Loading...
PC 09-24-01CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Corr, Patnoe, Chairperson Kwok, Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Mike Fuller, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney; Melanie Shaffer Freitas, Consultant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 9, 2001 Planning commission/Housing Committee Minutes: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved approval of the July 9, 2001 Planning Commission/Housing Committee minutes Com. Auerbach Com. Corr Passed 4-0- I Minutes of September 10, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting Com. Auerbach requested that the September 10 minutes be amended as follows: Page 2, fourth paragraph; amend as follows: Delete lines 5 through 9 and replace with "year plan from 1993 to 1998, to their actual record from 1990 to 2000. Obviously, it is comparing somewhat apples and oranges; but the more important detail is that what that implies from 1990 to 2000 is that we built about 200 units per year, and it wasn't enough. Let's say 93 to 98, given the benefit of the doubt, 250 units a year. At 250 units per year for 5 years is 1250 units approximately of our 2587 goal. So, by my calculation I have asked staff to look at this perhaps they have the actual yearly numbers; we met about 50% of the goal. The reason that becomes important is that what we are being asked to do here is come up with policies that are going to produce 2325 units in a 5 year period, and if our previous policies were capable of that, they met 80% of the goal, then that is fine ..... " Last paragraph, Page 2, "eternal consistency" should read "internal consistency" Planning Commission Minutes z ¢Dtember 24. 2001 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission minutes as amended Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted an invitation from the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency to the l0th Annual Adult Services Resources Event on October 3; and the notice from the Association of California for Local Economic Development Conference Building a Powerful Community, November 7th in Burbank. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 07-U-01 Tom Swarner (PEN Co. for MetroPCS) 10602 N. Portal Avenue Use Permit to construct three flat panel antennas on a inonopole and tbur outdoor equipment cabinets. Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2001 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved to postpone Application No. 07-U-01 to the October 8, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 07-EXC-01 (11-EA-01) Chihua D. Wei Mercedes Road Hillside exception to construct a 2,189 sq. ft. residence on a vacant lot on slopes greater than 30% Continued from Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2001 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the application for hillside exception to construct a 2,189 square foot residence on slopes greater than 30% on a substandard lot and a parking exception to allow tandem open parking spaces, as outlined in the attached staff report. She reviewed the design, geology and slope, the exception for off-street parking spaces, grading and construction, tree protection and landscaping, and drainage as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application. In response to Com. Patnoe's question about precedence, and the history for the Planning Commission and City to approve a project at this angle, since the project slope was 47%, Ms. Shrivastava said that the Fluker and McNair properties were previous projects approved with Planning Commission Minutes 3 SeDtember 24, 2001 similar slope conditions as well as some slide conditions. Relative to drainage, she said that currently the proposal is to drain out to the street and into the city's stormwater system. In response to Com. Auerbach's request for a review of the hours of construction, Ms. Shrivastava said currently the ordinance permits construction during the daytime hours from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends. The noise level is 60 dba for residential during the day and 50 dba at night; however, during construction they are allowed to exceed the 60 dba level up to 80 dba and in certain cases 87 dba if they adhere to conditions relative to muffling equipment. The conditions permit construction during weekends. Mr. Mike Fuller, Public Works, said that if there is construction in the roadway, they would allow a traffic lane to be blocked as long as there is sufficient traffic control and a means for passage. Parking could not block a lane, and it would be required that emergency access be available at all times. He said the applicant proposed additional paved areas, and if the work was phased properly, they could provide space for parking in advance if needed. Relative to rural sidewalks and gutters program, Com. Auerbach inquired about the possibility of putting gravel there; keeping the rural character of that road rather than paving the parking space. He said he would be interested in hearing the neighbors' opinion, and what Public Works' position was. Mr. Fuller said they preferred the standard asphalt, and said that wonld be an area subject to maintenance as the rest of the road. Staff answered questions relative to the retaining wall, street lighting, landscape screening, drainage, street elevation, parking, ingress and egress to the adjacent property. Mr. Fuller pointed out that there are strict grading requirements for the winter months October through April; and said that grading cannot be done during the winter months if Public Works was not satisfied with the conditions based on the information provided. Mr. Chihua Wei, applicant, thanked staff for their cooperation and introduced the architect who pointed out that construction would most likely not start until the next dry season because of the extra work on the erosion control. