entire Planning Commission.
One thing relative to Com. Brophy's comment that I would make is let's look at the process
right now; the developer comes in and talks to the staff; and the staff gives feedback as to what
is important. In the past, by the time it got to us, the major things were pretty much set, and
we did not give that much input. Hopefully there is a way that we give some earlier input to
the developer before he sets everything in stone. Does that make sense or not?
• Said the definition of "major" has to be decided.
Com. Brophy:
• I am still concerned about Mr. Piasecki's point that not only that there be fairness, but also that
there be the perception of fairness both on the part of the applicant and on any residents or
property owners nearby, to the extent that there is this conceptual or informal hearing prior to
the actual application and public hearing. I am wondering whether or not residents might feel
that everything has been wired prior to the formal public hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• As long as you let people know that there is a meeting, that they have access to that
information. One thing I like about this concept is that there is a classic graph that I have seen
among architects about, as you are designing a building early on it is cheap to make changes in
the design and as time goes on, the further you get into the design, the higher the cost to make
changes. If the design is complete and ready to be built and somebody comes and says that it
is not going to fly, you need to make all these changes and the architect has to start all over
again; his fees are upward of 20% of the value of the project. If he has to start again, you have
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 Apri18, 2008
added tremendous costs to the project; if it is in construction, it is even worse. If they are just
starting to put pen to paper, it is a couple of sketches and some concepts and very little heavy
detail has been put into fine tuning the design. It is very easy for someone to make a change;
plus they are not as married to whatever the design they are going to ultimately end up with, so
when you tell a developer and/or an architect that they should change it, early on they are more
open to that. From that point of view, Chair Miller has an interesting idea.
Steve Piasecki:
• Cautioned that noticing and/or having a full Commission, results in having a hard time not
hearing before the hearing. From the applicant's standpoint, how can he have the sense that he
has a fair and impartial hearing, a traffic report hasn't even been done yet, and everyone is
concerned about traffic; and in the esoteric as opposed to in the definitive.
• That is why the Los Gatos model uses a minority of the Planning Commission and a minority
of the Council to talk to the applicant and provide them with advice. It is very constructive
and can be very helpful. He cautioned against the full study session or again having a full
noticed hearing because you might as well invert the process.
• Said that the Commission rarely drills down on architectural issues; it is usually about parking,
sound and noise or geometry of the parking lot.
Com. Kaneda:
I wasn't talking about style issues; for example Cupertino Village. I don't know how
thoroughly they looked at all the different options with the parking garage, or if early on
someone said they wanted to put it along the neighborhood property line on the edge of the
property and they went from there and then they had gone so far down the line on the design
that when the question came up where to put it, the developer said no, they looked at all those
things and this is the only place that made sense. It may be something where earlier on in the
process there would have been a little more flexibility of discussion of can we look at this, can
we look at other things. Maybe in that case they did look at everything but my sense is that
you have a better chance of getting into look at this with a more open mind early on.
Com. Rose:
• Where in the process do you see this type of conceptual review to take place; initially where
the developer first brings the plans to staff, and it would include a random sampling of
commissioners and council members and we would all give some general input. Is that what
you are thinking?
Chair Miller:
Yes, before they start spending a lot of money on architects and engineers. To some extent if
we had more master plans for specific areas, we would have already given them input through
that process, and the city would have, and then the developer can read that and say that is clear
enough, I know what I can and cannot do. Mountain View had worked a good model when
they did their downtown plan; they did a master plan for all the downtown area and were
specific about what the developers could and could not do. It was done in a process which
included a lot of public input as well as input from the Planning Commission and the Council
and everybody signed up for it. The developers said afterward that they preferred it that way
because everything was clear and they could decide easily whether it made sense to do a
project or not in a particular section of downtown Mountain View and if it penciled out then
they knew that they could go ahead and pursue it and that the process for getting approvals
would be fairly quick. That is the advantage of doing a master plan for major areas.
Cupertino tried it with North Vallco and somewhat South Vallco.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 8, 2008
Com. Brophy:
• Said he was skeptical of the master plan approach because it works fine in the case of a
downtown Mountain View where you don't have conflict between the downtown commercial
landowners and adjoining residential areas. Here if we do one thing with the master plan, my
sense is that the Commission and Council agree to one thing and then when actual applications
for development arise, that the residents at that point is when they see what is being talked
about in terms of density, use and I think that is when we have the conflict where there is the
sense that the process has already been raked ahead of time.
