PC 10-11-04
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
OCTOBER II, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
The Planning Conunissionmeeting of October 11,2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City
Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Tagbi Saadati.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the September 13,2004 Planning Commission Study Session:
Vice Chair Wong:
Page 4, 2nd paragraph, Line 2: change "20, 8 feet" to read "28 feet".
Same line, change "20 feet" to read "28 feet"
Com. Giefer:
Page 2, S'h bullet Com. Giefer: last line: delete "an 8" and insert "a"
Page 3, Com. Giefer, 1" bullet, Line 2: insert "of' after "understanding"
Page 4: Com. Giefer, 2nd bullet: insert "and approve" after "review"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the
September 13, 2004 Study Session minutes as amended. Chairperson Saadati
abstained. (Vote: 4-0-1)
Minutes of the September 13,2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve the
September 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
Chair Saadati abstained. (Vote: 4-0-1)
Planning Connnission Minutes
2
October I ¡, 2004
Minutes of the September 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Chen: Page 1, Roll Call: Second reference to "Gilbert Wong" should read "Angela
Chen"
Chair Saadati: Page 9, 4th bullet from bottom of page: delete "elevation front" and replace
with "front elevation"
Com. Giefer: Page 7, first line: Insert "I" before "suggest"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the
September 27, 2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Saadati reported that an e-mail was received and
would be discussed under Old Business: Planning Conunission Procedures For Public Hearing.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
MCA2003-02
(EA-2002-19)
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
(RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 27,2004 Planning
Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not
scheduled.
Mr. Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reported that the staff report contains version 2 of the model ordinance based on comments
from the last meeting.
. Page 6, highlighted the new language; the first part is that the combination of the two side yard
setbacks are going to add up to 15 feet, as was agreed upon at the last meeting. The second
part at the end of the page refers to certain cases where property may have more than two side
lot lines and may be an odd shape; the last part states that whatever setback is used on one
side, has to be used on all the sides between the front and the rear.
· Reviewed other modifications staff recommended to clean up the ordinance: Page 18: RI-e
ordinance Eichler zone; there is a section that is deleted because it talks about wall offsets not
being required in RI-e there will not be wall offsets, so you don't need that language. What
was added was referring to the visible wall height regulation as a guideline in the RI-e district
and that is because the roof pitches in the Eichler zone are going to be so low that it is going to
be hard to meet that rule. It is recommended to save the guidelines so it is enforced as a
regulation. Another option could be because it is so unlikely that you will be unable to meet
this rule in the Eichler zone that it could be waived.
· Page 19, Section J: is rewording; the intent is not to change anything in the existing wording,
but to clean it up; this is for the RI-a zone, which is the Lynwood Acres neighborhood; they
Planning Commission Minutes
3
October II, 2004
have a requirement that all two story development has to be approved by the DRC so all that is
changed is the reference to the section and the reference to the finding.
· Page 21: There is a large section at the end that is crossed out, staff is recommending that it be
removed because the RI noticing procedure matches what the Lynwood Acres neighborhood
agreed to, there is no need to have the language in there; it is repetitive. With that unless there
are other things that staff missed, based on the last meeting, staff is recommending that the
Conunission recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and the model resolution based
on the latest version of Exhibit L
Com. Miller:
· Asked staff to clarify Page 1-7, 19.28.060 under b, floor area ratio, Item No.3.
Mr. Gilli:
· An interior area that has a height of 16 feet and that is floor to roof rafters, is counted as floor
area; if it is a two story house it is counted as second story area; if it is a one story house, it is
counted as first story area. If it is a one story house, it is counted twice, but not counted as a
second story addition. If there is already a second floor, that is already a floor that has been
counted.
Com. Miller:
· Under design guidelines, the design guidelines were put into the ordinance, there is a minor
conflict in terminology; he asked staff to clarify.
· Page 1-4, Purpose, No. C, and Page 1-7, Design Guidelines la.; Page 1-15, 19.28.075, B3,
there are three different ways of describing this; he suggested reducing it to one way;
preference "that it is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" and
dispense with the details shown in Section 19.28.060c which goes into a lot more detail.