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. Mr. David Russell, resident on Mercedes Road, said he bad concerns about the proposed application and asked that his letter be entered into the record. Mr. Russell said that he heard many comments about the property under consideration and other properties in the area, some good and some causing concern. He said he was concerned about the kinds of assurances the residents on Mercedes Road would be given to make sure that tbe concerns addressed today would actually be enforced. He questioned how the issues of onstreet parking and drainage would be enforced. He pointed out that currently a house under construction on Mercedes Road has had a number of construction vehicles blocking Mercedes Road for considerable periods of time, to the extent that a school bus was unable at times to pick up a paraplegic child at his house and take the child to school. The sheriff was called out to no avail. He noted that Mercedes Road is part of the access to the Marianist's facility, and emergency vehicles may need to get into the facility on a moment's notice. He said blocking of the road was a serious issue. Mr. Russell said he wanted the offsite parking put in place for the construction vehicles and for the future when construction is completed. He read comments from his letter relative to the lot being under construction on an active slide; the residents of Mercedes Road are concerned with ample justification t¥om recent history about building on an active slide. He said the properly under review is very close to an area that had a catastrophic slide about three years ago, causing extensive damage to two ?lanning Commission Minutes 5elotemlaer 24. 2001 properties on Mercedes Road, resulting in legal action and a recent financial settlement in favor of those two damaged parties. The location of the bedrock is not known; last year when a trench was dug there was no rock at 8 or 10 feet. He pointed out that the piers will have to go very deep into the ground. He recommended that construction not begin prior to the rainy season; and questioned how to prevent mud from sliding down onto Mercedes Road and if it happens, how to clear the mud to allow transportation vehicles and emergency vehicles in and out of Mercedes Road. Once construction begins, he said dust abatement was necessary. Relative to water control, Mr. Russell said that he felt the rain and irrigation runoff from the property must not be flushed onto Mercedes Road; the current situation is if water runs off and is allowed to run off from this property onto Mercedes Road, it will cut across the major private road of the four residences cnrrently on Mercedes Road, creating effectively mud, trash, rain, blocking the road. What needs to happen is tbat water needs to be taken subsurface and not drained onto the road. Mercedes Creek is a potential site for the runoff. He said that offstreet parking must be provided, and be wanted to see it up front and not after the project is completed as it is necessary for the safety of the residents in the area. Mr. Russell said that the proposed trees for the property were adequate and sbotdd be 45 gallon size or larger; and he was more interested in trees being put on the east side of the property which is the side of the property facing the other residences of Mercedes Road. Tbe residents of Mercedes Road are not interested in more streetlights, as absence of more streetligbts would help preserve the aesthetic quality of the facility. Other concerns includes control of poison oak; the need for a garbage can of sufficient size to be provided on the construction site and portable toilet must be positioned out of view from the road and other residents and not be located on the street. Ms. Shrivastava responded to Mr. Russell's comments. Relative to enforcing conditions discussed, she said that staff conducts checks at the building permit level as well as during site construction, and said that final occupancy requires signatures of all the departments involved. She said that construction vehicles blocking the road as well as emergency vehicle access were also concerns of the Public Works Department. Offstreet parking was not phased into tbe project at the beginning of construction, but could be considered if the Planning Commission so desired. Relative to water control on Mercedes Road, she explained tbat tbe project itself is built on piers; which means that relative to the amount of surface in permeability, there is going to be as little as possible impact on the site itself; there will be some clearing during construction. In addition, there is a condition requiring existing shrubbery to remain to the greatest extent possible; the engineer has provided drainage calculations and Public Works has reviewed it and reached the conclusion that there is not going to be as much of an impact on what is currently there relative to drainage. The drains and the foundation drains will drain underground and come ont at the retaining wall; hence there will be some filtration taking place undergrotmd before tbey come out onto the street. She said that the issues of the location of the garbage cans and portable toilet can be discussed later when they see the grading plan and where they will store materials. Chair Kwok questioned where the staging area would be located during constrnction. Ms. Shrivastava said that the applicant has been asked to provide the information, and work with Public Works to come up with a suitable solution. Mr. Fuller said they may have to block a portion of the street during working hours and provide one lane of control around it to build the offstreet parking. He said it would be difficult to stay offtbe existing pavement and get that done, but they need to be certain that one lane of traffic is open at all times. He said that some ofthe staging may be in the roadway during working hours, but as long as one lane of traffic is left open, emergency vehicles and residents would be able to get in and out. Chair Kwok suggested paving the area for offstreet parking first and using it as a staging area since that one will be away t¥om the road. l lanning C;ommi ion Minute 5 Oeptmber Z,5, ZOOI The architect said he agreed with Mr. Fuller's comments, and said that in terms of the ofl~treet parking area, he felt it was better to pave it at the end of construction rather than in the beginning; because if it is paved first and used as a staging area, the area might get beat up. He suggested grading the area with 4 inch gravel and tar and use as a staging area or parking area during construction. Also