Chair Miller:
Said he visited the city of Hercules where they did a master plan for their waterfront district, a
multi-use area. Initially, the residents were hesitant but they effectively bought into the
process and at the end everybody was happy and came out for the ground breaking.
Things can turn out well or badly, and some situations they are more appropriate than others,
but I wouldn't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.
Said his goal was to improve the process and if it is agreed that there is no way to do that, then
do away with the idea. A number of cities are pursuing it and the best example is Los Gatos
who says that their experience has been very positive and they have been doing it for a number
of years and intend to continue doing it. He said he would like to find models from those who
are doing things better and pattern them to improve Cupertino's processes.
Steve Piasecki:
• Atrial basis can be done, setting the threshold high anticipating on a major project coming in
and testing it, and tweaked if necessary. It is important that the appearance of fairness is as
important as the actuality of it, both to the applicant and the neighboring property owners. The
Los Gatos model is one way to do it; and if the people on the committee can refrain from
saying, obvious things like `oh just do that and I will support you.' This is about providing
you with input and the luxury of having our perception of the community; the Council and
Planning Commission are part of the community.
• Another way to think about this is to continue the discussion, air out some of the issues and
then come back to the Commission and try to put a model together, and put it in a minute
action to the City Council and see if the Council embraces it; in which case you could iron out
the details of that model.
Chair Miller:
• One of the parameters to be decided is what the threshold is for a project that would go
through this process; and another parameter is it voluntary or mandatory. Because everyone is
concerned about the perception of fairness, is there a clear set of guidelines that help to ensure
that it doesn't create a biased process.
• He said he spoke at the last Council meeting and suggested that this was worth considering
and the Council suggested that the Planning Commission hold a hearing to discuss it, and
come back to the Council with a recommendation.
Chair Miller opened the meeting for public input.
Keith Murray, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was pleased that there were good ideas circulating about having better communication
between developers, property owners, city staff, Commissioners and City Council. It is also
good to ensure that the residents are kept involved.
• Expressed concerned that they do a lot of forceful things from the staff side to try to get some
understanding of what developers and property owners want and residents are left; you almost
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 Apri18, 2008
have to have a project presented to say, now we have something to discuss; otherwise you do
have city staffers, commissioners, council members, designing a project almost for a developer
or for a property owner, and that is almost true for residents, because if someone approaches
them like a developer, property owner says they would like to talk with them first, they think
that there is a lot of power being given there that we are going to tell you what you want and it
better be included, otherwise there is going to be a problem.
• Said if there was honest master planning in Cupertino, it would alleviate problems because
businesses, commercial property owners, developers and the residents would know what the
plan is, what direction they are going, and the details could sort themselves out in a more
businesslike fashion.
• Said he felt spending large amounts of money to talk about master planning was not helpful;
nor were $400 fees the answer.
• He suggested in the city of Cupertino to have some type of guiding master plan or beef up the
General Plan in a way that it provides guidance to both property owners and the residents
about what is going to happen; because everyone including the Planning Commission is
looking for the same thing, but no one can find it. There has to be something that everybody
can follow, which has been missing all along.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said when she heard that Hewlett Packard had decided to sell the remaining Tandem/HP
buildings on Vallco Parkway and Pruneridge and Wolfe Road, she was pleased that there was
an established master plan for North Vallco because the HP buildings over on the North Vallco
side will fall under that master plan.
• Said she presumed the hope was that they would remain tech buildings since that was one of
the intents of having the master plan for North Vallco. The city is currently trying to establish
some type of pseudo master plan for South Vallco; the Sandhill project is coming up; and
hopefully the three buildings that HP is releasing for public sale on Vallco Parkway will fall
under the plans for South Vallco.
• The city has always tried to make sure that they talk to the developer to find out exactly what
they are planning on building in the city, and whether that is something that Cupertino will
benefit from, and hopefully the developer too.