. Said to him harmonious means that you can have different kinds of construction or forms but
they give a pleasing effect; and his preference is that they leave it and take words such as
"compatible" and getting into the details of eave heights which has created a lot of discussion
in terms of whether it should be II feet or 12 feet or something of that nature; and this kind of
change would give more flexibility.
· Noted that on the matrix, although four conunissioners voted to eliminate story poles, the
wording in the boxes suggest story poles; the wording spends more time on the minority
opinion rather than the majority opinion. He suggested that the wording be changed to reflect
his comments in the minutes of the last meeting.
Com. Giefer:
· Said it is not clearly discussed when a variance is needed; asked if it should be added, or
because as an example, if someone wants to go over 45% FAR, and it is allowed for whatever
reason, that requires a variance.
· Said she did not see the language that talked about that trigger, and questioned if it should be
added or was it covered somewhere else.
Mr. Gilli:
· At this point the ordinance treats a house that is over 45% as a house that doesn't meet a
setback; it is just an exception process. In order to do that, the variance process would have to
explicitly state that exceptions don't apply to a particular rule and that a variance is necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
October II, 2004
Com. Giefer:
. Would that be one currently that we would provide and ask someone to get a variance for if we
did allow them to go over 45%.
Mr. Gilli:
. Currently the process for going over 45% is the same as the process for having a larger second
story; it is just an exception.
Com. Giefer:
· Referred to Page 14, 19.28.076, Section B regarding noticing, and said there was no reference
to the notification by both first class mail and e-mail, which was agreed to.
Mr. Gilli:
· Explained that when people are notified of a proposed project, staff doesn't always have their
e-mail addresses at that point; the concept is when they are mailing the notice out saying that
there is a project, it would only be by first class mail. Later, Section D, Notice of Action states
that the people will be notified by first class mail and e-mail, if they have provided their e-mail
address.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked how the implementation of the boards used for posting the second story would be
handled. He noted that the City of Palo Alto rents the boards out to property owners if needed.
Mr. GiIli:
· Referred to the Randy Lane property owner who put up a notice board; and said the property
owner was able to locate a board and post the materials without too much trouble.
· Said at this point, he did not think that the city would provide them; but if problems occurred,
they could consider doing it without having it included in the ordinance.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Regarding design review guidelines, Mr. Piasecki mentioned that we might still need
prescriptive descriptions, pictures or will they be needed at all.
Mr. Gilli:
· For the concept of graphical representations of all these rules, the plan is we will try to make
as many of them as possible, they will be included in the handout, but we will not make it part
ofthe actual ordinance.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agreed, and asked that when it is made into a handout, that the Planning Conunission review
that as policy.
Mr. Gilli:
· EXplained the appeal process: Using the two story residential permit as an example, Section
D, Page 15, is the notice of action, which states that everybody participating is going to be
notified; any interested party may appeal except that the Planning Conunission will make the
final action on the appeal.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
October 11, 2004
· The appeals process for minor residential pennits, has the same language except it is C
instead of D, but with the same paragraph. The final appeal will be the Planning
Commission.
· The flow chart can be included in the application form.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Said she was surprised at the number of proposed changes for RI because of the size of the
document and the number of strikeouts and replacement of text, which is a compilation of the
last four months.
· Cautioned that RI is a fine document as it stands, and sees no reason to change it.
· Believes that the retention of story poles, as evidenced by public input the last several weeks,
is very important.
· Opposed to increasing the proposed second story to 800 square feet; if it is being proposed
she asked that there be an addition to that statement in the RI document stating that for
RSOOO properties, it be kept at 600 square feet because of the negative impact to the
neighborhood with the very small lots. The sensitivity should be kept for the neighborhood.
· The 800 square feet is a very large second story and does not work well in some
neighborhoods in Cupertino.
· The second story setbacks should be retained, and if the documents are trimmed, there should
be strong adequate wording in the document to protect what has been kept by the current RI
document since 2000.
· Suggested that different colored documents be sent out when they are noticing residents; she
noted that the County sends out different colored ones.
· Keep the RI in tact.
Mark Burns, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors:
· Said they were working hard on "reasonably compatible and harmonious" but emphasized that
they were trying to make these neighborhoods great for everyone and there is a tight set of
rules for RI now; making it hard for both homeowners and families here and developers to try
to improve the neighborhoods.