during construction, he proposed that the driveway area and the garage area be graded, so that the entire area could be used. Mr. Piasecki said that grading would be helpful, and also put in the retaining wall to prevent problems. He said it was an ideal location for tbe garbage container for construction debris. Relative to the location of the portable toilet, he said that because of the slope of the area, it may be difficult to mask the height of the unit. Com. Auerbach noted for the record that he worked with Mr. Russell at Apple Computer and met him when visiting the site during the proposed first hearing and anything discussed at the time was discussed at this meeting. He asked Mr. Russell if he had concerns about the construction honrs. Mr. Russell said that he was concerned about the construction hours and proposed the elimination of the weekend use of construction vehicles. Relative to the additional paved parking spaces on Mercedes, he said he was torn between the two options of gravel vs. pavement. He said gravel preserves the aesthetic integrity of the area wbich is very pleasant, and pave~nent doesn't really fit in well with the area. On the other hand, given that the dropoff from the offstreet parking area would be creekbed, he said he was not certain how much bedrock and other materials there are to support something that is just gravel; and questioned whether it would exacerbate the problem. Currently the offstreet parking area has scrub brush, some light trees, etc. and those roots probably are responsible for holding back a lot of that area; if it is just level dirt topped with gravel, it may be inviting a situation where the water can absorb into that and potentially cave the creekbed in. Mr. Russell said he felt the safest and most prudent thing to do is pave it. He reiterated that the water runoff from the facility should be taken seriously. He said that now there are several hundreds of cubic feet of dirt, shrubs and trees, etc. that can absorb the water as it lauds on this property, and the property is sloped in some areas and flat in others. He said it could act like a sponge even in the worst of winters. If you put on top of that paved driveways, rooftops houses, and things like that and occupy a considerable portion of this property with something other than dirt, other than absorbed up material, such as a roof that just allows that water to run off, tbere would be flooding into the street and he said he did not want to see that happen, and was adamant about something being done to contain that runoff. If that runoff is not contained, it will simply flow in front of a road which is on a slope and will ~nake what is already a very difficult bend in the road, difficult to navigate and people will slip and slide and lose their brakes in that area as well. Mr. Russell said he was interested in seeing something other than the proposal done in terms of the water runoff, as he felt it was not a solution. Mr. Fuller addressed the drainage concern, stating that staff would take a closer look during design; and one of the standard pieces of language in the conditions is that drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the city engineer. If it appears that there is some detrimental efl'ect to this proposal, there are conditions written for drainage across the street, where there was an easement issue and the conditions remained. Chair Kwok closed the public hearing. ?l nnin, Commission Minutes o 1September 24, 2001 Com. Corr said he was concerned that code enforcement go into tbose areas, especially when it involved blocking the road or using part of the road. He said if Mr. Russell's comment is correct about the school bus being blocked from picking up a passenger, that is a problem that needs to be responded to. Com. Corr said he was comfortable that the Public Works department will ensure that the drainage is proper and he felt they could move ahead with the project. Com. Auerbach said that there had been discussion about a possible provision that could be added to this project that could express at least interest in this proceeding in a certain way. He said be felt they did not need to second guess staffwho is still looking at various aspects of this project, but he felt they could possibly make recommendations. Com. Auerbach said because it was such a quiet area, he was interested in limiting construction to week days only, whicb could be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Piasecki summarized from discussions that there were two areas the Planning Commission wanted to focus on. One is condition 5, which talks about onstreet parking space and protection of adjacent vegetation. He suggested wording to state: "The parking area shall be constructed prior to commencement of construction on the applicant's site and it shall be nsed as a constrnction staging area through or during the construction, and repaired if necessary at tbe end of the construction." He suggested adding another condition of approval, "Constructiou practices indicating that a garbage construction debris container shall be maintained on the site and emptied regularly before any material is visible above the edge or top of the container" and limitiug construction to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Piasecki said that the city rarely limits weekend construction projects. The last condition is tbat the applicant shall locate any portable or sanitary facilities in the least visible location from the road; but since it is a difficult one, it should be subject to the review of the building official. Com. Patnoe expressed concern about setting a precedent on limiting construction hours, and pointed out that not allowing weekend hours could cause an increase iu costs and delay of the projects. He said he supported the project without limitation to weekend hours. In response to Com. Auerbach's concern about sequencing of events, Mr. Piasecki suggested a condition that the project shall be staged, relative to parking across the street prior to construction, bnt that the garage pad and adjacent retaining walls shall be constructed first to provide additional material storage are and/or construction materials bin discussed. Chair Kwok said that he concurred with the