Loading...
15. ERC pre-view optionCity of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. 1 ~ ' Agenda Date: Tune 2, 2008 ITEM SUMMARY Consider offering an early pre-review option for development proposals and designating the Environmental Review Committee to conduct the early reviews. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve a voluntary pre-review process for applicants and designate the Environmental Review Committee to conduct the reviews. BACKGROUND On April 8, 2008, Chairman Miller appeared at the City Council meeting and suggested that the City Council consider an early review opportunity for decision makers prior to filing of a formal planning application. The concept is that with early review, applicants can be advised of major issues or "deal breakers" when their application is in the conceptual phase and it is easier to change direction. DISCUSSION: The attached staff report to the Planning Commission outlines several approaches that other cities have used to conduct early reviews of development applications. All of the approaches offer the review at the applicant's option and they conduct the review when the application is still in the early conceptual stage often -without specific site or development plans. Only one city offers the review free of charge. The City Council previously conducted study sessions of major development applications. These study sessions became the topic of some controversy as some members of the public perceived that the Council was committing themselves to a particular course of action or view of the application ahead of any public notification or input. Due to that perception the council expanded noticing and refrained from early review by the whole council. The council has authorized another form of "early- review" with major areas through master plans developed in North and South Vallco. The South Vallco process was conducted by a major property owner who is poised to present their own development application. This approach allows individual council and commission members to attend as observers without the perception that they were 15-1 Consider offering an early pre-review option for development proposals and designating the Environmental Review Committee to conduct the early reviews June 2, 2008 ' Page 2 in any way "buying-in' or pre judging the future development project. This concept was well received. In North Vallco there wasri t a major property owner ready to develop and the city undertook the study. Environmental Review Committee {ERC) The ERC gets the first look at development applications and in the course of reviewing the potential environmental impacts and frequently provides advice to developers on "hot-topic' items at the time of the environmental review meeting. The Planning Commission recommends that applicants be given the option of appearing early for a concept review prior to filing the application. This concept review would take place well before the item is ready for environmental review. It has the benefit that the ERC could also identify or comment on "hot topic' environmental concerns as well as general community concerns. This model has the benefit of using an existing committee that includes only one council member and one planning commissioner, leaving the remainder of the commission and council independent of any criticism that they may have offered to the applicant prior to the formal hearings. If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation then staff recommends that the service be offered fox a minimal fee such as $500. Director, Community Development Approved by: ~~~~ David W. Knapp City Manager ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: Minutes from the Planning Commission, May 13, 2008. Exhibit B: Staff report to the Planning Commission, May 13, 2008. 15-2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT NIINUTES 6:45 P.M. MAY 13, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Many Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: 3essica Rose Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer (arrived after roll call) Commissioners absent: Commissioner: David Kaneda Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Brophy, to approve the April 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: 3-0-0; Coms. Giefer and Kaneda absent). WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Community Development Director Steve Piasecki noted written materials related to agenda items. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Deborah Hill, Cupertino resident: • She explained her need to find housing by July 1~` with Section 8 assistance. She provided contact numbers and asked for assistance in finding an apartment in Cupertino. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING• None OLD BUSINESS• None 15-3 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 13, 2008 NEW BUSINESS: 1, Discuss methods to encourage the installation of photovoltaic systems in the City. Chair Miller: • Suggested that the discussion include energy efficiency and sustainability in general. Steve Piasecki: • Noted that the staff report included portions of the policy structure of the General Plan, and provided a brief update on recent Macys and EBay projects. • Said that it was the Commission's call on how they wanted to discuss the issue. The City Council will be discussing the same thing on next Tuesday; they have asked for an update on options for a green building program and sustainability program and a report will be going to them tomorrow; and when it is available to the City Council, staff will make it available to the Planning Commission. Chair Miller: • Said that the issue was included on the agenda to continue the focus and discuss the role of the Planning Commission. • He said he felt it is becoming more imperative that the city show some leadership in this axea as oil prices continue to spike upward. It will become more of a crisis with the combination of higher oil and food prices; in addition to the credit issues, the credit crunch is creating some massive economic changes, and anything they can do as a local government to show some leadership in helping to mitigate some of these things is appropriate at this level. • There are subsidies for solar now from the federal and state government, but it is not clear how long they will last. There is an immediate opportunity and if they don't avail themselves of the opportunity, it will be gone forever. • Most of the subsidies are designed to benefit primarily businesses and also government agencies; it is an appropriate focus as well in terms of anything we can do to encourage the city to evaluate installing solar on their buildings as well as encourage local businesses in town to do the same. • Said the plan was to have a discussion and give staff some guidance in terms of moving forward, particularly after the Council hearing on the 20~' when they are going to discuss it as to what our role should or could be and how could we get prepared for it. • The other reason for pushing it at this time is because the agendas have been very light for the last several meetings. There is a major application coming up next meeting, but it is not clear that our agenda is going to increase substantially over the next couple of months. Vice Chair Giefer: • The cheapest kilowatt you could ever use or ever have is the one you don't use; the one that doesn't have to be built and so part of the discussion I had suggested years ago is discussing how we can set the Rl our building codes to be more energy efficient, there are many things you can do so that your energy demand is down, and it is worthwhile that oil is continuing to rise to discuss how PVs could benefit us and things that we could do to make it more attractive to people as well, and the different types of installations available. Chair Miller: • Reported on his attendance at the recent Akena Solar summit; they discussed ways the city could get directly involved as well as in terms of standardizing the permitting process across multiple cities, streamlining the permitting process and a number of other strategies. 15-4 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 13, 2008 Com. Rose: • Asked Vice Chair Giefer far an update on Cool Cities organization. Vice Chair Giefer: • There are two vendors, one that is already in process and another vendor that is going to be marketing to the city. Cool Cities, is an offshoot of the Sierra Club Organization; and they specifically will offer volume purchase agreements to Cupertino residents. • There have been a number of community meetings; it is a group of community members who are interested in putting solar systems on their homes. The solar federal tax credit expires on December 31g` and the tax credit is for 30% of the cost of the system up to $2,000. The two different companies are marketing to the city of Cupertino to try to organize residents who want to take advantage of a volume purchase rate they are offering. • She said she and Cam. Rose have been with it since it started with the objective of ways that citizens can drive the momentum forward, both through solar initiations as well as other projects, such as stopping waste and water usage. • The city of Cupertino does very well on water, but there is never enough water; water conservation measures in the home when remodeling make sense. Steve Piasecki: • Said he felt the current fee structure for adding solar panels on the roofs of residential and commercial buildings was not an impediment. The City Council adjusted it recently to be compatible with the lower rates in other cities. It is about $300 for a single family home, vs. the expectation that it will cost up to $1,000, as a result they will subsidize those services. