Loading...
PC 07-23-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 23, 2001 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Ralph Qualls, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson Kwok noted receipt of the County of Santa Clara Census 2000 Data Report No. 1 and American Planning Association California Chapter correspondence. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application: Applicant: Location: 04-U-01 Grosvenor California Limited 10120 Imperial Avenue & One Results Way Use permit to transfer floor area ration development credits from Imperian Avenue to Results Way Corporate Park Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2001 Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2001 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to postpone Application 04-U-01 to the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Com. Patnoe Passed 5-0-0 Application: Applicant: Location: 10-R-01 Cupertino Construction, Inc. (Sherman Tuan) South side of Kirwin Lane, opposite Lonna Way Appeal of design review approval of a new, two-story 2,597 square foot residence and a second story deck exception Appeal withdrawn by appellant MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Chen moved to remove Application 10-R-1 from the calendar Com. Patnoe Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 23, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 05-Z-01, 06-U-01, 06-EA-01 Summerhill Homes 10120 Imperial Avenue Rezonng of an ML (Light Industrial) zoning district to P(Res) (Planned Residential) for a 56-unit townhome development and to P(ML) (Planned Light Industrial) to allow a transfer of floor area ratio development credits Use permit to construct a 56-unit townhome development Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2001 Tentative City Council date: August 20, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application by Summerhill Homes for the rezoning of 10120 Imperial Avenue, formerly Woelffel Cannery, for a proposed 56-unit townhome development. The site is currently zoned ML (light industrial) and will be rezoned to P(Res) Planned Residential to allow for the townhome development. One condition of approval includes the installation of a historical marker or plaque commemorating the location as the site of the historical Woelffel Cannery site. The application is scheduled to be presented to the City Council on August 20, 2001. Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, referred to the site plan and reviewed the background information as outlined in the staff report. She noted features including the publicly accessible plaza; mini park; pedestrian easement located along the rear of the property near the railroad maintained as a public pedestrian path; tot lot; and the 13 live/work units facing onto Imperial Avenue. She also noted that there was on-street parking being developed on Imperial Avenue, which will count toward the parking requirement for the entire site. Staff recommends approval of the application with conditions of approval set forth. The tentative map will be presented at a later date. In response to Com. Patnoe's question about the tot lot, Ms. Gil said that the tot lot would likely be marked off as private. The city is concerned about liability of the path and for that reason staff would want an easement on the path. However, the Public Works department is not interested in maintaining a tot lot as well. She said the assistant city attorney mentioned that if public is permitted on the property, the city should have an easement so that the property is maintained for liability purposes; however staffwas not certain the city would want to maintain a tot lot. Com. Auerbach summarized for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners, items of concern he raised with the staff. The report states there was feedback from the neighbors, and Com. Auerbach asked who the neighbors were since in this case the area was mostly light industrial. Ms. Gil said that the neighbors attending the meeting were both the industrial users as well as some of the residential, from the residential pockets located there. Some of the neighbors were concerned about the residential use not being compatible with what currently exists. They were concerned that they had been operating businesses such as auto body shop and printing presses Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 23, 2001 and other light industrial and were concerned about residential coming in and later complaining about the noise generated from either traffic, construction equipment, or those types of uses. They industrial users do not want to be pushed out because of new residential complaining about them. There were also residential property owners, who like many residential property owners, are concerned about any new development that comes into their community and how will that traffic impact them. Com. Auerbach said that the staff report indicated staff was highly in favor of light or home based businesses or other types of businesses that might avail themselves with live/work units, and the developer is interested in restricting that somewhat to home based businesses. He questioned the comment, and also asked about how they might go about making sure that prospective tenants are both aware that they can mn businesses out of those units if they so chose, but also people who might use them solely as residences and for residential use aware that they may have a neighbor at a later date who uses it for some business purpose. Ms. Gil said that