additional conditions and agreed with Com. Patnoe that it would set a precedent of not having any construction on the weekends. Com. Corr agreed, that they should not have different construction hours from other projects, lie said he supported the additional conditions suggested by Mr. Piasecki; however, he did not support the one relating to no weekend construction. Com. Auerbach said he felt because the proposed home was in a rural area and in close proximity to the Marianists' property, a finding could be established requiring special noise considerations. Com. Chen said her only concern was the need for emergency access to be provided when needed. She said she felt there was no difference between weekdays and weekends, and did not see any reason to support the condition calling for no weekend construction. Plannin, Commission Minutes 7 eptember 20,, 2001 Relative to drainage, Com. Auerbach questioned if it was not more cousistent with their evolving drainage strategy to take high velocity roof water and try and drain it into the creek instead of the storm system or get it absorbed some other way. Ms. Shrivastava said presently they have drainage inlets that run through the underground conduit piped out to the street; and some of the calculations include that. Mr. Fuller said it was difficult on a site like this to provide much percolation as the site is very steep. For a flatter site, it can be run through a landscaped area. Because of the difficulty, they go into underground drains or the subdrain system. Discussion continued about drainage, wherein staff answered questions. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 07-EXC-01 with addition of conditions discussed by Mr. Piasecki. (Weekend coustructiou hours remain). Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the negative declaration I 1 -EA-0 I Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 02-TM-01 (06-EA-01) Summerhill Homes 10120 Imperial Avenue Tentative map to subdivide a 4.15 acre parcel into 56 lots and common areas for a 56 unit townhome development (public hearings for use permit and zoning were previously scheduled) Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 2001 Tentative City Council date: October 1, 2001 Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed the application for tentative map to subdivide a 4.15 acre parcel into 56 townhome parcels and one lot held iu common. Staff recommends the negative declaration and approval of the application. The applicant did not speak. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. As there was uo one present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Patnoe moved to approve the negative declaration on 06-EA-01 and Application 02-TM-01 Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 12-U-00 Ashraf Rageh (Nextel of CA) 10555 Mary Avenue Modification to delete the requirement to remove an existing antenna monopole (Pac Bell Wireless) and allow co-location on an approved antenna "treepole" (Nextel) with a different wireless company Planning Commission Minutes cptcmbcr 24, 2001 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 2001 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, noted that the Pac Bell Wireless permit did not have an expiration date; so as long as they abide by the conditions of approval, they have an indefinite approval. He noted that the lease agreement has a termination clause in it, which expires at the end of this year; however, the lessee has the option of reuewing for two 5-year terms, which is anticipated. He noted that unless there is a breach of contract, the earliest the city could do anything significant would be in 10 years. If the applicant proposes ,nodification to thc pole itself as they may want to change something as technology changes, the issue of why they should continue having the pole up, will surface. Mr. Jung said that an additional conditiou of approval, given the Planning Commission's interest in doing another co-locatiou on it, is having the applicant design the pole to carry three sets of antenna on it. He said the applicant was agreeable to that. Mr. Ashraf Rageh, Next~l, said that relative to the three carrier issue, the pole was designed from the beginning to accommodate three carriers which would be three potential incomes fbr the city. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. As there was no one present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 12-U-00(M) with the added Condition 8. Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 04-GPA-01 (12-EA-01) City of Cupertino (Housing Element) Citywide General Plan amendment for revisions to the Housing Element Tentative City Council date: October 15, 2001 Staff presentation: Ms. Gil reviewed the background of the item, noting that it was the fourth opportunity to review the housing element, which included a joint session with the Housing Committee and the two study sessions with the Planning Commission. At the September l0th study session, the Planning Commission suggested some amendments to the draft Housing Element which are included in the staff report as Exhibit A. Ms. Gil reviewed the five amendments to be made to the land use element for consisteucy purposes, noting that the housing numbers were increased for the housing element, and the changes were needed in the land use element. She referred to Figure 2B Housing Unit Allocation table, describing the number of traits in each planning district, and noted that it needed updating to be consistent with the units approved in each special planning area this evening. She said the Development Reallocation table also needs to be amended to accommodate the growth and the residential priority tables needs to be amended as well. The land use map needs to be amended to accommodate the new growth. Staff recommends approval of the Housing Element recommended changes and the mitigated negative declaration. ?lannin Commission Minutes 9 5eptmber 24, 2001 Staff answered questions about density for the proposed site. Mr. Piasecki said that tile density was 4 story maximum with maximum height of 60 feet. He said the objective was to allow up to 50 units per acre, and explained that in dealing with existing built out areas, a fairly high incentive has