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said the Sierra Club did a survey of fees and found that in Santa Clara County specifically, there were some cities charging in excess of $1,000. The acceptable recommended amount by the Sierra. Club for solar installation permit fee processing is about $300; Cupertino is at $325. Some cities are at zero; Saratoga is $95. Com. Rose: • Asked Chair Miller if part of his discussion was around civic buildings and is that something the city is looking at. Chair Miller: • Said he held some discussions with Dave Knapp and Steve Piasecki to some extent and proposed that the city at least start doing an evaluation of whether it is financially viable and beneficial to the city to install solar on city buildings. Staff provided that report and we need a little more information because we need to kaow not only how much the city is spending, but what they are getting for it; how many kilowatt hours so we can do the calculation. He said he would like to invite some companies in to give the city bids on what it would cost and get some further information. Vice Chair Giefer: • Relative to PG&E, annually they asked different cities and municipalities if they have projects that they want to work on and they make the money available to help subsidize those projects through grants. In addition to rebates that would be something I am interested in and have asked staff to look into that because they don't make grants unsolicited so you need to go in and work with them in advance as well. I have also been talking with solar vendors on the city's behalf as well. 15-5 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 13, 2008 Chair Miller: • Reported that he met with the Chamber of Commerce and they agreed to help as far as reaching businesses by providing access to its members so a survey could be done. Also the government affairs person from PG&E was present and it would be a good idea to invite her to come and talk to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said the vendors are proposing volume purchase agreements and they could extend those to commercial clients. Chair Miller: • Suggested inviting those people to came to a Planning Commission meeting. Questioned whether it would be appropriate from staff's point of view if the Commissioners should be involved in qualifying vendors or providing lists or other information about vendors. Steve Piasecld: • Said the City Council will be considering a green person who will be actively involved in everything described. Timing is a problem because you have to authorize the position, recruit and place and they have to get up to speed. • Said it would not necessarily be the Commission that would do the actual interviewing, but they could structure what the program might look like and identify someone who should be contacted and a staff person would take the lead. Chair Miller: Said he was not implying that the Planning Commission should do the interviewing. The question was whether or not staff should do the interviewing and provide a list of qualified vendors; and/or give any vendor the opportunity to meet some kind of standard to make the list that the city would publish. A number of other communities have had these discussions already and have decided on different models in terms of how to do this. Some of them have gone to exclusively one or two vendors and others have gone to opening it up to all vendors. Steve Piasecki: • Suggested that the Commission continue the discussion to the second meeting in June when they would know more about what the Council has directed as a result of next week's meeting and hopefully if they decide to continue it, they may want to have a separate study session. • Reviewed some points already discussed relating to city buildings; the Council in Nov. 07 said that they wanted to see city buildings LEED certified and some of the questions for the Council are going to be to decide whether to proceed with the voluntary green building program with current incentives or voluntary green building program new incentives. • The incentives may include a mandatory green building program, phased in over a period of 12 months or more if the Council desires. Part of that will be an extensive community outreach program if an ordinance is desired; and report back with the results of the outreach and then the Council could consider adopting such an ordinance. • Consider a future study session for more indepth discussion which they may decide to do next week. Decide if other programs should be implemented at this time; sustainability program such as the zero waste program, ban use of plastic bags, solar funding initiative, and set a threshold for city projects to obtain minimum LEED silver rating. When they said that city buildings will be LEED silver, they didn't define the threshold which means a shed has to be LEED silver. He said if they were looking at possibly relocating the traffic operation center at the Villa Serra apartment site, that would likely involve some sheds, therefore make sure that they are buying into whatever those might be. 15-6 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 13, 2008 • That is essentially the decision making the Council will be partaking next week. • Said he has not heard anything inconsistent with the Council. Chair Miller: • In our discussion I think it is appropriate in #hat it is not unprecedented that the Planning Commission sees and talks about issues before the Council; they see applications before the Council does. Another hearing will be set for the second meeting in June. He suggested inviting people to come and talk to the Commission. Steve Piasecki: • Said there were speakers coming to the next City Council meeting at a high cost. Ciddy Wordell has been retained to assist with this and is working with Piu Ghosh to develop the report. He said he would inquire if there were funds available to have a speaker come to the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Miller: • He suggested inviting individuals who could be helpful and don't charge a fee; e.g. the representative from PG&E and perhaps some reps from the major solar companies. • Said he distributed an article about HP's power purchase agreement with Sun Power, as opposed to a financial institution. He said some of the companies would probably be eager to have people speak at the Commission meeting, and appear on public TV. • Let's think about who we can bring in, and also from staff's standpoint what is reasonable or not reasonable in terms of what kind of program from staff s point of view would be effective and worthwhile and make sense for staff to do in terms of an overall comprehensive program. • The Legislative Action Committee discussed doing a survey of businesses to fmd out how they can be encouraged to implement and adopt this technology a little faster and what's impeding them from doing it; is it just the lack of knowledge or is there some other aspect that they don't think about. It is clear that some larger businesses are doing it, the incentives are the same regardless of size of the business. He questioned why the smaller businesses do not consider i# as the larger businesses do. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that HP and Sun Power is a PPA agreement which would be easily extended to commercial customers who have different properties; because there could be one provider that provides the panels, the financing is through financial institutions, a third party institution, but working them together they make that happen and that is easily applicable to the city. Chair Miller: • Said that the solar industry started out a number of years ago during the previous energy crisis and died when energy prices fell and the incentives went away. He said he felt this time was different; energy prices are not likely to fall this time; it is still what a lot of people call the early adopter phase, and it is a phase in which the industry really needs incentives in order to propel it ahead at a faster rate than we would hope adoption normally occurs, given what is happening in the world. • Said when inviting vendors to come to the Planning Commission, they will set specific guidelines for them as to what they are looking for and what they not looking for. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she would like to hear from PG&E, to better understand how they are helping communities such as Cupertino, and how they could help the city move forward. She said she was less interested in hearing from solar vendors; although an independent third party could 15-7 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 13, 200$ talk about different models. They could also Learn what Berkeley did with their bond measure and be informed what a power purchase agreement {PPA) is. Com. Rose: • Suggested inviting a rep from a neighboring city that is a few steps ahead, someone from their staff or Planning Commissioners who would be willing to provide a $ or 10 minute summary of how they got to where they are. Vice Chair Giefer: • Pointed out that the community should be of similar size, because there are some programs that federally Cupertino would not fit because of its. size, such as Sunnyvale or Santa. Clara who are applying for the federal money to move forward. Cupertino would not be eligible for some programs because it is under 100,000 residents and there is a big difference in terms of what might be available based on city size. Chair Miller; • Said that perhaps a vendor might help with discussing how they moved ahead with implementing systems with small businesses; and shed some light on what the challenges are with respect to that. Z. Discussion of the Rl ordinance with respect to first to second floor