staffwas considering not highly intensive uses, but looking at businesses such as an accountant, travel agent, those with low traffic flow into their offices. Some other things considered were beauty salons, nail salons, things which will serve the neighborhood, but will not create a lot of traffic, and will not require a lot of parking. The developer is expected to affirmatively market these units and perhaps staff could edit the condition placed and elaborate on what they considered 'encouraging' to mean, and disclose what type of marketing plan that would be. A requirement could also be to set aside a percentage of those units and try to at least get three or four of the units filled by somebody that actually wants to have a home based business and will give the storefront appearance. The Planning Commission needs to decide how important that storefront appearance would be onto Imperial Avenue; staff sees it as a good buffer between what is a mostly industrial neighborhood to transition into this residential area, but there are a number of things you could do to amend that condition of approval and require more. Com. Auerbach said that a hair salon for example would require additional power and ventilation systems and questioned whether the units come equipped to be upgraded in that way, or are they on slab that would have to be cut up in order to put additional electric or sewer or such. Ms. Gil said she was not in a position to address that issue since she was not certain how they would be constructed. If the property owner wanted to change one of the units for additional hookups or plumbing, they would have to go through the regular permitting process. Relative to rezoning and parking ratio, he asked if one of the elements they would move to in order to try to become new urbanists in the developments is to create more of a grid street system rather than cul de sacs which are being created here. Is there a possibility of putting a street here with housing on both sides to create more of a neighborhood along this avenue. Also ifa street was created, there could be additional street parking and more urban type parking rather than stalls and garages and more houses facing the streets. Ms. Gil noted that staff did not discuss the applicant purchasing additional land from the property owner, hence they did not consider that type of street system. Com. Auerbach referred to the parking ratio and said that the staff report mentioned that there is no standard for townhome developments; however in the Pinn Bros. development the Planning Commission approved two parking spaces per unit. Ms. Gil said staff felt it fell more within the multi family; similar to an apartment complex with no yards. She said the only thing close to that would be a residential cluster development. Ms. Gil said that the applicant was proposing fewer parking spaces than what would be required with a residential cluster requirement, but not likely fewer than 3.17, but they could address whether they wanted fewer. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July Com. Auerbach asked for clarification on the concept of the trail on the eastern edge of the property, and how it is integrated into the proposed Union Pacific trail that the trail committee is working on. Ms. Gil noted that they were actually separate. She noted it was the trail discussed with the applicant as a means of providing access for individual's offices. With the Crrosvenor application, the trail was accessible off Bubb and Results Way. She said for future development, if the light industrial use owner should ever choose to sell the property or redevelop it, staff could request that the pedestrian trail to Stevens Creek be continued, but it would be separate from what is being negotiated with Union Pacific railroad. Ms. Gil said she was not sure whether the city would be successful in receiving a trail along the railroad, but in the event they are not, staff has asked the applicant to voluntarily put in the pedestrian path. It would be a dead end trail inside the development. Com. Auerbach referred to Larry Cannon's comments on the nature of the parking, and the possibility of providing more below-grade parking on the elevated first level similar to the Pinn Brothers property. He asked what the discussions with the applicant were on that point. Ms. Gil said that staff chose not to pursue the below-grade parking. A suggestion for something similar to what is already being developed in Monta Vista was made, which staff did not find attractive. As long as the developer added a few more parking spaces closer to the units in the back, staff was comfortable they had addressed that issue. Staff addressed Mr. Cannon's earlier concern about the garages and noted that they had been addressed sufficiently. Com. Auerbach referred to the traffic analysis and noted on Page 3-114 of the traffic analysis there are some suggested improvements for the City of Cupertino to make. Mr. Ralph Quails, Public Works Director, said they were improvements or suggestions that the developer would make, not the City of Cupertino. They would be included, and are in Section 3 conditions of the resolution, which is a general section addressing street widening, street curb and gutter, etc. Those improvements would be developed as part of the street plans when the project actually goes through the construction stages and staff would evaluate it at that time. There is currently no stop sign at Lomita and Granada because they are dead end streets and very little traffic there. He said this would generate