to be provided to entice the market to come in, tear down the old, and forego the rent structure coming in from that, and enable the redevelopment of that property. He said the city was hoping to encourage a mixed use format and noted that some of the density was successful in other cities such as Mountain View. He said he felt it was a good format that could work in the area. Ite said the 4 levels would be higher by one story in the neighborhood, and noted that there was a 3 story unit across the street at the Mariani property, and 3 story townhomes back by Highway 280. Com. Auerbach said that the north side of Homestead is largely residential apamnent complex, and that moving residential mixed use up to the edge of Homestead was more compatible than a Carls Jr. in the parking lot and set back retail at the back of the lot. Com. Auerbach referred to Page 48 of the document and noted that tile percentage of achievement in the previous plan went from 80% to 10% and asked staff to verify tile nmnbers. Ms. Gil explained that it was for the time period of 1990 to 1995 that was revised to reflect the actual number of units constructed during that time period, which is actually 264 units. A vast majority of the unit production took place from 1996 to 2000; the state requires a 5 year planning period I'or the housing element and because of budgetary problems, what they did was extend that and they did not require that the housing element be complete until 2000. That process is beginning now. She said it could be addressed for the entire ten year period and look at 2074 units, bnt she recalled that it was requested to be changed to reflect the original time period which was 1991 to 1995. Com. Auerbach said that it was obvious they did much better in 1996 to 2000, and was ,lot opposed to it being noted in the report. He said he felt the 2074 units over twice the period ol~time equated to something like 50% of their goal, because if it had been a ten year plan, they would likely have been looking at something like 4000 to 5000 units; which he tbnnd difficult in how to reflect the numbers. Ms. Gil questioned if the draft should be amended to reflect that they did produce the 1810 units from 1996 to 2000. Com. Auerbach suggested that a comment on what percentage achievement be noted, or a statement that during the planning period the 1810 units were produced. Mr. Piasecki said that it was really telling about the effect of recession on the housing production. Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Louise Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said that her comments weren't specifically tbr the housing element, but for the original public hearing, General Plan comment. She distribnted additional comments. She said she was currently secretary for League of Women Voters lbr the Bay Area. Ms. Levy remarked that the comments that were sent out seemed not to take into consideration what was actually said, and her notes taken included information that was not included in the written comments, such as reference to gravel sidewalks being a hindrance to people in wheelchairs or carrying canes. She expressed concern that the context of the comments may cast a slightly different light for anyone who was not actually present at the hearing. Mr. Piasecki thanked Ms. Levy for the clarification, and noted that her comments would be taken into account when the General Plan was updated. Pla ning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said he had reviewed the Housing Element and wrote a cover letter on the materials that Mrs. Levy distributed, which copies were to go to the City Council, Planning Commission and Planning Department. Mr. Levy referred to the table relative to age distribution and noted his objection to the age categories used, from the standpoint of actual accuracy of distribution of population. He also expressed concern about the use of the terms median and norm when referring to the sales and rentals in the area, and creating a different picture of the community and not giving a fair and accurate representation of housing in the city. Mr. Dennis Whittaker, 20622 Cheryl Dr., said he had the impression at the beginning of tile meeting that Chair Kwok was indicating the numbers were already set; and expressed concern with going ahead with the proposed 2300+ units. He said they were discussing the number of housing units placed Cupertino, but he considered it with other communities arotmd; 2300 units in Cupertino which which is landlocked compared to Los Gatos 400, Los Altos 400, and other communities. He pointed out that many things have changed in the past year, such as tile loss of the Santa Barbara Grill, Togos, Carrows, Good Earth, Boston Market, Harry's Hofbrau- many restaurants within a very short period of time. It also means that jobs are gone; many For Lease office and shop signs all over Cupertino. He noted that the upcoming merger with HP and Compact will mean more jobs are gone; many tenants are being pushed out due to the changing market conditions. The assessment by the state of 2300 houses could mean well close to 5000 cars coming and 5000 cars going, which is a great deal of extra traffic on the roads, lie questioned if the greater number of building was approved, would the quality of life in Cupertino remain the same? He pointed out the pressures it puts on the utilities, power, water, increased traffic on the roads. He urged that they be realistic; use what is known today, do more lbr less; have more housing units but use less of them; and not take less quality of life with unlimited housing units. Mr. Norm Hackford, 10346 Tonita Way, said he was perplexed as he attended a meeting about four months ago where the General Plan was discussed and changes were being considered, and now the housing plan which impacts the General Plan is moving forward for approval without taking a look at the overall housing plan. He said he did not feel that a housing plan with 2300 housing units should be rushed through and approved without carefully looking at the old General Plan and what the public wants. He said he felt there were many citizens that were not present at the meeting who cared about the plan; and he said that he felt the plan with those numbers