• This type of discussion is a two or three way process; many of the most successful projects in
Cupertino have been a process of committee examination, re-examination, going to City
Council, going to Planning Commission back and forth, because nothing of quality is ever
produced without a lot of work. The Cupertino developments that everyone is very proud of
last for a long period of time; developers have had successful retail and they have been a give
and take process by everyone and hopefully in the end it is a win/win process.
• Said she hoped that there would always be public input because nothing of quality is
established unless there is input from everyone, and quality takes time.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Said both speakers' comments were interesting, and both emphasized the importance of having
public participation in the activities.
• He referred to Peter Pau's application on the HP property; and said that he is working on it
although neither the Planning Commission nor City Council has seen it yet. Mr. Pau has been
sharing information in public meetings with the neighbors and residents of Cupertino. His
plan is to have a meeting this week and another at the end of the month and the assumption is
he will discuss the project on a conceptual basis.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Steve Piasecki:
April 8, 2008
• Said Mr. Pau wants to get input at the Thursday meeting before he has a discussion. Perhaps
he can think about how that works in terms of his preliminary thoughts on how to plan the site.
Chair Miller:
• Conceptually it is similar to what we are talking about here except directly with the residents
to get that early feedback from the community. That is really all I was suggesting here, is that
we allow the applicant to get some early feedback from the Planning Commission and City
Council, he gets the feedback from the community and Planning Commission and City
Council and then goes and works with staff in developing the formal presentation that perhaps
that is a better model, and is it worth trying to see if it is a better model.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he was still skeptical; in this case you are getting with Mr. Pau, you are saying he is
already scheduling meetings with neighborhood groups, and that is great, but to the extent we
have these preliminary discussions with a minority of commissioners or council members, I
just wonder whether or not there is a sense that the project has been locked in, and that there
have been informal commitments made that if the project is done in a certain way that both the
Commission and Council will look favorably upon it.
• Said he would rather have the formal public hearing and have it open to everyone and decide
at that point.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Said it was an intriguing idea; anything we can do to give greater input in the beginning is
good for the developer and community, provided the community is noticed and is available to
participate as well and it's a public meeting. She said she felt it was already in place with study
sessions, but they were not using it. There are a couple of things I would need to understand
better; how we would move forward on it before I would be willing to participate; study
sessions are available today. We may not be telling people it is available, but it certainly has
been a tool available to developers for as long as I have been around.
Perhaps the question is why aren't we making it more available and letting people know about
that.
Steve Piasecki:
• Part of the answer is that there was the perception that the City Council was deal making with
the applicants ahead of the formal process; and the Council decided that if they were going to
do that, it would be done at the Council meetings. Perhaps that didn't work with the entire
Council.
• He said it depends on what the objective is. If the objective is to provide heads up about the
issues to the applicant, there could be one Commissioner and one Council member through the
right people provide that guidance to the applicant. If the objective is to have a public hearing
upfront, there will need to be two hearings and it is a model that will cost time and money.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Said she was more hesitant after hearing that. This is kindred to that process. The other
concern is that we are a very junior Planning Commission presently, we have two people in
their second term and everybody else is a year or less. I don't know if that is enough time for
you to really be familiar with the issues citywide, because they are not the same throughout the
city. The issues we have in South Vallco are very different from the issues we have in Monta
Vista and if somebody came in and wanted to redevelop the Measurex site, and I would
classify that as a major site, when and if something comes in on that site, are we as familiar,
Cupertino Planning Commission
April 8, 2008
and can we speak all of us on every different area in the community. Do we have that
experience across the board to speak authoritatively specific to the neighborhood rather than
just general about parking, trees, etc.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff to clarify the difference between a preliminary review and a study session.
Steve Piasecki:
The cases where we have used study sessions have been usually when the application has
developed further, and we have some level of precision and the Council back then wanted to
sit down and provide guidance to the applicant. Those were public meetings, but were not
noticed to the neighborhood; by that time the applicant had already developed their plan. The
model that Chair Miller is talking about is an early input process; depends on what your
objective is.
If the objective is to give them the benefit of your wisdom about the community; you may be
looking at bubble diagrams, for instance, and you may say, well if you are going to build a
hotel that tall in that location, it is going to cash out over here, just beware of that, I have no
opinion, I don't know enough about it yet, but you might be providing them with some
guidance about what that might mean for the neighborhood. I doubt that this process would
have anticipated the referenda that happened, because we went through the public hearing
process, got all the way to the end, entitled them, and then the referendums came up. I don't
know that this somehow would have exposed that.