some additional traffic, and would need to be studied further. He noted that a Yield sign would be sufficient. Com. Auerbach said that they are mostly curb and gutter on both sides of the street beyond the illustrated point, and curb and gutter would be installed along the area as part of the development. He questioned the other side of Imperial Avenue and asked if that what was meant in the suggestion for improvements. Mr. Qualls said that it was not required as a condition of this development, only the side they occupy. He said it was unusual to ask the developer to develop both sides of the street. He also said that the power transmission lines along the route with large transformers would be buried on their side of the street. In response to Com. Auerbach's question if there was any consideration given to opening Imperial Avenue as a result of the concern about outflow onto Stevens Creek, Mr. Qualls stated that no consideration was given. He said he was not aware of the history of why the street did not go through, but said that given the current history of the Monta Vista neighborhoods, all of which now have preferential parking and are actively concerned about traffic in the Monta Vista Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 23, 2001 neighborhood, to even suggest such a move, would create a firestorm of great proportions. He said he felt there was no need for it as a result of this development as the existing system adequately handles the traffic. Com. Chen referred to parking spaces and asked if the parking included on-street spaces. Ms. Gil said that it did, and said that neither the Judy Chen or Landmark projects had on-street parking and both were located off Rainbow Drive. She said that Landmark was working fine; the Judy Chen project is still in the construction phase. She said as far as counting the on-street parking spaces, it had been done on two other occasions both in the Monta Vista areas and they are both mixed use developments with angled parking with office space below and residential above. Ms. Gil explained the method for arriving at the 261 units; using the ratio two per unit, plus 1.5 for each bedroom after the first. Chair Kwok commented on the on-street parking with respect to the Monta Vista guidelines, and expressed concern that they had to comply with Monta Vista guidelines. He questioned if there were any problems in the Pasadena and Granada areas. Ms. Gil said that there were no complaints, and noted that there is a lot of angled parking on Granada. Ms. Wordell added that a small mixed use development was approved on Pasadena about two years ago, and added that parking surveys were done around that area of mixed use. She said at no time was the parking fully used or impacted, and no parking complaints were received. Ms. Gil indicated that the project included 6 BMR units. Ms. Gil clarified the transfer credit. She said that in the General Plan, industrial property owners are allowed to transfer the FAR credits from parcels being sold specifically for housing or residential uses. The FAR for the Grosvenor site does include this area, and if they were to create a new parcel, their FAR would become higher. Therefore, to be in compliance staff would go through and indicate that they were transferring that, this land credit, to their property and that they would be in compliance. At the time they come through with that application, they are also going to be doing several other things, such as restriping the parking area because they have very little development credit left, and also be coming through to transfer amenity space back to office. Mr. Qualls indicated that the project would operate on a LOS D at every intersection that traffic is distributed through on its buildout; and noted it does not have a very large impact on traffic and also has some transferred credits because of existing units. Mr. Adam Tenant, Summerhill Homes, referred to the site plan, and said that relative to the parking issue, it was always considered to be for public use since it is within the public right of way, and the intent was for this parking to be strictly guest parking. Relative to the issue of the angled parking, there is a light office use on Pasadena that has the angled parking, and one of the things they wanted to be sensitive to, which is somewhat of an improvement, was to soften the view area along Imperial Avenue. He said they were actually planting trees in between the parking stalls and the sidewalk to soften the look of the parking lot. Referring to the parking standards comparison, he said because the City of Cupertino does not have a directly comparable parking ratio to work with, they looked at neighboring jurisdictions in assessing both onsite parking and did not include what is happening on Imperial Avenue. He said that exceeded what goes on with their 2.7 parking, and would exceed Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale parking requirements as well as San Jose. He said he felt they were consistent, if nol excessive, with the amount of parking provided. Mr. Tenant clarified that the trail was not a dead end trail, and that the future plan was to bring it out toward Imperial Avenue by the redwood tree Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 23, 9001 grove being kept as part of the proposal. Bringing in additional residential use by purchasing more of the Grosvenor property has not been a discussion item with the seller, and he said he felt Summerhill would not be interested at this time. Relative to the live/work units, he said they