· When we talk about reasonably compatible, sometimes reasonably compatible means keeping
the neighborhood with the same 50 year old style without a lot of modern upgrades, and I am
sure a lot of people would like to see their neighborhoods improve; because neighborhoods go
through cycles and they generally improve most of the time, sometimes there are declines but
you would like to see them improve so I would like to emphasize that we don't necessarily
keep some neighborhoods where they are, instead we allow homeowners more room to
improve the neighborhoods, improve the way the homes look. There are a lot of families who
would like to do something better to their house when they have an opportunity.
· Said in his opinion, the RI rule presently is not a 35/65 rule where 35% upstairs and 65%
downstairs; it is a 75/25 rule; 75% downstairs and 25% upstairs; it is simple to work out
because the way the RI is written it says that the upstairs can only be 35% of the size of the
downstairs. With simple algebra, it pencils out to 74.9 and 25.1 %, resulting in a likeness of a
small head on a large body. Also, unless you have a large lot of 10,000 square feet or more, it
requires when you rebuild a house or build a new house, that you have an upstairs with either
a very nice large master bedroom, or perhaps one or two small bedrooms, but not a master
bedroom and two bedrooms for children. This is not conducive to family living; people would
like to have their children on the same floor and we see a lot of that going on, there is more
Planning Conunission Minutes
6
October 11, 2004
and more demand for family housing so the family can be together and not have one master
suite upstairs and the remainder of the bedrooms downstairs.
· He suggested the Planning Conunission refer to the tapes of the meetings where former Com.
Mahoney said 6 or 7 years ago, that it needs to be 35% total FAR upstairs and 65% total
downstairs, which would give the right ratios to build reasonably proportionate houses that are
attractive and not something that only a 'l4 of it is upstairs and % downstairs, with the pinhead
on the large body. That would make a great difference in improving the quality of the
neighborhoods, the way the neighborhoods look, and give builders the freedom to build the
houses that buyers are demanding in Cupertino.
Kwon-Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive:
· Supports the changes to the ordinance.
· Changes are a step in the right direction; the old ordinance was too restrictive particularly on
the setback requirement and also the flexibility in the design.
· In the last meeting Corns. Miller and Wong recommended that for the level II large home the
prospective rendering be black and white; said he did not think there were any changes to the
proposal and wanted the conunissioners to reconsider that to change the rendering to black and
white.
· Said he visited Randy Lane and the posted hand drawn renderings clearly indicated what the
house would look; and he did not feel that a colored rendering would give any additional
information but would incur additional headaches for the homeowner.
· Asked if the property owner could change the color choice once it is posted; and whether or
not the owner would have to go to another hearing to get the color approved.
· Urged the conunissioners to reconsider that.
Mr. GilIi:
· Clarified that the issues of colors and materials are part of what is reviewed at the DRC at this
time, and would still be reviewed if they go to a new process.
· He said that going from a light gray to a darker gray would not be a problem; but changing
from a light gray to a bright orange could require that the approval be amended. Having the
color on the board unless there is some evidence that it is a significant cost, according to an
architect consulted, would be an insignificant amount. Unless there is information that it is
costly, the addition of color only adds to the effective noticing and it is not going to tie them
100%; it would take an extreme change in order to have to amend the approval.
Yvonne Hampton, Oakview Lane:
· Expressed concern about color control from the city.
· Said her home is painted a giddy yellow color and although some neighbors snickered,
laughed and asked questions about their choice of color, they painted it in their choice of color
and feel that the city should not decide what color a homeowner can paint their own home as
they are not a gated community.
· If the city keeps itself flexible in its plans and directives to homeowners, they are less likely to
get entangled in issues such as the present one.
· They have gone through changes in their home and have become an extended family living
together, but have had the capacity to add onto their home and it has worked out well for them.
· Many of the old homes are not big homes; people want bigger homes and as a speaker pointed
out, when you have spent a lot of money to move into this area, and you have a home 50 years
old, you should be able to make the necessary changes.
· Under the present regulations, their home would not be compatible with present family needs.
Planning Commission Minutes
7
October 11, 2004
· It is wise for a city to look to the future with understanding of the past so that someone doesn't
put a space age home in the middle of a rustic neighborhood; that is the purpose of guidelines.