What I can also suggest is Com. Rose has asked me to describe how the process works right
now. What we could do, before deciding where you want to go with this, is to open up Item
No. 2, talk about the process, because you might get a sense of some of this happens in baby
steps with the ERC which has one Planning Commissioner and one Council member on it; and
they take the liberty to tell the applicant, this is not necessarily an environmental issue but you
really better focus on this and you better do the community outreach in this sense. A little bit
of this is happening; it is not to the extent that Chair Miller is talking about. Decide what your
objective is; I think it can be effective. It can be constructive; it would be very difficult to do
if you are going to notice the world and the neighboring property owners and say come down
and look at the set of plans; I think you will have the hearing before the hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• You were talking about wanting to have two hearings; I said something about noticing the
people; what are the different ways we could do this, that this type of thing could happen.
Steve Piasecki:
Said he was referring to both the perception and reality of having a fair and impartial hearing,
and not being tried before the facts were available to people. From the applicant's perspective,
they spend a great deal of money generating parking studies, traffic studies, noise studies, etc.
none of which would be available in the early stages. The likelihood is if you did a full notice,
the public is coming up expecting the answers, which you do not have.
Cupertino Village is a good example because it ended up being aone-inch thick packet of
numerous studies and background material. The Planning Commission postponed the project
4 months and said go back and look at these peak periods and study it, and they found 32 cars
were in the neighborhood.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 8, 2008
2. Follow up discussion of the Planners Institute.
Steve Piasecki presented the staff report:
• Planning Commissioners were invited to submit questions to staff after attending the Planners
Institute in Sacramento recently.
• One question was "How does the process work?"
• There are two levels of processing, the single-family residential level which is prescribed by
ordinance which has been expanded to require much more noticing of neighbors for just about
anything to be done to asingle-family home; not that it will engender a lot of discussion or
that there is a lot of concern if adding a bathroom on, but people get noticed.
• The non-single family residence often starts with an inquiry and sometimes it is somebody
buying a piece of property. At that point it may be still confidential as the person is in
negotiations and doesn't want the information to get out. Beyond that initial inquiry phase, it
stays confidential because there may still be negotiating with the prospective tenants and
partners. What is important about that is that kind of stuff, the early thinking would not
probably be workable for this process you are talking about. The planners would then take
the inquiry through, research the zoning through the General Plan, but there is far more policy
documentation.
• Then we go to the Specific Plan, North DeAnza, Monta Vista ,etc. we started working on one
for the Crossroads Streetscape Design and we may go to the Fairgrove neighborhood which
has specific rules which are in the zoning ordinance which is the third document we turn to.
What does the zoning ordinance say. We also try to anticipate issues we have heard, and refer
to earlier case law, Vye Avenue being an example; this case looks like the Vye case and you
should be aware of it because it is riskier. He provided some examples of meetings with
potential applicants in their preliminary stages and explaining to them that their project did not
fall within the ordinance guidelines and providing them with possible options.
• Once the above is completed, the production of the study gets completed. For Cupertino
Village as an example, the Commission said they wanted a better parking study and they
wanted the applicant to study the geometry. Once they have a plan, engaged all the studies,
they have to go through an environmental analysis; they go to the ERC; the plans are pretty
solid by then, but the Commissioners on the ERC are not shy about telling the applicant these
are big issues in the community, or you are taking out too many trees.
• Said that a conceptual review would fit in before they file a formal application. It might be
after they go through the policy check; why have policy conflicts that are obvious.
• There is also apre-hearing conference when the applicant comes in and meets with all the
affected departments, including Fire Department, Sanitary, Sewer, Public Works, Planning and
Building. The applicant is told to check with the Sanitary, Fire, etc. before they come to the
pre-hearing; and do their homework to make certain there is no deal killer.
• Hopefully they have had neighborhood meeting(s) and are ready to schedule for the Planning
Commission. Public notices are sent out, and information is sent out also through the website.
Com. Kaneda:
• What was described is the quasi judicial rule of looking at applications and making judgments
on them. Asked staff what other things the Planning Commission could do and what the
processes are for those.