were looking for a more modest, unobtrusive commercial use to make it compatible with the residential community, while at the same time understanding they were looking for a transitional use between the light industrial use. Mr. Tenant said that understanding Com. Auerbach's comments, they would consider doing some additional construction to make it more compatible for live/work units. Mr. Jim Yee, Dahlen Group, architects, addressed the sound wall and noted it was proposed to break up the wall in certain areas so that it is not a continuous wall height, and possibly using wrought iron, but basically it is a masonry wall softened with landscaping. Mr. Yee illustrated various views throughout the proposed project, the live/work townhome plan, park retreat, Stevens Creek trail and park, redwood grove and public plaza. He said that they had not addressed the signage issue yet, and would come back through the Design Review Committee. Ms. Wordell clarified that the signage would be handled at the staff level, not through the DRC. Chair Kwok indicated that it would come back to the Planning Commission only if there were sign exceptions. It was noted that the units were 'for sale' units. Mr. Tenant stated that he had not previously considered retrofit for the live/work units, but was open to addressing the issue. He said it would primarily be electrical service and upgrading to provide more intense use; and that his goal was to be unobstrusive, and he had foreseen more of a home office use; but that the live/work concept was appropriate relative to coming up with a more intense use. Mr. Yee addressed the issue of depressed parking, building height and setbacks in response to Chair Kwok's concern about consistency in the neighborhood. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Avenue, said that she met with the developer, and she was pleased to see the development in Monta Vista; she said she preferred the non-flat roof and was pleased to hear the Planning Commissioners express concerns. In response to her questions about parking and concern about unkept parking areas and residents repairing their cars, Ms. Wordell stated that the property owners would be responsible for the inner parking area. Com. Corr indicated, and the developer concurred, that there would be C C &Rs for the development to govern what can and cannot be done in the parking areas. Mr. Quails clarified that Ms. Anger's concerns were related to code enforcement issues that the code enforcement staff would handle. Mr. Bruce Wenniger, 10298 Mann Drive, a resident of Cupertino since 1965, said that he felt the development was a great improvement for the Monta Vista area and he was in favor of it. Chair Kwok closed the public hearing. The issues were summarized: parking, building height, signage, how live/work units are marketed and presented to prospective tenants in terms of their expectations for the use of space or others use of the space; being more specific about the break through in masonry wall to trail line; fixing truncation of roofline; Planning Commission Minutes ? July Com. Corr commented that Com. Auerbach's use of the term "new urbanist" interested him, and as they have had other hearings on other issues over the past week, they received input on all sorts of public comment about density and how it is all happening. He said if it is done well, they could accomplish something remarkable and workable and could increase the housing without increasing the j obs. Com. Corr said that he felt transit was an important issue, and there were transit lines within walking distance, literally within this development that people can use, and hopefully one day light rail will go all the way out Stevens Creek Blvd., and then join with Highway 85 to be able to traverse the whole county by light rail. He said he felt it was important that as the developments are created, they are done right and are workable. Chair Kwok said he felt it was a worthwhile project and would add more needed housing in the neighborhood. He reiterated his concern about the Monta Vista guidelines, and how the Monta Vista areas are preserved, and said the project would undoubtedly improve the community and Monta Vista neighborhood. He also expressed concern that the building would be the tallest building in the neighborhood along Imperial Avenue. Chair Kwok said that he felt discussion was warranted relative to the parking issue, especially the on-street spaces, although a precedence has been set in the Judy Chen, Granada and Pasadena areas. He said he was not concerned about the signage; if there are exceptions they will go to the Planning Commission for approval. Com. Auerbach asked for feedback on the idea of creating more of a grid system relative to planning, when whole neighborhoods are created such as this rather than the cul de sac. He said there was no driveway on the masonry wall, but a snake of parking through the complex with a wall separating it permanently from the adjacent development.. He said he felt the project had merit. Com. Corr said that he preferred it broken up to give a variance rather than the long shot along the masonry wall which was less appealing. Com. Patnoe said that there is an unknown factor with the adjacent property and if it were reconfigured, there would be a great many houses up against an adjacent property that could end up being office, or a big parking lot and he noted there was a recent issue with residential unitsup against a parking lot and the office, traffic, etc. He said in theory he agreed with Com. Auerbach in large part