should not be approved at this time. Mr. Hackford said that the economy has changed, and tile previous ten years was an exceptional ten years. The future of the community and the way it is developing needs to be considered; the distributed work force also needs to be considered; technology is available to do it. He noted that many people are driving from other areas to work itl Cupertino, and suggested moving some of the work to where the people are. He again recommended not rushing into a decision just to satisfy an ABAG requirement. Cupertino's needs and those of the Bay Area need to be considered; high tech facilities are available to use networking and communications to distribute the work force. Many companies have work done in Mexico, Europe and other places, not relying solely on one jobsite. He reiterated that there is opportunity to use foresight and not be forced to do something just to meet an ABAG goal. Mr. Piasecki said that the amendment was scheduled to be presented to City Council on October 15, due to be adopted in December. He reviewed the schedule for submission to the state. He said the issues being raised are not new to the Planning Commission, and said it was not a balance issue; if this is done it will balance jobs and housing; the orders of magnitude are probably two to three times and staff takes issue with the ABAG numbers and will look for the first opporttmity to I'lanning Commiaaion Minutea it B ptmb r gq, ZOO I straighten the numbers out. He said he concurred with the speaker's observations that they are probably not generating the jobs that ABAG projects, but their job totals are way up. Mr. Piasecki said that they could not balance given their numbers, and have also pointed out to the Planning Commission the importance of looking at this in the context of the commuuity, and Iookiog at it as how to bring in housing opportunities admittedly for our own residents for the children ol'our own residents and do it in a way that is sensitive to the kind of environment wanted. Mixed use is being considered for areas that it hasn't been previously permitted as opposed to intensifying existing neighborhoods. Com. Patnoe pointed out that they are not required to provide that much housing, but to identify suitable locations for the amount of housing; and in looking back on the previous record, met 10% of what was identified. If approved, 2300 more additional housing units in Cupertino will be identified for potential housing should future commissions and councils make decisions and developers make decisions and want to put housing in different areas, so that young families and others will have more housing to chose from. He reiterated if the housing element is approved, they are merely laying the groundwork so that in the future housing units can be added should plans warrant it. Com. Corr concurred that the 2300 number is someone else's number, which they said t¥om the beginning was not what they were after; but looking at specific places for the 2300 units should they come and should they need to put in housing. More important are some of the other pieces in the housing element, relative to affordable housing issues, housing program strategies, and energy conservation issues, all of which are important and reflect more of what they are talking about in Cupertino. He said of the 2300 homes, if they get 10% of that number, they would not be close to where they were before. He said he was not concerned about those numbers. Chair Kwok said that it had to be based on the economy and the uncertainties they are being confronted with. Mr. Phillip Jain, 20071 Pacifica Drive, said that many elements were provided, but the element of education was not included. Education is an element of the community but not in the ABAG requirements. People come to Cupertino because of its top schools, and the educational system is a substantial part of the property values; if the educational excellence is lost, the property will depreciate. Mr. Jain said that people are now moving into San Jose because the Cupertino School District is not doing its job; the Planning Commission is allowing more houses be built with no new classrooms for the children. He said he felt the residents of apartments have no commitment to Cupertino schools, and there are a lot of Santa Clara apartments feeding into the schools. Mr. Jain said with the Hewlett Packard/Compact merger, the possibility exists lbr 1000 apartments in the Vallco area, a mixed plan development. He cautioned the city to hesitate before approving 2300 units before they destroy the reason people paid a premium price to purchase Cupertino land because of the housing elements. He questioned how the Planning Commission actions affect education. Mr. Jain recommended that high-end homes or seniors communities be built, but not more apartments for families with five children. He said he felt the mixed use affordable housing l'or teachers was fine and they could become leaders, and Cupertino be elitist. He suggested that the developers pay Fremont Union High School District for the impact of schools. He compared some of the Cupertino classrooms to classrooms he visited in Palo Alto schools that were supported by Hewlett Packard and Compact. He pointed out that those companies were not donating to the local community, but with their residents, the student/teacher ratio goes down. He urged the Planning Commission to work with the school board to ensure that the educational element would not be ignored. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 Ms. Lyn Faust, 11033 Canyon Vista Drive, said she supported Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Hacklbrd's comments, and expressed disappointment that more residents were not able to attend the meeting. She said the video tapes from the previous meetings indicated the strong community feelings about how things that have changed in Cupertino were not viewed as positive because o1' the overcrowding and the traffic. Ms. Faust pointed out that although more people were not present to communicate to the Planning Commission, they do want to preserve the quality of lit'e in Cupertino and the safety of its citizens and its children. Mrs. Lisa Warren, 10279 Judy Ave., said that she had not attended the study sessions or earlier meetings; but expressed concern that the 2300 numbers were worrisome whether or not they would happen. She said that she concurred with Mr. Whittaker's comments and pointed out that 15 year residents were as concerned as the 30 to 40 year residents of Cupertino. Mrs. Warren said that her husband's company in Santa Cruz was closing their plant, aud they were deciding whether or not to stay in Cupertino, and the current situation relative to growth may be the deciding factor. She said that the schools cannot accommodate the students in the middle schools; the building or' the fifth middle school keeps being postponed; and if more apartments and housing are built, there will be more students to house. She said the issues should not be ignored; and when the projects come up for approval the issues are revisited. She said she felt more comfortable kuowing that it was not definite that those numbers would be built and that it would take some time before it would happen. Ms. Warren said that she was not certain mixed housing was a good thing because it creates individual villages and loses the connection between neighborhoods as everyone is spread out. She said she was aware of the need for lower income housiug, and that the teachers and others want to live in the area but cannot afford it. She said she objected to the elitist comment and was not in favor of an elitist city or school district. She commented that her children wanted to stay in the same schools, and she and her husband had to consider the total family. She said she would feel more at ease about a commitment to the community if the housing uumbers weren't so frightening. Chair Kwok closed the public hearing. Mr. Piasecki reported that the census for the year 2000 reported that Cupertino has ahnost 19,000 households in the community, which gives a sense of scale. Staff has been emphasizing that they should be looking at ways to provide mixed use; trying to turn the projects outward aud have them integrate with the community and they can provide eyes and ears on the street; they can provide people who in the case of the PJ Mulligans site, will own the townhomes, which will be more affordable than single family homes in the community; that doesn't mean they will be atlbrdable to everyone, but will provide more affordable opportunities. He said they are again externally oriented as well as internally oriented and the city should be insisting on high quality projects, developments that integrate and connect with this community. It is a different way of looking at that building, housing and building it in a way that both integrates and minimizes impacts on existing neighborhoods. He said it is hoped that in conjunction with the update of the Geueral Plan they will have another chance to take a look at the numbers game and the balance and try to demonstrate that there is not as great an imbalance in jobs housing as ABAG has projected. The housing problem in this valley is severe; and that is part of what this is respouding to; how can more housing be provided. There will be other opportunities to challenge, Iook~ evaluate and discuss; they are trying to encourage a format of design and development that will minimize impacts, similar to what they were familiar with in older times, where there mixed use and a variety of housing styles and types. Mr. Piasecki concurred with Com. Corr's comment that the Planning Commission Minutes SeDtember 24. 2001 housing element was more than just numbers and housing and opportunities for housing sites, it is programs and policies aimed at providing more affordable units; a blending of all those things. Com. Corr said that he would not support an application to build 2300 homes in Cupertino. He said he did not feel that number would be built, but ABAG came up with the numbers aud the city has to come up with a fictitious way of meeting those numbers; and the remainder is i,nportant. Com. Auerbach said he was not certain how he would vote on 2300 nnits. Relative to the traffic issue, he said he felt it was an important issue and putting more people on the street, creating walkable environments so people would not have to use their cars to drive everywhere, was a way to address the issue. He agreed with Mr. Piasecki, that they were trying to make up for lost time, but could not; previous trends have to be addressed and the housing element stretches out over 4 or 5 years. He said that they would be looking at the new census data and new inlbrmation as part of the General Plan update which looks out over 20 years. The scales have to be taken into account; they are now in a downturn and cannot plan on instantaneous data. They need to look at the long term trends and what they want for the city in 20, 50 or 100 years and make steps toward that. The 2300 units are needed to be able to keep parents living in Cupertino, its teachers and other workers as well, which is an important element. Com. Auerbach thanked staff let their work, and said he felt they advanced a great deal from the document expressing that it was meeting their needs to being very particular about it meeting ABAG nu,nbers, which the documeut reflects. When addressing the General Plan update, he said they would be addressing some of the other integrated issues, and they agreed it was difficult to look at this in isolation and not look at the other elements of housing such as education, the urban form, land use and other elements. The public will be invited to comment on that process as well. Com. Patnoe reiterated that they were creating a mechanism so the community could build additional units should it so desire, or the city, landowners and developers should they desire to put in an amount of units. He cited a recent example of an application that could have potentially been as large as 12 units, but the Planning Commission approved 9 units for that particular site. He said it was similar to that example, as they were identifying the potential tbr 2325 units in the community, but as each of these things come through, someone may come tbrward and apply to build 20 units, and the community might step forward and say they don't want 20, but will accept 10. He said that it was possible that some additional