Steve Piasecki:
Explained the role of the Planning Commission was to do policy development and policy
implementation. The policy development side is creating ordinances, tree ordinances, noise
ordinances, R1 ordinances, and creating policies like design guidelines, area plans (South
Vallco Master Plan); and the General Plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 8, 2008
The policy is developed, and the theory is that everything you do has a public objective; and
there should be a principal behind it. What are we doing; what are we trying to achieve? That
is spelled out in the General Plan and is something they can talk to applicants about.
Externalizing, facing the streets, externalizing their land use because that helps build
community and that has been ironed through the task force process and the Planning
Commission process.
Policy implementation is what remains; the applicant coming through the process just
described; all the way through to getting the building permit. The Building Department looks
at the plan sets, planners look at the plan sets, make sure they conform to the approvals in
every respect. If there is something insignificant, sometimes they can approve it, if it is
insignificant that it doesn't need any additional review, or in Directors' Minor Modifications
which you get, and some of those have been appealed and they can come back through the
public process if necessary.
We develop the policies and then try to implement the policies through development
applications. The city is implementing its policy format using private dollars; so the private
applicants are coming in and they have an agenda and an objective that they are trying to
achieve; the public has an agenda.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked staff to define policy development.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that typically it is through the Council but it can germinate through the Planning
Commission. The Council has their eyes and ears to the community and they hear that some
feel there are too many trees being felled in town; what is going on, the tree ordinance must be
lax, and they will ask us to put it on the work program and we will re-evaluate the tree
ordinance this year. Then they will task the Planning Commission with evaluating it and they
will provide you with guidance on what the issue is, and ask you to open it up and address that
issue. You can have an idea, such as parking lot sweepers shouldn't start before 9:00 a.m.; we
have to reopen the noise ordinance. The only problem is to convince at least two of your
colleagues to join you to adopt a Minute Action to address the Council to put it on their work
program. Chair Miller did that when he suggested altering the process and the Council said
they would take it back to the Planning Commission, to see if you get agreement on what that
might be, and make a recommendation to them. It gets driven in at either level and it can go
through the process at either level, but ultimately the Council has to make a decision on
whether they do it because they have the fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders to utilize
the resources in the most effective way possible to realize the community's objectives.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Said as a new Planning Commissioner, she was told her primary objective was to advise the
Council on land use, not just policy and development and implementation. Isn't that in
addition?
Steve Piasecki:
• Most people think land use is everything, and they will use that term; you have both and you
have done both. Those commissioners who have been on the Commission for a longer period,
know that is what you end up doing. People tend to roll it into land use; land use is
development in some people's minds.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 8, 2008
Chair Miller:
Said that the Council's work program included an item to review processes in the city and
suggest or make improvements in the processes. It fit in well into the Council's work program
and the Planning Commission would review the process from the Planning Commission's
standpoint in looking at ways to make improvements, which fits in with the Council's
objective.
The options are to make a recommendation tonight either to just go back to the Council and
say the process is working fine, and do nothing at this point. A recommendation can be made
to change it, stating the changes; but he did not recommend that option.
The third option would be to ask staff to get more information; contact some other cities that
have looked at this, implemented it and find out what their experiences are and whether or not
they are similar to ours and whether it makes sense to pursue it further.
Com. Rose:
• It is an interesting concept and if you are starting a large project, it would be helpful to have
some very general guidance from beyond just that on it.
• Said she felt they should be overly cautious about the perception of public input and public
awareness and not having apre-meeting that becomes the first meeting on a large land use
project.
• I know from experience when I have been involved in residential development within my
community and I have interacted with people that I didn't know who were making comments
about project A down the street, there is such skepticism regarding government in general. I
was surprised at how leery people were about how all this was happening. Whatever we
pursue, and perhaps at this point maybe some more research about options is appropriate.
• We have to be overly cautious about how this new conceptual review process is reviewed and
communicated and then ultimately how it is used because we could have some developers
thinking that by going through this they are getting this input and it is going to help their
program; and if it is appropriately given input they could still find out that they have to do a
180 on some things and be disappointed by the time they come before us. It is a slippery slope
but I do see some of the value that you put out there and has been discussed. There is some
fine tuning that needs to be done before decisions are made.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said conceptually he liked the idea of having this session; but did not feel he had a good
enough understanding of the issue of public noticing and creating two hearings to render an
intelligent decision on it.