with setting up grids, and more neighborhood friendly, but with this type of project, he felt they would lose a number of units; and it could be added to by possibly trying to create this narrow street and then the unknown factor. When it is known what would happen next door, there are some things that could be done with the wall. The applicant clarified that the masonry wall along the back was merely to separate residential from commercial use. Ms. Wordell reported that typically a masonry wall is required; it is part of the commercial ordinance to have a masonry wall between commercial and residential projects, with an 8 foot height restriction. She said that it is also typical to separate non-residential uses from residential in terms of access. She clarified that if it is anticipated there might be residential there some day, there could be a condition that states the property owner at the time that additional residential, (if residential uses were proposed adjacent to it), would be required to possibly open up to a residential use. Planning ~omm~ss~on l[,[lnufes ~ July 23, 2001 Com. Auerbach said he was concerned about the potential for future eonnectiveness between these projects; and cited thc example on Stevens Creek where a complex was built with a cement wall, and residential was then built next door; and now there is a big masonry wall between them. He said he was also concerned about the ongoing discussion and possibility of getting a path along the railroad tracks, and there would also be a parallel path. Ms. Gil pointed out that the path on the inside, would be open to the public, but not quite as useful because it is only 5 feet wide. She said it was a good distance to Bubb Road and if a trail is desired and there is concern about proximity to tracks, it would be more appropriate if that portion of the train went through the area illustrated, behind the wall and landscaped. The applicant noted that there were two breaks in the wall. Relative to the parking issue, Com. Auerbach said that the objective as stated in the Monta Vista guidelines, is to emphasize pedestrian orientation, encourage a village atmosphere and also cited under problems in Section 4, are dominance of the automobile, and no curb gutter, or sidewalk. In terms of parking and pedestrian access, he said he felt having parking on the street out front is exemplary and something to encourage as it acts as a buffer from the street for pedestrians to walk there. He said he felt they should encourage more use of the street as parking in general because it is a tremendous infrastructure burden on the city that largely goes unused, and he was not concerned about people having to park on the street. In terms of the number of units, parking ratio per unit, he felt it is a healthy one; the average household size in Cupertino at 2.8 people per unit. Going back to the idea that mixed use would provide a greater utilization of the street parking because business is closed during the evening and that can be used for additional parking on the street, it is supposed to create a much more efficient use of the infrastructure. He said he did not have a problem with the 3.17 units; and would be comfortable with somewhere between 2 and 2- 1/2 parking spaces per unit and if that could turn some of those interior stalls into more landscaping rather than parking spaces, it is exactly what we are talking about in terms of giving less credence to the automobile and more credence to pedestrians and walkability. Relative to building height, Com. Auerbach said he was not concerned about building height; the height for Victorian is appropriate. The height, using the air space above to attain height makes the buildings appear more slender and more graceful and is a very desirable attribute and one that is consistent with the Monta Vista guidelines. He said he had no concerns with signage; it will be handled appropriately by staff. Relative to the live/work improvements, he said he was concerned that if the ground floor is slab, it would have to be cut up after the fact to put in additional sewer lines. Com. Corr said his concern was that they build in as much flexibility as possible and in looking at those units, the downstairs bathroom on the live/work level of the building, all of the plumbing is between the garage and the bathroom and if there was some way to reverse that bathroom, you would then have access to all that plumbing in the live/work situation rather than have it be a room away. He said he felt it would be simple, then it becomes a choice; you have flexibility without a major change to it or cutting the slab or having to build a whole lot of plumbing or electrical in there. Com. Patnoe said that he was confident that the applicant would be sensitive to the issues because they are going to want potential tenants to be the live/work type tenants and they may factor those decisions. He said it was less of a concern to him as he was thinking in terms of consultants as tenants in the live/work units. Chair Kwok said he felt the use of live/work space is appropriate as is. Ms. Gil said that the conditions of approval in the model resolution calls for the expanded uses, and the language would have to be revised to limit it to occupation-type uses. She said that home Planning Commission Minutes 0 July :13,2001 occupations are low intensity uses, such as a home office for an accountant. Com. Chen said she felt the live/work units should be limited to what is determined now and improvements should be put in according to the restriction put together by