· Make sure we are mendly to each other but not forced to put on a 35% upstairs when we really
need 3 bedrooms and a master bedroom to support our family.
Roy Hampton:
· Supports the proposed changes. One concern is that the RI-a is specifically for Lynwood;
asked if it could be applied to other areas such as Monta Vista because his lot is 10,000 square
feet, but he would not want to be in an Rl-a category.
· Said the flexibility is good; and commented that the more you expand on the first floor, in his
case they do have opportunity to expand on their first floor and not violate the lot
requirements, but it would be better if they could expand more on the second floor, still
respecting their neighbors and save more of their lot and their trees, since they have many trees
on their lot.
· The more you force the ratio to be bigger on the bottom and smaller on the top, the more you
force the homeowner into taking down trees and shrubs and things that are existing on some of
the larger lots such as theirs.
· Said he concurred with his wife's other comments also.
Mr. GiIli:
· Said that RI-a is not going to be applied to any neighborhood that does not come forward and
ask for it; it is not an issue for a large lot, it will be in that zone.
· If the home is in the Rl zone now, it will stay there unless a long process is undertaken.
Rhoda Fry, San Fernando Ave.:
· Said she would like the Plall1Úng Conunission to be more empowered to encourage
outstanding architecture in Cupertino and do design reviews for all second story homes;
preferably all homes.
· Said she was in favor of story poles, and provided costs of story poles in different cities,
stating that the costs were minimal costs for a project running between $700,000 and $1.5
million, and also something that will last for generations and is going to impact the look and
feel of the city.
· Why is it that other cities have attractive architecture and Cupertino does not? From what I can
tell, the current rules allow the property owner to build a small second story without a design
review, which means you can build something pear shaped without a design review or pinhead
or all these other descriptions, without adhering to anything that I have seen that resemble
great American architecture such as Greek revival, Victorian and craftsman homes. Design
reviews may take more time, but I think it is more than worthwhile because it will shape the
look for our city and generations to come.
· Please toss out the percent rules and do more design reviews.
Susan Louie, Woodbury Drive:
· Supports not requiring the residents to put up story poles when they have additions because
they are dangerous because they stay on top of the roof and may cause leakage.
· Some people may feel that $3,000 to $5,000 for story poles is a fraction of the budget, but it is
part of someone's limited budget; therefore the city moving to use a board to display the actual
look of the house instead of story poles would make it easier to envision what the house would
look like, since the location of the windows, number of stories, etc. would be visible.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
October 11, 2004
Com. Chen:
· Said in the past months they have worked hard with extra study sessions to come up with this
rule, and she appreciates the public input; it is divided into two parts and some people want the
rules to be more restrictive, and some want them to be more relaxed for different reasons.
· The Planning Conunission's role is to create a vision based on the need of the community and
also to try to protect the homeowners and property owners as well.
· The efforts that staff and the conunissioners put in and the public input provided has helped
create this set of rules that is much more relaxed than before; it provides the flexibility for a
reasonably good design and also protects the neighborhood for other property owners who
want to maintain the city in a different look.
· She thanked everyone for helping develop the Rl ordinance, and staff particularly for working
so hard in the past few months to develop this rule. She said she supported the RI ordinance
change; and will make the recommendation to City Council and hopes for support from all the
conunissioners.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, to approve the negative declaration
and model resolution.
Com. Giefer:
· Reiterated her concem that throughout the process there was limited public input.
· Said this meeting was one of the better attended meetings; the meetings were well attended at
kickoff; then the community survey was done asking what people thought of the current
second story to fIrst story ratio. She said she was aware. that she was the only conunissioner
who was still concerned about that, but it is because of the lack of data and the lack of input.
· Suggested that they separate the second story ratio; and stated for the record her concem.
· Said she supported the document and agreed with Com. Chen; they have done a lot of work;
there are many good things in the new RI, but reiterated her concern about the lack of public
input in general; and the one data point ÍÌ'om a large majority of residents indicates that they
don't favor increasing the second story ratio.
· She agreed that they have to show vision and leadership within the community.
Com. Miller:
· Former Conunissioner Mahoney originally intended when he was on the Planning
Conunission, that the second story would be up to 50% of the first story, which gives you the
1/3 - 2/3 ratio that Mark Burns talked about; and also by using the daylight plane that Palo
Alto uses, it allows further fleJÓbility in terms of designing of that second story and how the
ratios of the fIrst story and the second story fit together.
