105-D. Draft PC Minutes of 11-9-10.pdfCupertino Planning Commission 10
ATTACHMENT D
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. Sai it
made sense given the economy to extend a project; this project did get a year extension d if
t ey go above that, the community is giving up something and should receive a be ft in
re . It can be extended for a shorter period of time rather than give up the entire 5 ears.
Com. Gief
• If there sn't an exceptional public benefit, would staff had supported the xtension for 5
years?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Typically, we haveitq1t supported long extensions for projects primariX for this reason because
we don't want to give\sen
approvals; this project has had 3 y rs, an extra 5 would bring
it up to 8. When projeovided public benefit, we try to ake sure it is commensurate
with the size of the pras a nexus around it. We thin the community will be getting
something and so it mto give something to the ap icant.
Chair Brophy:
• Asked Com. Giefer where she stood o rchitectural
Com. Giefer: \
• Said she felt the applicant was supporting the
further development of the project and not
presented with staff s recommendation, e
vote against it.
site approval.
, and therefore she would support the
issues. If they voted on it as it was
ort the project; otherwise she would
Chair Brophy:
• He said he/oval
cerns with e concept of what he sa\nn ng permission, but
understoodapplicant anted to move forward for a. He said he could
support it ise rem ' ed on enhanced public walkw
• He suggestal o the clause "removal of the pork ere is still the right
to considerer nyother relevant enhancements, bage clearly implies
that the poroval is the path they are going in.
Aarti Shrivast• Said staff chat.
Motion: otion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Miller, and unanaimously carrie 5-0-0,
to approve Application M-2010-06, with the removal of the reference ma a 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 April 2010.
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 April 2010, 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.
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
ide Location services and organizational history. Continued fr the May
8, 2010 City Council meeting; Tentative City ouncil date:
February 2011
Chair Brophy note hat the presentation is for discussion purposes only, motions will be made;
discussions will inclu what should be covered and establish a fo public hearing to discuss
what recommended chang will be made.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the Council revie the
Commission as part of the matrix c
where everybody who had gone throe
interested parties in the last five years.
Rodriguez will discuss what input was
the data is, and Piu Ghosh will revie
)cumenta ' n that staff provided the Planning
and t wanted staff to conduct two workshops
th permitting process were noticed as well as
different workshops were held. Consultant Ken
d fr the workshops and what the compilation of
Ken Rodriguez, Consultant:
• Reported on the two wor ops held and applauded staff on t excellent job of documenting
the workshops.
Piu Ghosh, Associa lanner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed th staff report relative to the development process review;�permi
onsulting
Group pr ared a comprehensive analysis of the city's development roe
in
e r 2009; Planning Commission reviewed it in April and May and the Ci c
eviewed the item in May. City Council directed staff to conduct additional outreac
community and sent notices to all property owners, contractors and developers