the Planning Commission. She said she would be in favor of more expanded uses. Com. Patnoe said that he was in favor of more expanded uses also. Com. Corr said he was in favor of expanded uses. The applicant said he was in favor of the expanded uses, but interested in more limited use. He said if they entered into discussions of increasing plumbing, HVAC, it is something they would have to consider before going forward. Com. Auerbach said if there is consideration of expanded use, he would want something in the C C&Rs about expanded use; and in terms of the marketing of the units, a disclosure to purchasers of the unit stating that certain types of uses are permitted so that they are not surprised later. Relative to the masonry wall, Com. Auerbach stated that he would like to have included in the model resolution the two breaks in the wall around the tot lot and retreat, so that it is codified. Relative to truncation of the roofline, the applicant has suggested a modification, and it should be completed. Chair Kwok said that he had reservations about the parking, but in view of the walkability of the neighborhood, he would support it. He expressed concern again regarding the height, and previously commented on the density of the building also. He said he would prefer a maximum of 32 foot height. Signage is not a concern; live/work unit is not a concern and marketing the units is appropriate; prefer two breaks in the masonry wall; truncation in the roofline, concur with Com. Auerbach. He said that overall, with the exception of the building height, he was supportive of the project. Com. Chen said that relative to the parking issue, the applicant addressed concerns and alleviated her concerns. Building height is not a concern, it is a good design. Signage is not a concern at this point. She said she felt the live/work unit improvement needs to match whatever the extended uses are. She expressed concern that the design get changed to accommodate the expanded uses. She said she concurred with Com. Auerbach about the marketing of the units, that it needs to added to the C C&Rs; masonry walls need to have two breaks; truncation of the roofline is a good fix. Com. Corr said that relative to the parking question, Com. Auerbach had some valid points. He said he was concerned with using old parking ratios that don't quite fit anymore, and would like to develop a parking ratio for all these developments that does not include the street parking, but docs look at the fact that it is a place where people should not be parking. For example, the 151 spaces onsite here come to a 2.69 which is fine, and the 27 that are outside will make it work better. He said he was fine with the parking from that standpoint; but wanted discussion to be agendized. Relative to height, Com. Corr said he was not concerned with how high the building was, but the drawings and computer image were significantly different and the computer image portrayed it as being much too high. He said he was not concerned with signage; the work/unit improvements need to be addressed if the building needs to accommodate special retrofits such as plumbing, extra electrical if needed. Com. Corr said he was not certain about the marketing; but that it was important that people understand when they buy into the unit what is permitted and what is not permitted, and should be able to look at the C C &Rs. Relative to the masonry walls, he said he had a different perspective on the issue. He said he preferred the concept that if the trail comes along, it will be inside of the wall and through the community; however, he was concerned about Planning Comm~ss{on M~nutes 10 July 23, 2001 the proposed two openings in the wall if there were children in the area, especially with the tot lot area and the openings directly onto the railroad. He said the roofline was appropriate and live/work unit was already addressed. Com. Patnoe said that he had no concerns with the parking or building height. He felt it was a gorgeous project and he was not concerned with regard to the work/unit improvements. He said he trusted the applicant and their marketing plans and what they are attempting to do. He said he preferred the two breaks in the masonry wall; and he believed it would be a safe complex; the roofline is a good fix; and the expanded uses were addressed previously. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 06-EA-01 Com. Patnoe Passed 5-0-0 Com. Auerbach commented that relative to Application 06-U-01, he felt it was clear enough to make a motion on most of the items except for the work/unit improvements and detailing what those are for expanded use. He questioned if it was simple enough to say since the model resolution calls for those uses, that the design shall be consistent with the uses embodied in the model resolution. Ms. Wordell said that it was somewhat of a building permit question; and for these purposes it is sufficient. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 06-U-01 with the addition that the live/work units design be consistent with their use as intended in the model resolution; that the applicant add to the C C&Rs developed for the complex a disclosure making it clear to buyers that the live/work units have the capability of being used in the ways outlined in the model resolution; that the masonry wall contain the two breaks as specified by the applicant at the tot lot and the retreat area; that the fix or (for) the truncation of the roofline shown in the south elevations be as per the applicant's redesign and be acceptable to staff Com. Corr Com. Corr noted minor changes to be made in numbering sequences with reference to Sections 1, 2, 3, Section 4 of the model resolution. Com. Auerbach accepted the noted changes to the motion. Chair Kwok noted that although he was concerned with the building height, the 40 feet will set a precedence, it is a good project; it is good for Monta Vista and supported the project. VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 05-Z-01 Com. Patnoe Passed 5-0-0 Ms. Wordell noted that the applications would be submitted to City Council on August 20, 2001. OLD BUSINESS: Relative to the Tilson Properties, Com. Auerbach questioned what options the Design Review Committee has when faced with difficult decisions in terms of kicking them back, or in terms of Plannlng Commission Minutes 11 July 23, 2001 not voting and kicking them back to the Planning Commission. He asked for clarification on the procedures for the DRC. Staff suggested agendizing the topic when Mr. Piasecki was present and there was time allotted for discussion. Com. Auerbach requested that discussion of the DRC be agendized at a future meeting. NEW BUSINESS: None DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Ms. Wordell said that the director's report consisted of some of the bulleted comments arising from the General Plan meeting on Tuesday night. Chair Kwok reported that Coms. Auerbach, Patnoe, Corr and he attended the workshop on the General Plan review in respect to housing. He noted that there will be further discussion and another followup at a public hearing for the housing element. August 27th meeting will be a study session and there will be more outreach meetings with smaller groups, service groups, community groups. Ms. Wordell explained the schedule. OTItER: Com. Auerbach read prepared remarks into the record about the General Plan proceedings: "On July 17, 2001, we heard loud and clear from longtime residents that they didn't want Cupertino to be another San Jose. In fact there was a clearly articulated preference for Los Altos, not Mountain View, as a model for Cupertino. It is important and gratifying to see people turn out at community meetings to express their opinion. It is equally important that we weight their input in proportion to the percentage of the population they represent. Unfortunately, from the turnout at the meeting one might think it represented 98% of the views in the community. Absent were many voices from our large and growing Asian community, and of course from the community of people who work here and can't afford to live here, from the elderly who can't afford to stay, and from the young families who would like to move here. It is equally important that those who attended, particularly those people who are most incensed at the direction either real or perceived, that Cupertino is taking, leave room in their opinions for the possibility that they are either wrong in whole or in part, or that they may be on the minority end of the stick when it comes to future plans for the city. We have other sources of community opinion, in particular from the Godbe survey of May 2000, and from the Local Links Community Congress of last year as well. At the community congress housing availability and the creation of a "downtown" were chief among concerns. These issues are intimately related. To understand how let's look at some history. Cupertino was designed as a suburb. It has a suburban geometry with no downtown. It is part of the sprawl problem that plagues America. Anyone in doubt as to the negative impacts of suburban sprawl should read the following: The Rise of Sprawl; Suburban Nation by Duany, Pater-Zybec and Jeff Speck. Also I would point you to July's issue of National Geographic which has an excellent article on sprawl and some amazing photographs of sprawl. And quite a famous article called Home from Nowhere in the Atlantic Monthly that appeared some time ago and available online. Planning Commission Minutes 11! July ')~, 2001 Sprawl can be characterized by the following: (1) Automobile dependence that is hostile to walking and other forms of transit. (2) Segregated uses. Housing one place, shopping another, industrial another. (3) Very low density. 4 units per acre and sometimes lower. (4) Automobile- centric design. Garages instead of porches in the front of the house. Wide streets instead of narrow. 30 foot radius corners for high speed car turns. Long streets with few stop signs. Serpentine streets. Cul-de-sacs. Feeder and collector roads that force all traffic onto a single main artery instead of using the maximum street surface to move traffic. Suburban Nation outlines a recipe for fixing the problems of sprawl through a concept called New Urbanism. It is this concept of New urbanism that is at the center of Cupertino's current Heart of the City plan and other plans. At this point I would like to clarify some misperception from the community meeting held last week. One gentleman asked, "how many General Plans are there?" He held up the 1993 revision and the Heart of the City plans as evidence that Cupertino has a multiplicity of ideas about its future direction. This is incorrect. There is just one General Plan. It is the 1993 revision that is up for review at this very moment. The General Plan is the master plan from which all other plans derive. The General Plan process is mandated by state law and administered by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. In OPR's guidelines, derivative plans, called variously Area Specific Plans or sometimes overlay plans are encouraged. The Heart