· Said he felt they have added a lot of flexibility, and will hopefully eliminate the need to make
an unusually large first story in order to get a decent amount of space to have living on the
second story.
· He noted there were some incompatibilities in the wording of the text, and opted for one that
gives more flexibility to allow for, as a number of speakers said, changing neighborhoods or
what could be called transitional neighborhoods, where the houses are reaching the end of their
useful life and it makes sense to rebuild them.
· He said the last thing they would we want to do is to force the people who are rebuilding to
match something that was done 50 years ago. He said he felt the language in one part of the
document where it talks about harmonious scale and design was a lot more open and flexible
than some of the other areas, and would hope that his fellow conunissioners would support
that change in the document.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
October 11, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commented to Com. Giefer that the process began two years ago, and it was sent to the City
Council and because there were a lot of concems, and was sent back.
· Said he believed with the public input that was done with the surveys as well as the study
sessions for about six months, and a lot of compromises as well, it is a fine document. He
commended staff, particularly Peter Gilli for taking the time and especially communicating
with him.
· Believes that putting the boards in front will provide improved noticing; story poles are costly
and there are safety factors involved with their installation. He said he felt the noticing was
sufficient, and story poles were not necessary.
· By incorporating the design guidelines into the ordinance is also moving in the right direction,
as well as increasing the ratio from the second to fIrst floor, that will give more flexibility.
. He said many speakers talked about extended families in one home and the fact that some
people wanted to live in a bigger house.
· Agreed with Com. Miller that the intent of the ordinance was to address mass and bulk, and
said he would like to see the document discussed more about addressing mass and bulk vs.
design, which could be addressed through staff.
Motion seconded by Vice Chair Wong.
Chair Saadati:
· Following Com. Miller's comment regarding the transitional neighborhood, he said there is
flexibility for people to change their home and that has been evident by building two story
homes in one story neighborhoods. He said he felt that has changed and the ordinance will
change it more and provide more flexibility relative to the design aspects.
. Echoed other conunissioners' comments and thanked the public for their input; added they
have been working on the item for quite some time, including many study sessions which the
public attended, although they wished more people would have attended; there was ample of
advertising and noticing for the meetings.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Said if his colleagues agreed, taking into consideration one of the public comments made, a
minor amendment would be to make everything generic in black and white; and secondly was
Com. Miller's suggestion of stressing the mass involved vs. design.
Com. Chen:
· Said she would agree to change the language to focus more on the mass and bulk, but was not
in favor of changing the rendering from color to black and white; said she felt it was not a
change; but what they were requiring everybody to do at this current point. By changing the
design review process they gain a lot of time already; and her position is that providing the
service to the neighbors is not too much to ask for.
Com. Giefer:
. Agreed with Com. Chen that the color adds benefit and helps one's neighbors visualize more
what the project will look like.
· Relative to the language changes proposed by Com. Miller; she said they do mean different
things in the sections he pointed out; and she would not support the language change.
Planning Conunission Minutes
10
October 11, 2004
Chair Saadati:
. Said he favored the color rendering in lieu of the story poles; the added cost is insignificant
compared to the benefits of the color renderings.
· Mass and bulk --a little more language ITom the staff would likely clarity it.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he would withdraw the black and white rendering and incorporate Com. Miller's
suggestion of mass and bulk vs. design.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified the correct sequence to follow regarding the motion, second and amendment.
Second: Com. Miller
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the first amendment was the suggestion that Com. Miller had that you substitute
the language in that second section with the broader language that he preferred.
Mr. Gilli:
· Summarized that Com. Miller proposed to strike 19.28.060 C.l.a; "That the mass and bulk of
the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern, new
construction.... and entry feature heights."
Mr. Piasecki:
. Summarized Com. Miller's suggestion, for Section 19.28.050 which discusses minor
residential permits, and use the language from there that says "the proposed proj ect is
harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" which is much broader
wording.
Mr. Gilli:
· Stated that what created a lot of the uproar about the guidelines was that they were too vague
and too generalized, and this is specific language in the current guidelines and current
ordinance.