ratio requirements. Chair Miller: • Said at the last meeting they sent a minute order to the City Council to consider changing the floor to area ratio to address the Vye Avenue issue. The Council decided that rather than make any changes to the ordinance with respect to FAR, they would agree among themselves that the application did not set a precedent. Therefore there was no need to revisit the FAR in general. However, at the same meeting, the Council also decided it was important to revisit the ratio to second story to first story and to ask the Planning Commission to specifically look into that and recommend changes or no changes. Steve Piaseciu: • Said it would be a challenge to keep it contained. • Said that the last time they did the Rl was about 4 years ago; with endless amount of staff time, and they are hoping to be able to do that. Looking at the second floor to first floor ratio opens up the issue of the second story wallplane as well, because if you change one, you have to change the other. You may want to think about a process for those who take advantage of that opportunity, do we need to send those plans to the DRC, notice the neighbors and maybe people need to come up with other creative ways masking the two story wallplane. • There is a process issue there that you might start to focus on those instances where people wish to have a straight up wail. How do they treat it; is there a trellis; is there a canopy roof element that you walk under; there are a lot of ways to soften buildings. I am sure we are going to get input on other aspects of the ordinance, the Planning Commission is going to have to hold the line on that because it will spiral out of control if we are not careful. Chair Miller; • Said he would do his best to contain it just to the issue that the Council has directed them to address. They have addressed taking individual pieces of the ordinance in the past and reviewed them; and he said he felt it was not a different situation. 15-8 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 13, 2008 Steve Piasecla: • Said it is important to refer to this as the second story to first story relationship; it is not about the floor area ratio. FAR remains at 45 and that is not on the table; it is not being discussed. For the public and anyone else participating as this process moves forward, the Council has not authorized a review in FAR. They have also not authorized a revisiting of the setbacks; that is if you have a second story setback relationship to the property line, it is to remain the same. The only issue then is would we allow a higher percentage of the second floor to first floor; part of the thinking is that some people are enlarging their first floor so that the 45% ratio allows them to get 3 bedrooms. upstairs, and they are building more home than is necessary. There is probably some truth to that; we are also tending to get a standard architectural form which may be desirable to many people and that is what the whole hearing is about. The issue is not about the total FAR, it is not about the setbacks; it is only about the relationship of the second floor to the first floor; and how to better address that. Com. Brophy: • Asked if there was any feedback in the last few years from home buyers or home builders as to their sense of how the first floor to second floor ratio number affects the desirability of what is being built or remodeled. Steve Piasecki: • Some people have said they are being forced to increase the first floor, and that is obvious, because if you set a ratio and the relationship is the second floor to the first floor, it would be true that some people would have to enlarge that to get a bigger second floor, that is a valid comment. Other people have said they would like to have greater flexibility in architectural design. You could not build a Victorian or Queen Ann as a rule because they tend to be boxier, even though you could put a lot of gingerbread on them and a lot of jewelry on the building to make it look pretty. Com. Brophy: • Asked how other cities handle the question of first and second floor ratio. Steve Piasecki: • As a rule they don't, they don'# usually have a second floor limit and it came about because they were seeing a lot of straight up second two story homes that many thought were overwhelming. This was intentional to try to provide offsets on the first floor. As a rule, this is not a common thing seen. Chair MiIier: • The issue is not the ratio of the first to second story; it is how to address privacy and the soft concept of mass and bulk. This is the way Cupertino addresses it; Palo Alto has a concept called the daylight plane and that is how they address it. • Asked staff to retrieve from their files the chart used several years ago which listed a number of cities in the area and how they specifically addressed or didn't address this particular issue. Vice Chair Giefer: • One thing that bares review is part of the first to second floor ratio and that has bearing on discussions completed regarding solar. • If you put a solar installation on your home, and your southbound neighbor remodels and adds a second story, they potentially could be blocking your solar panels which you invested in. • Said that as part of the review, changing the codes to support sustainability needs to be included. She suggested a minute order to the Council to include that. discussion because if 15-9 Cupertino Planning Commission May 13, 2008 they are going to spend the time and effort in encouraging the city to move to be more energy independent, they would not want to have the investment an individual is making taken away from them; and she felt they need to be more specific in the Rl about that. Said if she had a southern neighbor that blocked her solar panels, as the owner of the single story home with the solar panels, she would not want to have a two story structure blocking her daylight or trees blocking her daylight. She said she was speaking about a very specific situation if you have existing solar rays on your home and your neighbor comes in for plans. Chair Miller: • Said it was an important discussion, but it was not clear to him that it belongs in the first story or second story ratio. It belongs in perhaps the implementation of solar in residential areas. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that it needs to be in the Rl as well. It is a house structure and there are no building codes that pertain to green building currently. There is an Rl that pertains to the housing form but no ordinance that says here is your green building ordinance. There is a housing form ordinance. Chair Miller: • Said he did not necessarily disagree that it should be in the Rl; but it was not clear to him that it belongs in a discussion of the ratio between first and second story and the specific directive that the Council provided. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said if they were opening it up, it should be included as part of a cleanup. Com. Rose: • She said that if they are going to be evaluating second floors, and second floors will have an impact on neighboring solar efficiency and effectiveness, then it makes sense to bundle those two topics. If they will discuss whether a second floor can be larger or smaller than it is today and you know that a second story home can compromise the efficiency of a solar panel on a neighboring house, it makes sense if they are looking at second floor to talk about not only the size and its ratio, but how it affects neighboring solar power programs. Chair Miller: • Said he did not agree; they are not talking about changing the second floor setbacks; they will remain the same. There was no directive from the Council to change the second floor setbacks, hence the orientation of the second floor will not change, regardless of what recommendations are made on the ratio between the first and second floor. • He said he did not see how it impacts the discussion of solar, since the orientation is not changing. • He said he agreed they should be talking about it relative to installing solar and energy efficiency; however, he did not see how it was relevant to the discussion of first to second story ratio. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that was why she suggested sending a minute order adding them, as we are talking about the Rl, because there are instances where a second floor is not going to be appropriate, if you are blocking your neighbor's solar rays. 15-10 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 13, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said he did not disagree; but did not think it belongs in the discussion of first to second story ratios, and that wasn't the directive from the Council. Vice Chair Giefer: • Reiterated that was the reason she was suggesting sending another minute order. • It is Rl, and if they are going to be changing the Rl ordinance, it is more efficient to add another piece to that ordinance that talks specifically about solar daylight. • She proposed sending a minute order to City Council suggesting that language be added to the Rl. It protects an existing solar ray from a second story addition blocking their daylight. Chair Miller: • Said he was not opposed to adding a minute order that says they should talk about solar and how the second story affects that. He said he disagreed that it should be part of the discussion on first to second story ratios. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was not part of the discussion, but an additional discussion proposed. It is an equal amount of staff time to change the ratio in an existing code, as opposed to going through an administrative burden of having two different sets of public hearing on the same piece of legislation, and then making the administrative changes and having first and second readings on it. It is more efficient to handle it all at the same time. Chair Miller: • Said it was doing exactly what the Council asked them not to do, and opening it up to a wider discussion of the Rl ordinance, which is precisely what the Council did not want the Commission to do. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to send a minute order to City Council suggesting that modifications be made to the Rl so that a neighbor cannot block existing solar ray access to daylight with a second story addition; and that it be done in parallel to the second story ratio. (Vote: Motion fails: 2:2:0; Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Rose: Yes; Chair Miller and Com. Brophy No; Com. Kaneda absent.) Vice Chair Giefer: • Relative to the report, staff said that fmally the Commission may need to consider alternative review processes for applicants taking advantage of any amendments. What does that mean? Steve Piasecki: • Said he referred to it earlier that if they design an amendment that allows a straight up wall; you may want to have a process to consider that you don't have a roof element built into the structure which is commanded by the current ordinance. Perhaps you would want to have other design elements and you would want to have it reviewed by the DRC for those instances where people would take advantage of it. His perception is that a number of homes that would be able to take advantage of this will likely not be as great as people might think. It would only be in a complete teardown or brand new home. Many people are adding onto their home and they have a first floor that is aheady out to a certain point; unless they wish to start tearing up some of the first floor. This is probably not going to be as great as people might perceive it to be. 15 - 11 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 13, 2008 • Said the caution is not about the understanding of what this is; the people who understand it will, it is a fairly contained concept. It is about the misunderstanding of what it is; the perception that people will have or lack of understanding they will have. The thing is making sure people understand how it is contained, and why Council directed that it be looked at and having clear examples of current conditions, options, to outline where we are going, and allow the public to fully understand that this is a contained discussion about one particular aspect of the R1 ordinance, not everything else. Chair Miller: • Said his objective was to conclude it in one meeting. Com. Brophy: • He said at last month's meeting, he was one who voted to suggest to the Council that they look at this. • He said it was not clear whether the change from the current first to second floor ratio would be in the city's best interest or not. • Said he would have preferred to see more interest in going head on and dealing with the whole question of floor area ratio and just having smaller houses, rather than worrying about the distribution between first and second floor, but he understood why the Council feels otherwise. He said if it is going to be a major time sinc, he would want to consider the whole issue of whether this particular aspect of Rl is of sufficient magnitude. He wanted to hear some thoughts from either staff or citizens whether there is enough there to justify the time and energy involved. Steve Piasecki: • Said the short answer is they have been directed to look at it, and they will. Com. Brophy: • I appreciate more of the concern that it is very hard to look at anything involved with the.Rl ordinance without starting to unravel the whole ball there. Com. Rose: • Said the objective is to present this back at the end of September for the October Council meeting. Chair Miller: • Asked staff to consider the second meeting in June. Steve Piaseclci: • Said they could not agendize it for the second meeting in June because going out to the contractor to do a citywide notice takes a month. They will aim for the first or second meeting in July. Chair Miller opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffm, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she considered herself an expert on Rl after following the issues such as creation of monster homes, loss of street trees, and trying to get into Cupertino. • She said it was a major thing for the neighborhoods that are impacted by any changes to R1 such as the floor to area ratio. It will force additional zoning in neighborhoods; different neighborhoods have different needs, and different lot sizes. The Eichler Fairgrove community 15- 12 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 13, 2008 has a special zoning; I see the direct result of this FAR discussion in whatever case and forum we are calling it; and Rl is going to result in the need for additional zoning in different areas of the city. • The last 2004-2005 discussions took almost two years. She said she was under the panacea that once they got into the city, the Rl would remain the way that it was after 1994; that was a big shock; it doesn't. FAR has now gone from 35% to 45% in less than 3 years. • She said she was not certain where they were headed; do they want to increase FAR to 55%, 65%, 75%7 There was an interesting discussion about the larger the second story, the more you are blocking the sunlight on small lots. • She said they were not able to get satellite TV reception because her neighbor's county home has such a large second story that they don't get any southern exposure. • Said that she felt they did not have the time; Sand Hill has two to three projects that will tie up the summer, and she would rather concentrate on that. • Said if they have to do FAR, they will do it for 5 years and the rest of the time live in the city. She expressed concern that monster homes would come back. Chair Miller: • Reiterated the discussion was not about FAR, only the ratio of the second story to the first story. The FAR is not being changed; they are not talking about FAR in any way; only the ratio of the size of the second story to the first story. The proposal is to evaluate whether it should be evaluated or eliminated. • Said the proposal was to evaluate whether or not it should be larger or eliminated. They could also talk about making it smaller, but he said he did not feel that was on anyone's mind. John Stubblebine, Cupertino resident: • Said for discussion purposes, one of the ways to make the change 45% to 55% would be to make the top floor larger in this particular situation. The other one is to make the bottom floor smaller. Either one would accomplish that; those are two basic approaches. The impact of all of this is on a tall second story shading the neighbors in the front, back and both sides; shading the street and making a more massive appearance in the neighborhood from all sides. Chair Miller: • Said there were shading requirements, which is the purpose of the setbacks; other cities achieve the same objective by doing what is called the daylight plane. It is correct that the shading issues are important; they are already addressed and no one is talking about changing them. John Stubblebine: • Said he was concerned with the impact on the neighborhood; and he wanted to be certain that as the discussions move forward, he would be present to hear them; and that there not be further encroachment and further shading issues in neighborhoods. Chair Miller: Reiterated they are not changing the setbacks; the setbacks are what govern the shading. That is not being changed or being proposed to be changed. The first floor and second floor setbacks were separate items. Said the concern was justified; the issues here and the way the ordinance is written is for privacy and shading and those have been addressed in the ordinance. Nothing being done or proposed to be done is changing that. 15-13 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 13, 2008 John Stubblebine: • Referred to a photo illustrating houses in the residential area by city hall and pointed out a home where the second floor outline is the same as the first floor outline, which would be a 100% floor area second to first. He questioned if it would be allowed in Cupertino under what they are thinking of examining and proposing provided second floor setbacks and shading was obeyed. Chair Miller: • Said he was not certain, because it does not look like it meets the height limitations. However, in terms of the ratio of first to second story, it would be allowed. What we are thirildng and talking about, depending on what we actually arrive at in terms of a recommendation to the City Council; is potentially to allow vertical walls like this one, and which would permit a Victorian home to be built in Cupertino; which it is not now. Also pointed out that we are not in any way impinging upon what the ordinance does in terms of protecting shading and protecting privacy; and would essentially force the overall setbacks of the entire structure to be greater than they are under the current ordinance, because if you are making the second story larger, that by definition implies the first story has to be smaller in order to fit the current far and again, we are not changing FAR in any way. Tf you are at the limit and you make the second story larger, the first story mathematically has to be smaller. John Stubblebine: • Asked if anyone was talking about height limitations or architectural features of the Victorian era. Would the historic Commission be interested in hearing about that? Chair Miller: • Said no; he did not know about the Historic Commission; and said that is not the directive they have from the City Council. • Said that under the current ordinance, there is an exception process, and if you can }ustify that and satisfy your neighbors concerns, you could come before the Planning Commission and ask for an exception. No change to the ordinance. John Stubblebine: • The actual plans in the modern version have an 11 foot ceiling downstairs, 10 foot ceiling upstairs, and then the 45 degree peaks on the top; the roofline is going to have to be right here below the ceiling line to fit the current ordinance. Chair Miller: • Said he understood, and pointed out the location in the middle of a dense downtown neighborhood might not be appropriate; and if you are up in the hills, nobody might care. John Stubblebine: • Said there was a neighbor on one side who would be affected by setbacks; and people on Bubb who might not like it out there. Said it clarified some of this; it also clarifies the issue that came from the City Council to the Planning Commission and said it was important for his neighborhood from the neighborhood's point of view, to have the shading and the front and side setbacks all have to be looked at very carefully. Chair Miller closed the public input portion of the meeting. 