of the City plan is an Area Specific Plan. It is more detailed than the General Plan, but is consistent with the General Plan. Cupertino also has an Area Specific Plan for the Monta Vista business district. In my view, Cupertino does not have enough Areas Specific Plans. I would like to see one for every neighborhood in Cupertino. A plan that would involve the most elemental building blocks of our community, and set the plan for future development or preservation of those neighborhoods. Back to New Urbanism. In order for Cupertino to achieve both more available housing at affordable prices and a downtown, Cupertino must reach a critical mass of people to attract businesses to the area. The bookstores, cafes, theaters, and other services that Cupertino desires to have within walking distance, must have enough customers to survive and thrive. Cupertino does not possess any historical downtown as such, so if we want one, we must create one from whole cloth. We can achieve this critical mass along the corridors identified in the General Plan today; along Stevens Creek and also DeAnza Boulevards. Not only will more people in these areas attract good retail shops, but it will lead to the vibrancy and animation that is necessary to make downtown come alive with activity. Anyone who witnessed the failure of Paseo de San Antonio in downtown San Jose can attest to the fact that buildings and shops are necessary, but not sufficient. There must be people. And why do we need more housing? Only by increasing supply can we lower prices. There may be a few below market units or subsidized affordable housing, but to make a large quantity of housing available to help reduce overall pricing, we must build many more units than we have historically. Of course, we can stick our heads in the sand like Los Altos has and pronounce ourselves to be done with growth, and the last one in please close the doors behind you. But I believe this to be civically irresponsible, and not in the spirit of making room in the boat for anyone willing to do their share. To be sure, housing is a regional problem, and must be tackled by all Bay Area communities. Every house not built in Cupertino is another plot in Tracy farmland or Fremont hilltop that will be turned into yet another hideous example of sprawl. Cupertino must do its share. Planning Commission Minutes 1 ~ July 23,2001 Who are these people who want to live in this town? They are the people who teach our young, fight our fires, police our streets, serve our meals. They are our parents who want to stay here with their friends, but live in something smaller with less maintenance than the house they reared their kids in. By denying housing to these people we force them to live in Gilroy, across a bridge or over a mountain, and we put more commuter automobiles on the road. We end up with tired, commute-weary workers in our town, and we unravel the social fabric as these people eventually give up the drive and the dream of a home in Cupertino and move back or out to Denver, Texas and Illinois. I personally don't feel that we need any more corporate campuses or big box retail. What we do need are more opportunities for those who work here to live here at a reasonable rent. These additional people will make it possible to supports a vibrant, animated, walkable downtown. In this way the most visible parts of Cupertino will change. Our neighborhoods, where the vast majority of people reside will change little. At the borders between these two is where the most unease will occur. If we subscribe to the new Urbanist vision already largely enunciated in our General Plan, then we must recognize the border issues for what they are, and not succumb to the political expedient of attempting to appease everyone." (End of text read into the record by Com. Auerbach) Com. Corr noted that the authors of the Urban Nation were speakers last year at the Railvolution conference. He noted that the Railvolution conference was scheduled for San Francisco September 13-16, 2001. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Kwok reported that the next meeting was scheduled for July 25th. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported on the July 12th meeting, which included a request for $800,000 from Cupertino Community Services and the Bridge Housing Corporation to help meet a shortfall on some of their funding. Both agencies are applying to the Town of Los Altos for funding which could offset this amount. The Housing Committee recommended funding the agencies and City Council will review the request on August 20th. Com. Corr said that relative to the BMR program, as of this week, all but one of the units at Oak Valley have been claimed and assigned. There will be advertising for additional applicants for that unit. Com. Corr noted that the BMR units are duets spread throughout the development. Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Kwok reported that at the recent Mayor's breakfast, a report from the Telecommunications Committee was presented; Fine Arts Committee on the design on City Center project; Mayor James reported on a workshop on crime prevention; Town Center project is on hold. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Noted article on City of San Jose employees leaving city employ for other positions elsewhere. Planning Commission Minutes la July 23, 2001 ADJOURNMENT: Ttae meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on August 27, 2001. (The August 13, 2001 meeting has been cancelled). Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: August 27, 2001