· Also without further study of the implications, staff is not certain they would support having it
removed.
Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Giefer voted No.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to propose to separate the
second story ratio from the overall Rl document and vote on that separately; in
lieu of voting on it as a whole within the document.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that she supported the work done; all have worked very hard, but she is concerned that
they have one public data point to the contrary of what there is; the meetings have not been as
well attended as she would have liked thern to be, which is the reason to separate out that one
point, so that she can show her support for the overall document and make the point with just
the ratio of the first to second floor, which is the reason she is proposing it.
Planning Conunission Minutes
II
October 11, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained there was a motion to first vote on that aspect ofthe ordinance. and there is a second
to the motion; you simply can vote on it, you could either vote to approve it as it is, or if it
should not be approved as is, then you need to discuss what you would substitute in there
instead; but the first part of it is back to the main motion which was 'should it remain at the
50% of the first floor as you have discussed up to this point'.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commented that serving two years on the DRC, he noticed many applicants have been
frustrated not having to get three bedrooms, a HJaoter beàreem, a bathrßßffi aaà like a master
bedroom suite, a bathroom in the hallway and 2 bedrooms upstairs; that is because of the
35% to second first FAR. With a family of four, if building a second story they would be
forced to have one of the bedrooms downstairs, or parents would be sleeping downstairs and
the children upstairs.
· Said he recently pulled a building permit and decided to build a one story home; but for the
overall community if they wanted to build a two story home, it would be easier for them to
build it higher; and it allows more flexibility.
· The Planning Conunission has put in a lot of hard work during the past 6 to 9 months, staff has
been supportive of this 50% to second FAR, and he urged his colleagues to keep the 50%.
Com. Miller:
· From a procedural standpoint, we have all taken sides on a number of issues, and we are not
agreeing with everything in this document, and to single out this one thing, we could probably
point to something we would like to single out and do the same issue with.
· It was a team effort and we compromised on a number of things and we have admittedly a
compromised document, and we should pass that on and not single out one thing for special
attention.
Com. Chen:
· Of all the points we discussed in the past 9 months, this is probably the one discussed the
most. We talked about flexible design; dealing with mass and bulk; maintaining the
community as it is now; and we also talked about what can be done to accommodate a larger
family size and what can be done during the transition of changing from older house to newer
house, older families to large and young families; and talked about daylight plane and
maintaining it at 35%. Also talked about increase to 50%; tonight people were talking about
throwing out percentage and just deal with it based on design.
· There are different inputs and different points of view and I think this is a good compromise at
this point; 50% gives a little more room to address the design and you can choose not to go up
to that height if it is a perfect design or you don't need that space.
· Supports the document as it is now.
Chair Saadati:
· We have discussed all these items and prior to this meeting I did not hear strong opposition to
that, to some extent there was some concern but it wasn't such that it brought us to this point.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that a YES vote on the motion would be to retain it as it is, although the motion was
to break it out, and a NO vote would be to change it.
· The substance is to break it out and to discuss it first' a YES vote would be to support leaving
it as it is, and a NO vote would mean I want something else, and then you could have a
Planning Commission Minutes
12
October II, 2004
discussion about what something else would be shouldn't there be enough NO votes; now
YES would be to support it.
· Reiterated Com. Giefer's motion was to pull it out and vote separately on the 50% rule; so all
you are voting on is if you support leaving it as is you would vote YES; if you do not want to
leave it as is, then you would vote NO. If you want 50%, you would vote YES. It allows
Com. Giefer to go on record as opposing it if that is what she chooses, and the Council can see
she wanted to change it, and the remainder of the conunission mayor may not.
Amended motion:
Motion by Com. MiIIef' Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong.
(Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain).
Com. Giefer:
· Said she abstained because of her concern stated earlier that the public thinks either they are
doing a tremendous job and that is why they are not coming; or they have given up and they
don't think their comments are appreciated when they attend the meetings.
· In her professional opinion, the data collected in the survey, is viable data and she said she
wished they had got more public input àüÅftg through the process; it would have alleviated
her concems that were brought up during the data. She emphasized it was not her personal
opinion, but her opinion based upon the proceedings throughout the summer months to
present; and it greatly influenced her decision, the information collected earlier.