15 - 14 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 13, 2008 Corn. Brophy: • Said that even in this brief discussion with limited audience, he appreciated more the difl:iculties of trying to limit any discussion. If this is the only subject that the Council wishes to open, whether or not it is in our power to keep the discussion under control; and whether any effort to discuss this one limited subject; it would take up more time than whatever the possible benefits would be. He said he was not sure what the answer is. Steve Piasecki: • Said that is what the Council has directed. Normally staff would do their best to try to implement their direction; and the Commission can also express its concern about that issue. The direction was clear about where they are going with it. Corn. Rose: • Reference to the issue in the staff report stated that staff will evaluate if this change will potentially delay other work programs. She asked when they would know the impact of this action with staff's schedule of the 20 large projects they are now working on. Steve Piasecki: • Said he had not had the time to assess it. In process, this year there are about 20 items, all of which staff will be involved in; about half of those are fairly good sized projects that the Commission will be involved in; the housing element, Sand Hill properties, the South Vallco Master Plan; there are about 4 or 5 presently in a confidential phase. • Staff is having conversations with property owners and potential applicants; but they cannot be discussed as they are negotiating. The R1, Heart of the City Plan, Results Way are going to be coming to the Commission shortly; there are approximately ten good sized projects the Commission will be working on for the rest of the year. He discussed how they prioritize projects. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that part of her thought process was they have the tools in the Rl today, if somebody wanted to exceed the second floor ratio to first, they could come in and ask for an exception, and staff tends to follow Commission's direction in terms of the decisions being made in DRC and in Planning Commission meetings. • If there is not enough staff time to make everything happen this year because of shortages and staffing, perhaps staff could be more lenient and consider exceptions more frequently; to see if it is happening where people are coming in and not coaxing out. • If the overlying objective is to build smaller homes in Cupertino and this is one instrument to make that happen, then maybe what we do is ask staff to be more liberal in their interpretation over the next couple of months and report back on the success of that; and then we can begin our discussions at that time. • Said she felt there would be additional unintended consequences of this; and she felt it would be difficult to contain the Rl discussion to only the second story ratio. Chair Miller: • Said that in the event there are higher priority items to address, they will either re-prioritize here or ask the Council to re-prioritize them because they have higher priority items. The suggestion that the Commission be more liberal on exceptions is one solution to the problem, and can be discussed when the item is discussed. 15 - 15 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 13, 2008 Com. Brophy: • Is it appropriate to make some sort of motion or informal recommendation, Ithink along the lines that both Chair Giefer and Chair Miller: have made, perhaps we go back to the Council and suggest that we feel that given the time demands, especially on staff and on the Commission that this be moved a bit down on the priority list, that we recommend that the staff in their review be more liberal, and the review of individual housing applications and bring them before the Commission with the understanding that our desire was to let the spirit of the ordinance be upheld more so than say the letter in terms of our attitude toward exceptions. Steve Piasecki: • Said the Planning Commission could make that communication to the Council if they wish. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was revealing that in her tenure as a Planning Commissioner, it would be the second time they opened up R1, yet still had to work on sustainability. Chair Miller: • He noted that Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Rose spent time working on it last year; and he has been pushing hard and they have been working on sustainability and the reason they haven't moved ahead is they are waiting for the report to the Council on May 20. He had hoped to have it addressed sooner, but fel# they were doing the best they could under the circumstances. Com. Rose: • Recalled the conversation they had about the issue when it was first proposed for them to consider, there was definitely discourse within the Commission and within their group as they discussed it. She said one of Chair Miller's comments was "we are not saying we are going to do this right now, we are saying we are putting this on the list; it could be on the bottom of the fist." At that time the vote was 3:2, and it didn't pass gracefully and unfortunately that vote was not recalled to the Council; they did not discuss the fact that it was a 3:2 vote coming through the Commission. It was presented to the Council with the Commission's vote with their motion that they wanted to look at it again. Chair Miller: • Said they did a minute order to the Council to discuss FAR, and the Council rejected that, and then the Council initiated that instead of discussing FAR, they discuss first to second floor area ratio. • Said the Council put a time limit on it, but that wasn't what he went to the Council and talked about; it is what came back to the Council. He said he was not pushing it; it is the Council's directive to the Planning Commission. Com. Rose: ~ Said she felt the solution is to communicate back to the Council that the Commission's priority is sustainability and that they are not feeling the overwhelming pressure to look at the first and second floor ratio as being at the top of the list. She said they were also concerned about the Commission taking on a lot of new projects as their priority is sustainability and would like to revisit the directive after the Council meeting in June when they are given more direction on sustainability. She said she was- cautious about them downsizing the potential of change that could happen by looking at sustainability to let people decide whether or not the homes are going to have bigger second floors. 15 - 16 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 13, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said he did not disagree; but said he was not sure that it is not aneither/or at this point. He suggested they wait until it is and then ask the Council to change the priority or if it is appropriate, just change the priority ourselves. Let's find out what is going to come out at the next meeting. Vice Chair Giefer: • Questioned if they went back to the date when they had the vote on FAR, if they were voting on the ratio of first to second floor, would they have recommended it to Council? She said that she is hearing perhaps people would not have felt that this was a high priority item for them this year. Chair Miller: • Said he did not disagree; that may in fact be the case. But again, the Council directed us to do this, and our objective at this point is to either implement what the Council asked us to do or we can send them a minute order saying we don't want to do it. Again, what I would suggest is, it is not clear to me at this point, that it has impacted anything; and at the point in time when it does impact something, that is the point in time that we go back to Council and say this is impacting our schedule, we are not going to get A, B and C done because we are trying to do this; what do you want us to do. • It sends a stronger message than just right now with an empty agenda going back and saying we don't want to do this. Com. Rose: • Said she felt they should not make any movement on the issue until hearing from the Council how they would like them to move forward with sustainability and at that point they could look at sustainability, be it topics that staff has proposed and then factor in what it is going to take to go through the second floor ratio issue. • They are asking the Commission to review it; however, before staff starts noticing for anything, we need to know what they are going to ask us about sustainability. Those are both items on our work plan so I think it is just as fair for us to say we don't really feel comfortable making any headway here until we know where we are going to be tasked with sustainability issues. • She felt if a poll was taken, the residents are more concerned about their action as leaders in sustainability than whether or not second floor has a higher ratio of square footage than the first. • Said she felt they should wait and find out what the Council's direction is after the next meeting. Chair Miller: • Said he felt it was a great idea. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt sending citywide notices out was overkill for the importance of the subject. He reiterated to encourage staff that are reviewing individual applications to have some flexibility in terms of reviewing the architectural plans and to encourage them to bring plans before the Commission and DRC that may not meet the exact requirements, but that would be most suitable for an exemption in terms of quality and design. 15-17 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 13, 2008 Steve Piasecki: • The only caveat to that is that the ordinance is Council's ordinance as well; if I have that same direction from the Council then we can communicate to applicants freely. Com. Brophy: • Make a recommendation to the Council that they allow staff to review residential applications with an emphasis on quality of design and to be open to requests for exceptions to the literal standards as long as those designs improve the quality of what would be built. Com. Rose: • Said in theory it sounds like it would be something to try; but when looking at changing the size of the second floor there are architectural issues and neighborhood issues; that type of decision needs to go through a process. She said she was concerned about deciding off the cuff to use that as a way to bait it along now. • Suggested they wait until the next meeting when they know what they are going to be looking at and decide the best way to do it. Chair Miller: • Said he had similar feelings; either way it is opening a wider issue. If we suggest that to the Council, they are either going to bounce it back to ask what the ramifications are in doing that, and then we are into the discussion. Or they are going to do it at their level first, and they would likely not do it at their level, but bounce it back and the result would be back and forth and back into discussing it as one of the solutions to the problem. • Com. Rose suggested they do nothing until they hear from the Council on May 20`h, one week away. He said he saw no harm in waiting to hear what the Council has to say next week. Steve Piasecki: • Summarized that the Commission would like to have a discussion about the R1 review process on an upcoming agenda; so that they will have direction on sustainability; and take whatever actions and motions at that time. 3. Discuss possible improvements to the development application process. Steve Piasecld: • Said he provided a summary staff report that talked about the principles of the public hearing process, the importance of maintaining a fair and impartial hearing for all sides; and avoiding holding a hearing before a noticed hearing because in terms of the fairness issue to both the applicant and the public, they want to have the information available to them so they can judge projects. It is important to maintain the appearance and reality of objectivity of the Commission and Council "and allow the facts to come forward before reaching conclusions or project judgments. • He reviewed Los Gatos' and Santa Rosa's models for consideration. He suggested that they could use the existing structure with the ERC, which consists. of one Commissioner and one Council member, which he felt would meet the test fairly well because the rest of the Commission and Council would not be weighing in; they would be giving them one Commissioner and one Council member to provide the public view of the hot topic items. • Said that "in its existing structure, it doesn't change things a lot and it could probably be done for a nominal fee and offered as an option. He said he would favor the ERC, as they already have regularly scheduled meetings; concept review would be a topic instead of the ERC looking at concept review. The advantage is that it gives the ERC the opportunity to say there 15- 18 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 May 13, 2008 are some environmental issues you should be focusing on, so when you come back to us we need to have that traffic analyzed or flooding potential or whatever else it might be. Com. Brophy: • It sounds like the advantage of the ERC is it imposes the least additional burden on the city staff; they are already meeting and for little or no fee you are getting 15 or 20 minutes of first look kind of comments. It appears that the mechanism also minimizes the concern that somehow deals are being cut outside of the public hearings. Steve Piasecki: • Applications go through a confidentiality phase as well that most people are not aware of and applicants would not be coming forward with their concept review or asking for input until they have passed that phase. • The staff are members of the ERC; they would have ample opportunity to provide input; if the Public Works Director felt that there was some hot topic item to alert the applicant to, he would be free to do that. Chair Miller: • There are a number of different models; perhaps what we could do the next time we discuss this is list the models out and highlight what the pluses and minuses of each of them are so that we could be in a better position to look at all of them and decide what makes more sense. Another option is not to do anything. • He said he would list them out; he agreed that voluntary made sense as they don't want to impose this on a developer presenting an application, but the intent is to facilitate the process. He said the forums he considered were the one ERC presented; the one in Los Gatos would be to have `a minority of the Planning Commission and the Council sit on a committee and review it; and the next forum was to hold a hearing here at the Planning Commission with ail the Planning Commissioners. • There is the ERC model, where it is potentially built into the process now, or there is the model where you add a couple of Council members, and I see that each one of these models has pluses and minuses and perhaps the next time we discuss it, staff could put a little thought behind that and give us some idea of what staff thinks and we could talk about what the pluses and minuses are. Chair Giefer: • Asked if there was a reason to continue the item instead of dispatching the item tonight. Chair Miller: • Said he felt it was important to have a full Planning Commission, and Com. Kaneda was absent. ' Com. Brophy: • Said ,he felt the Los Gatos model smells of a way to get around the public hearing requirements; there are three of seven commissioners, two of five council members and it doesn't pass the smell test in his mind. As to having anon-public hearing public hearing, as somebody who has been an applicant before Planning Commissions, I would not want to have to go that route. You have all the negatives of a public hearing and none of the positives; and as a neighbor who has been to the Cupertino Planning Commission, I would not like that route either because I feel like something was coming up before the Planning Commission without a noticing process. That strikes me as the worst of both worlds. It seems to me that the ERC approach is simple, it's quick and I am not sure why there is a need for a fee, if we go to the 15 15- 19 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 May 13, 2008 minute rule and there is an understanding that staff is doing no additional prep work, or just say they get their 15 minutes to make a presentation and to get any feedback from that. • Said he would prefer to dispatch it tonight. • Said he preferred the ERC over the option of doing nothing. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. John Stubblebine: • Asked if the smaller developments such as single family homes, have to go through all the process also. • Can't the confidential process in effect answer most of the questions about what the hot buttons are? Does staff know what they are likely to be? Steve Piasecki: • Responded that no one is required to go through the process; it is being discussed as voluntary now. He said it would seem inappropriate for a single family house with possibly the exception of the one on Vye Avenue. Jennifer Griff n, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Recalled the issue about someone wanting to build on the floodplain down by Blackberry Farm by the golf course; and when she heard that came out of the city that someone was proposing to build condos there, she was pleased that the city seemed to be aware that there was a 100-year floodplain, and it was not a good location to have people living there. That was before we annexed to Cupertino. • Said they have to rely a great deal on the city staff to make sure that they do the initial contact work with some of the proposals that will come into the city. • Some of the larger projects I am sure developers will range from extremely naive to extremely good builders who have built before, and that is why there are city staff to make sure the developments in the city are something that are going to benefit the city, not be a public hazard and that are not going to basically upset the residents of the city who have to live and shop there. • There will be controversy, but the fast initial contact with the developer is the city staff and they do a very good job in fending off or hoping to ask the developers to be reasonable, and come up with a quality project. • Just as with a private home, I am relying that the city staff has adequate knowledge of architecture, the current Rl laws, the ordinances for safety, etc., but when we do have discussions about proposals of expediting builders' projects going to fruition, it makes me nervous. • We need to make sure the public is involved the entire way because any project of quality that ends up being built in Cupertino has to have the public input, because the residents have to be proud of what is built in the city, or they are not going to shop there; and if it is hideous and ugly it will reflect poorly on the city. Please make sure the public is involved the whole way. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she agreed with most of what Com. Brophy expressed; her only concern is she felt they are a community that is very suspect of side deal making. One advantage might be that less developers would contact the decision makers individually to have this discussion. 15-20 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 13, 2008 • Said the question that arose after listening to speakers' comments, especially about the 100- year floodplain, were we dependant on which Commissioner and Council member sits on the committee; are they familiar with all the issues within the city; do we really know every aspect of what the city is, or will it put an additional burden on staff? Steve Piasecki: • Said that a separate committee would burden staff; it would have to be advertised separately, and agendas prepared. The ERC would not be a tremendous burden. Vice Chair Giefer: • Is it adjunct because staff has already gone through and looked at the zoning? Steve Piasecki: • Said they do that with the applicant early on in the confidential phase. He said that going to the ERC would be very expeditious. If there is a problem, staff would report it to the Commission and Council. He said he felt it would work very well. Com. Brophy: • Said as long as it is emphasized to staff that there has been a history of divided votes both on the Commission and the Council, and that the applicant, whatever advice they get may or may not turn out to hold. Vice Chair Giefer: • In addition, it is a public forum; it is akeady a public meeting. She said her greatest concern is that there not be the appearance of back door deal making; therefore she would be more comfortable in that situation. Steve Piasecla: • Suggested that whatever is recommended to the Council, they iry it on a temporary basis and weigh in on how it is being perceived and whether it is good, bad or indifferent. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she would only support an optional program, not a mandatory program; and that she would prefer to dispatch the item tonight. Com. Rose: • Said she shared her colleagues' thoughts, and at the last meeting she expressed concern about the possibility of having the appearance of a back door deal, or to the applicant's credit, could think that they are given this direction that will later be approved. Whether it is the public's perception or the applicant's perception, she said she felt they were walking a very thin line on issues. • However, it does sound like this area of the process might be improved by offering an optional direction through the ERC. It should be a limited time on the agenda that an applicant could chose to have in front of the group and get feedback on their project. • If done, she would like to see it done as a temporary measure and then review its effectiveness and also have public comment to review how it is being perceived publicly as well. Chair Miller: • Relative to the intent and purpose, he said he thought the intent of this, is first of all, not necessarily to expedite as one of the speakers mentioned, but to facilitate. The present process is that it goes through staff and staff spends a lot of time up front, and when the Commission 15-21 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 May 13, 2008 sees it, it is already pretty much set in stone. If they try to change it, there is a lot of push back because they spent a lot of money and they don't want to respend their money. There is pushback and less susceptibility or openness to additional arguments. Nobody is suggesting that the public is being locked out of this in any way. • He said it was his view and effort to give the applicant further input as to what is going to be acceptable after staff's review from the Planning Commission and/or the Council to help them and guide them in terms of what they produce and what they actually draw up and color and spend money on. • If you agree that is a worthy objective, and that it therefore will save us time and money because if they have a better idea up front of what might be acceptable or not; we are still going to go through the Peter Pau process that we are going through now; but we are still going to have to talk to staff. • If you accept that premise, then when we look at the different alternatives; however, my concern would be that there is only one member of the Council and one member from the Planning Commission and they are not really getting a view of what the Planning Commission or Council is doing or expects; unless we expect that that member is going to fairly represent everyone's point of view. • The other issue is it cannot be done at the same time as we are doing environmental review, because we are doing it before they have come up with their project. It has to be a separate hearing and it is going to involve additional staff time because it is going to be a separate hearing and a much earlier date; we would look at environmental review. • While that looks appealing I have some questions about that. That doesn't necessarily mean it is better or worse than the others, but that is my first take on that one. • I understand the one about the two plus two idea; the concern is that it looks like it is done in private, but it really is not because that has to be a noticed hearing as well; the advantage of that one is that at least there are two members of each commission that are trying to be more objective about representing the rest of the body that they came from. However that also has its drawbacks in terms of you are not representing the full body. The next one is it comes before the Planning Commission, and in my mind, at least from the Planning Commission standpoint, and not from the Council; we will give the developer an indication of what the Planning Commission is feeling or not feeling. Com. Brophy: • Said his concern was that they were having apre-public hearing/public hearing and from both the perspective of a concerned homeowner, it seems like generating more conflict. • Said he did not see how the process helps either party; there is a sense that it is something that walks like a public hearing, quacks like a public hearing, but is not called a duck. By having an informal process with the ERC, even though you only have one Commissioner and one Council member who may see the world differently than their colleagues do, at least you also have the benefit of having the staff there who has already reviewed the product internally and offer their suggestions as to what issues might come up. • They are not making any recommendations but at least they are giving a heads up to the applicant. She said it was the best they can do. Chair Miller: • Said it made sense; he pointed out that the process of having the Planning Commission is the same as having a study session, and developers and the city have used the study session process in the past; sometimes successfully. When it was done offsite it was perceived as clandestine; when it was done in the Council chambers, it was perceived as more fair and open to the public; but the study session is essentially this model, except it is just with the Planning Commission. We could have a study session with both the Planning Commission and the 15-22 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 ~ May 13, 2008 Council. Said he would only propose that for big projects, not for individual houses; but larger projects such as the ones coming this year. However, the drawback of doing both the Council and Commission is the Council tends to overshadow the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission doesn't really get its input. The argument for doing it with just the Planning Commission is the Council is always going to be weighing in, and to some extent developers on large projects are going to be contacting Council members individually long before they are moving ahead. The one body that gets left out in the cold is the Planning Commission. This is an opportunity for them to get some input from the Commission as well. Whether you call it a study session or something else; it is the same thing they are doing with staff and the same thing they are doing with the Council, in a slightly different format. Said he was not prepared to make a decision tonight as he felt they had not received adequate input. It hasn't been noticed to the public very well and we haven't heard if we are trying to do it to benefit the process, and we haven't heard from the people who are integral to the process, from perhaps Peter Pau and some other developers in town, and take some input from them. We also haven't heard from the public which was everyone's concern that we don't do anything without public input, and here we are proposing to make a decision on this tonight without having adequate public input. Proposed that the item be continued and noticed properly and ask staff to take down the notes and put some thought to it and bring it back one more time to make a decision. Also at that time to take some input from people they are trying to benefit and see if it is going to be a benefit to them and a benefit to the city and the residents to add this particular aspect to the process. Com. Brophy: • Said he understood Chair Miller's point, but he felt it was a relatively minor matter that should be dealt with. Whether or not individual developers prefer not to use the process, there is a unanimous agreement that this is purely a consensual process and they can chose not to use the ERC if they so wish. • He said he would prefer to resolve it tonight. MOTION: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, that the ERC option as outlined by staff be used. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she understood from the staff report that the applicant who may be coming before the ERC for the early information meeting may not necessarily be the applicant who has attended the ERC meeting. It could be somebody who has finished the confidential point of view, has not finished their documents, or it could be three candidates with 1 S minutes each. Steve Piasecld: • Said that was possible. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she would support that. Com. Rose: • Should we consider doing this on a temporary basis and see the feedback we get in six months from the community. Is that something we want to do. 15-23 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 May 13, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Seeing that it is an optional program, if we kick it off and we have had nobody take advantage of it for six months, what would the process be to terminate the program if it is not effective. Steve Piasecki: • If you had a second look at it in six or nine months, at that time the Commission and/or the Council could weigh in and say that nobody has taken advantage of it, let's scrap it. That is done with Use Permits sometimes. Amendment to Vice Chair Giefer amended the motion to include that it be reviewed after Motion: nine months. Com. Brophy accepted the amendment. (Vote: 3-i-0; Chair Miller No; Com. Kaneda absent) REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No report due to Com. Kaneda's absence. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: Vice Chair Giefer reported: • May I S is Bike to Work Day. • May 23 is Bike to School Day at Monta Vista High School. • The library sponsored a fund raiser where the library gets the proceeds from sales of Chicago tickets at DeAnza College. • New Parks and Rec Director Mark Linder has been hired. • The Telco Commission; if residents are experiencing difficulty with either provider AT&T or Comcast, please let Telco Commission know by email. • The CDDG may be merging with the Housing Commission. • The City has appropriated $300,000 for a shelter for battered Asian women and their children within the city. • A number of Earth Day events were held. • The remaining bricks for the Memorial Park Veterans Memorial have been delivered and installed. • Budget hearings will be held throughout May; Green Building hearing is on May 20. Economic Development Committee: Com. Brophy reported: • A presentation was given by the developers of the Rose Bowl site. Goal is to pull building permit sometime in 2009; they are in discussions with the owners of the Sand Hill property site to coordinate their design concept with whatever comes out of the Sand Hill site especially as it relates to ingress and egress and traffic flow. • There are some issues regarding the conflict between the owners and lenders in Cupertino Square. • There is a possibility that the Chicago show at Flint Center may be cancelled. 15-24 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 May 13, 2008 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Steve Piasecld reported: • The South Vallco Master Plan update is going to the City Council next week. He said it was a successful process largely due to the level of participation from the community and the hiring of the professional facilitator to assist with the process. • Asked if two Commissioners were interested in participating in a tour of the Cupertino Landing building at the former Ski Any Mountain site: • Reported on his attendance at the recent American Planning Assoc. conference in Las Vegas. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 27, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary 15-25 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda Date: May 13, 2008 Item Summary: Discuss possible improvements to the development review process RECOMMENDATION: Discuss this item and adopt a minute action recommending any revised process to the City Council. BACKGROUND: On April 8, 2008, Chairman Miller appeared at the City Council meeting and suggested that the City Council consider an early review option for decision makers prior to filing of a formal planning application. The concept is that with early review applicants can be advised of major issues or "deal breakers" when their application is in the conceptual phase. DISCUSSION: There are several public hearing principles that the commission should consider when considering early review: 1) Maintain fair and impartial hearing for all sides 2) Avoid holding a public hearing before the formal noticed public hearing 3} Maintain the appearance and reality of objectivity of the Commission and City Council 4) Allow the facts to come foxwaxd before reaching conclusions or project judgments There are several models that the Commission can consider prior to making a recommendation. Town of Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos has a conceptual development review committee that consists of three planning commissioners (out of seven) and two council members (out of five). Applicants are given the option for a relatively low fee to present their early concepts to the committee for feedback. Staff reports that it works fairly well. City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa has a separate design review committee that allows "concept review." The committee has strict rules for concept Limiting the discussion per item to no more than fifteen minutes and charges no fee. 15-26 3-1 Discuss possible improvements to the development review process May 13, 2008 Page 2 Environmental Review Committee The Cupertino ERC gets the first look at development applications and frequently provides advice to developers on "hot-topic" items.' The Commission could recommend that applicants be given the option of appearing early for a concept review prior to filing the application. This model has the benefit of using an existing committee and with only one council member and one planning commissioner leaving the remainder of the commission and council independent of criticism that they have decided the application prior to the formal hearings. Applications typically go through several phases prior to developing their plans. The first contact is made with staff when the application is considered confidential. Staff rigorously respects the confidentially to avoid disrupting a negotiation that may be in process. Staff suggests that the application should be presented early following the confidential stage and when they are in the conceptual development phase to avoid expensive redesigns. If the commission recommends using an existing committee like the ERC then we could offer the service for a minimal fee such as $500. Submitted by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme 15-27 2 -~ 1`e~ - -- 1?~anne~s looking to revi;e ~-1!!! .- ~ . __ ~ovv~ prod ects ~a~re revle~e ~ = ~ • _ B EIvIII.I~CROFTON 3' developmentswasagoodihing ~'• The G~pertino Planning tom _' "Nothing of quality is ever pro-" ~. - R ~. - . ~ ~.sston ig looking at ways to revise ducedunlessalotofworkisputznto - .•~'the process for the prehminary ~ ~~"shesaid."1'ro~ecfsthatthccom- { revtewofmajoidevelopmentproj= ~ muiutyaremostproudofbayehad I > . ects ~n,' order . to sage time and , a give and'take process. Sometimes money `~ ~ qualitytakestime.,' ~ . Planning:conis~oner Marty l~ller, _at the t+,pnl 8 coIItmisson' , _ _ meeting;:.presented several soli-`: ~_ ~ -` ~- tionstliatwouldpiovidedevelopes early feedback and direction from i boththe city and residents ~ ~ • - By the time it' gets' to us, the. • developerhasah-eadyspentalotof { money on displays and plans, and they a_r-en'f istially, motivated. `to ' make`signiicantcbanges,"Nh1ler ~ said, "i'd jike to see ways to make theprocessmoreefbcient:" - .; - , • MtIl.er suggested a model similar _. . to~one:inI.os Gatos,which cuBS a conceptiialreviewboardconstshiig of members from both the, city councyl and pl arming commission:' `2t vVould help facilitate `tfie 1 process:L4sCratosi~asbeendonugit t andtheiiexpe= fozaloiitfiveyears , netnce fias been very 'smooth and ' ° Other poposed .. solutions nclnde~ ]folding a public sesszan .- with theplanningcommission;city -.. • :stafEandthedeveIoper,andczea~ing. alomtstudysessionwithcrtycoun-. cil and stafi:'l'lle idea would b. a to provideinputiiitkeepthedialogue::'. ~on ~ comniitnitji" and =esidential_. ,ices..: ' "It ivbiild be a ~vay foc us to give . earher,:input-to. the developers beforetheyseteveryttiiuginstone;" . Miller said. "When. you reduce.. uiiceitanaty`and shorten-the time. frame;yougetbetterresults" ` Steve Piase .. ' curector of com- clct,_ ~ .- . m,>nity development, expressed concern'over mawtainmg impar- - .- ., tiallty and fairness during these informalsessions. . -: "Ithinkthiscanheeonstrnctive,. fiearingbeforetliehearing." While msupport of t[ecommis- ;~ lion's disctission,a couple of Caper ' tino 'residents spoke, about;,-the <.importauce o€keepingresxdentsiu -: "Tt's good fo hearideas_floatrig . around toimprovethe cou-niiinica- tionbetweer the city and develop- menu, but it's also important fo, ~ •, keep the residents involved,"said :~ KerthlViurplip. - `'' . • . RPCiriPrrt7PnniferCrrifGnaddCd 15-28 lr co~rtt~ liEwsp~rExs.13; .