• Another avenue to look at is there some way to use the study sessions which are already in
place to do something along the lines to allow us to try this out and see; use study sessions
more aggressively to do something similar to allow that feedback and do something on a trial
basis, or just be more aggressive about telling developers about that too; as an avenue to get
some kind of early feedback.
Chair Miller:
• Said that his suggestion was to direct staff to respond to the questions asked, and bring them
back to the Commission. The suggestion to focus on using the study sessions may be process
improvement.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that would be appropriate.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 8, 2008
Com. Brophy:
• Suggested giving Mr. Piasecki the opportunity to consider discussing with his staff the process
and come back with recommendations.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Said she felt the study session process already in place could be used to accomplish the
objective being discussed.
Suggested a subset of two Commissioners, one senior and one junior Commissioner; not
certain if a Council member needs to be included at that point if it is talking about conceptual
fit in the neighborhood.
Said she had mixed feelings because although she understood its advantages, she felt there was
already process in place. It should be an optional process, not mandatory.
Chair Miller:
Said there was a consensus for asking staff to spend more time on the issue and bring it back to
the Planning Commission. He summarized the questions to be addressed:
• Should it be mandatory or voluntary;
• Should we use a process that is already in place that isn't being used today, the study session
process, make it more visible; is there some way we can adjust that process to make it
more effective;
• What is the makeup of the committee;
• What is the interaction with the community or how is it noticed or not noticed;
• What will the cost be;
• Estimated frequency, looking ahead through the year projects that are known to be coming
m;
• How to define major, what are the parameters of it;
• What is the criteria for actually triggering this;
• Any issues around public perception and how that is managed and considered;
• Whether it makes sense to have specific guidelines for the Commissioners or Council
members in terms of what is the acceptable approach to interacting with the developer and
any one else who attends.
Steve Piasecki:
Said that the Brown Act specifies that if it is a meeting of a standing committee, it is a public
meeting, whether a study session or not. Not everyone has to be noticed again, which is where
the danger creeps in and the applicant may feel he is being dragged down when he is not
prepared. If your objectives are to give them the benefit of the early input of Commissioners
and Council members who have been through many of these things, you wouldn't necessarily
invite everybody else to give their early input because they will have their opportunity. The
plan may evolve quite a bit as a result of that discussion.
Chair Miller:
• I would hope that we make a process improvement; I would also suggest that we recommend
something on a trial basis if we do decide to go ahead and that we try it and see how it works
or not works and I would also want, time permitting, if staff could find some other examples of
other cities that are using a similar process, and what their experience is and learn from that, to
make ours more effective for us.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said he would report at the next meeting an appropriate date to bring the issue back to the
Planning Commission.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 April 8, 2008
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting; also the next meeting is cancelled.
Mayor's Monthly MeetinE with Commissioners:
Chair Miller reported:
• The Arts Commission has an art piece at the former Santa Barbara Grill site and one will be on
the former Any Mountain site as soon as landscaping is complete.
• The Communications Commission reported that there will be more applications for cell
towers; because the cell tower companies are getting so much resistance, they are going to
Sacramento in an effort to have some legislation put in place to bypass the cities.
• Comcast was not meeting their service levels and the city needs to do something about that.
• Public Safety talked about putting more radar speed signs up throughout the city.
• Library is conducting fundraising; Flint Center is donating tickets to Chicago on May 31S` to
help library fund raising.
• Housing Commission have increased the amount of money they are willing to give to a teacher
to help purchase housing; up to $100K per teacher.
• Teen rep reported that because of the inconvenient location of the sports center, some schools
in the district are not using the facility.
• Parks and Rec is considering the issue of a dog park in the city.
• The Mayor reported that the City finances are in sound shape and there are sufficient funds to
weather a downturn.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Steve Piasecki briefly discussed the positive feedback received about the cherry blossom
display on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for Apri122, 2008 at 6:45 p.m.
~ ~
Respectfully Submitted: ~~
Elizabeth ' ,Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: May 13, 2008