· She said she felt the Council meeting would be well attended, with people who have strong
opinions about the issue.
OLD BUSINESS
2. Planning Commission Procedure for Public Hearings.
Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the revisions made to the Planning Conunission agenda cover sheet, and asked for
endorsement of the Planning Conunission. He noted that any suggestions would be considered
for the final version.
Com. Chen:
· Noted for the record that relative to receiving negative comments from the public on general,
not specific items, she asked that the public focus more on issues and not particular persons.
She reiterated the role of the Planning Conunission is to collect public input and make their
decisions and recommendations to City Council and she would appreciate it if the input
focused on issues, not persons.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Robert McKibbin:
· Commented on the procedure for public hearing iterns, stating that it lists the outline in regards
to the Chair introducing the application, etc.
· Noted that in the Cupertino Scene it mentioned the city had Helen Putman Awards that were
for two items; both of them dealt with the staff reaching out to the citizens for public
participation in these areas.
· Expressed concern that the three minutes allotted per speaker was not adequate time for them
to express their opinions and speak on the item.
Planning Conunission Minutes
13
October 11, 2004
· He said that one of the reasons the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino group is angry, is they do
not feel they have adequate participation in the process. He urged the Planning Commission
and City Council to open up the process especially when it includes a large development.
· People are frustrated because they see what happened at the comer of DeAnza and Stevens
Creek where there is a large development without public input into the process; the same thing
is occurring across the street from Vallco Shopping Center; there have been two approvals for
development there with uùnimum outreach to the citizens of Cupertino and a third one going
on now.
· A stealth meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and the developers
was held at Blackberry Farm away from the TV cameras; the citizens of Cupertino were
frustrated because they felt totally left out of the process.
· There needs to be better outreach to the citizens of Cupertino. Several of the conunissioners
mentioned today about how it is inadequate at this point and that is one of the reasons there are
about 5,000 citizens who signed 3 petitions to have amendments to the General Plan placed on
the election ballot.
· It is the tip of the iceberg; people are fed up and frustrated with the present process. They are
really looking for the Conunission and City Council to step out of this format of public hearing
and basically include the citizens in outreach programs where there are community meetings
held for the major developments. It would go a long way to reduce some of the frustration seen
in the city.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the three uùnute rule is to allow everyone to speak, with the intent of allowing
people to condense what they want to say. There is also the opportunity to send in written
communications; and there are usually multiple hearings to speak to the Planning Conunission
and City Council at. The developers are strongly encouraged to have meetings with
neighborhoods before they come to public hearings.
· Before the community becomes wound up about something, the City Council wants the
applicant to get the project to a point worthy of going into a public hearing process, which is
what the study session format is used for. The applicant is urged to hold their own community
meetings, talk to the residents, find out their concerns and issues, and amend their plan as
appropriate and then there will be the public hearing process on top of it.
· It is purposely multi-layered to provide many opportunities for input, and people may not be
aware of that as a rule so they come in at one point and think all they have is three uùnutes to
talk; when in fact there are many opportunities.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to address the concerns regarding noticing; previous study sessions and hearings
and the present meeting did not have high public attendance, which is a legitimate concern
regarding noticing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The City Council feels a better job needs to be done about reaching out to the public, which
would include for major projects a mailer to every household, and also look into the feasibility
of creating a list serve for persons wanting to know about all development activity in the
community; a list serve electronically where they would sign up with their own e-mail address
and they would get all the notices on everything or major projects.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
October 11, 2004
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to approve new
public hearing procedures recommended by staff. Vote: 5-0-0
NEW BUSINESS
2. Proposed General Plan hearing schedule.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the General Plan hearing schedule as outlined in the staff report including
community meetings, Planning Conunission meetings and City Council meetings to be held
through June 2004.
· Reviewed the public notification process and schedule for the community meetings and public
hearings.
· Said they would do other kinds of outreach as well; it was suggested that they make it known
to civic groups and conduct presentations if desired by those groups.
· Purpose of the Planning Conunission study session would be to have discussion with the
Planning Conunission about the process and also to get an overview of some of the issues
before going out to the community meetings.
· Community meetings provide the opportunity for the community to have an overview of the
whole General Plan at the Council direction to focus on the hot topics and to get their input
that would be brought forward to the public hearings.
· The public hearing schedule was suggested to do it by elements of land use, circulation, etc.
and at Council direction that other Conunissions who fit into those categories would meet with
you on those categories.
· Said the task tonight is for the Planning Conunission to recommend a schedule to the City
Council; suggestions will be taken, and there will be the opportunity to discuss it further at the
October 26th study session if scheduled.
· Said that the Public Information Officer will be prepared to do press releases to the
newspapers, such as the Courier, San Jose Mercury News Guide, World Journal, etc.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he did not see the Parks and Recreation Conunission included on the Planning
Conunission public hearings for next year; and wanted to ensure they were included.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was an issue that could be included in the discussion at the October 26th meeting. She
said presently it is just the conunissions who are key to the hot topics; if the decision is to have
more conunissions involved, that is acceptable.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Discussed schedule of meetings and ability to televise the meetings for the public; requested
that the October 26th Planning Conunission meeting be televised so that it could be broadcast
at a later date or viewed on the website. Stressed the importance of getting the introduction of
the General Plan out to the public.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that the City Channel would not be televising the October 26th meeting because of
the transition to the new council chambers.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
October 11, 2004
· Could have a stand up camera as suggested by Vice Chair Wong, but part of the concern is that
the staff is working almost 24 hours a day to get the transition done to the new location.
Discussed ensued regarding whether to schedule the October 26'" meeting at 5:00 p.m. or 6:45
p.m. Chair Saadati said that he preferred the procedural be informal at an earlier time.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agreed with Com. Miller that starting at 5 p.m. many people are just getting off work and the
objective is to have an open transparent meeting so that the general public can see what is
happening. In order to allow time for people to attend, it would more appropriate to schedule
the meeting as a regular meeting.
Mr. Piasecki:
· A large part of it is the procedural matters, what is the best way of communicating this
information, how should we go about doing that, and then the component of introduction to
what the General Plan says; perhaps the appropriate way is to do the introduction of the Plan in
the regular meeting and do the procedural matters in the pre-meeting.
Com. Miller:
· Said Vice Chair Wong had a good point although a lot of the criticism, which was heard again
tonight, is there is a perception that it is not as open to the public as it could be; there is
nothing to hide, and making it more open and more public is from the community standpoint, a
good thing.
· We are not sure that we don't have participation because there is a TV audience out there and
some of the speakers have been indicating they have been following the meetings on TV and
they come down after a number of meetings.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Suggested that if calendars are available, November 15th and Dec. 6th or 7th from 7 p.m. to 9
p.m., if staff is available for the two community meetings at the community hall.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that one of the objectives was to hold the meetings geographically around the city; which
is the reason they wanted to do west of Highway 85 at the Quinlan Center because it was
closer to residents who live west of Highway 85.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern about a December 6th meeting date; as people would be thinking about the
upcoming winter holidays and events. She said she would prefer to have both meetings before
Thanksgiving.
Following a brief discussion, November 15th and December 6th at 7 p.m. were selected as meeting
dates.
Ms. Wordell:
· The community meetings would be informal on the whole General Plan, and early input, in
contrast to the public hearings which are more formal and by topic.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
October 11, 2004
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
o Com. Chen reported the meeting was cancelled.
HODsinS!: Commission:
o Com. Giefer reported the meeting was postponed until next week.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!!:
o Com. Giefer said she reported on the last Mayor's meeting at the previous Planning
Commission meeting. Com. Miller said he was scheduled to attend the next meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Piasecki reported:
o The Elephant Bar restaurant had a trial opening, still some items to finalize, more hiring, and
will likely open next week for public use.
o Reiterated that there would not be a taped broadcast at the October 26'h meeting, but they
would try to get a shoulder camera and tape for later broadcast. He reported that there would
be no regular taping because of the transition to the new building and the need to move the
equipment to the new site.
o The Planning Commission will be contacted for an orientation for the new community hall
chamber, staff will contact the commissioners for scheduling times. For those who will not be
able to attend the special orientation because of schedule conflicts, there will be an hour
orientation scheduled before the first meeting in the new chambers.
o The new library will open on October 30th; a celebration dinner is scheduled for the 29th
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the October 26, 2004 at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
a.~
lis, Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: October 26, 2004