housing uuits may be available 1Er teachers and young people. He said he would not support the element if it meant they were going to build 2325 units; but would support the mechanism where future commissions and the commtmity conld identify additional housing units should they so desire. Com. Chen said that growth is unavoidable; it is a question of how much, where and how much is provided by ABAG through a very detailed analysis. She said staff did an excellent job identifying where the growth should be, 2325 units is a significant number, but as fellow commissioners have pointed out, it would not occur overnight; it might not even happen, but they have to be prepared for the possible future growth. She said that she supported the housing element and policy. She said she shared the concerns about the school needs, and noted that there was no discussion about school needs in the Summerhill proposal for 56 units. She questioned if it is part of the General Plan process to include the analysis as a requirement for any mixed use or high density housing improvements in the future. Mr. Piasecki said that the Summerhill project would generate 9.5 students out of the project. said in the General Plan update the school impact issue will be addressed to better understand the Commission Minutes Seotember 24, 2001 pressure the school district is under, since people move into the community with their children to seek out the school system, and through migration will add more students thau by virtue of new development. Mr. Piasecki reported that Summerhill is backing out of their project as a result or' feeling skiddish about the market in light of the recent events. The property owner Grosvenor is interested in trying to find another developer to build the project, but because people are concerned about where the market is going, there will be similar commercial and nou-commercial pullouts. He said there will be a downturn, which will allow them to re-evaluate where the numbers should go; and if the community is not happy with that format to change it and question the numbers that ABAG has given. He emphasized that they should be looking at the units as a way to develop highly attractive projects, integrated with the community, and that provide a walkable environment to the services. He said the student numbers do,ft seem to bear out, and Com. Corr is familiar with some of those fairly low numbers of students that are ge,lerated t'rom new projects. There will be an opportunity to address the school needs in the General Plan process; schools parks, and traffic should be addressed more comprehensively. Mr. Piasecki said that the only mandate is to produce a housing element by December, which staff is responding to. He said they do not have very many mid range housing opportunities in the community and that is what a lot of these units are targeted to be; and the City Council has emphasized that they want more ownership housing in the community. He concluded that they were all good comments and it was hoped that they would be seen as real significant contributions to the community and not negatives. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reported that the environmental consultants who prepared tile environmental document also prepared information on school impacts. They interviewed both school districts and information about that is included in the mitigated negative declaration and they will continue to do that as they do the environmental assessment for the full General Plan. Staff is in contact with them and are aware of their concerns. Com. Chen said she was encouraged to learn that the schools issue would be addressed in the future. Com. Chen said she was concerned about the plan adding pressure to the city's operating budget in the future. She questioned if there was an opportunity to conduct analysis on how much operating budget impact there is from approving the housing plan, and from the future General Plan amendment it changes. Mr. Piasecki said it was a good point to focus on for the comprehensive review. He said they did not feel that the new development is going to have a highly significant impact, but more aualysis is needed. It will be done in the second round of review, and an issue will include new housing meeting new codes with very Iow fire potential and to provide a development format that provides greater safety with eyes and ears on the street with people taking an interest in. Some ot' tile commercial areas go vacant, and it is hoped that the new development can be tailored to minimize some of those impacts. He reiterated that they were all good questions and issues to focus on the second round. Chair Kwok said the number was a projection, not a goal. He said the voters approved a bond measure this year by more than two thirds of the votes and also the library measure strongly indicate what the community wants. He said he agreed on the importance of education, quality ot life, open space and traffic, and noted that there would be more opportunity to discuss the General Plan amendment along with affordable housing, open space, education and traffic. commended staff and the consultants on the excellent job in bringing up the issues, and welcomed Planning Commission Minutes Bel lemBer 24, 2001 input from members of the public on October 15th when it is presented to City Council and also at the General Plan hearing. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 04-GPA-01 with the suggested changes indicated on Page 48 and the mitigated negative declaration 12-EA-01 Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Kwok reported that the meeting scheduled for September 26th was cancelled. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported the meeting was postponed. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Patnoe reported that the September I Ith meeting was canceled. Other: Com. Corr reported that CCS will have the groundbreaking ceremony for its new facility on October 25th at 11 a.m. Chair Kwok reported that the Community Congress was scheduled for October 5th. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that the Verona Apartments appeal on site and architectural was scheduled for City Council's next meeting; applicants are putting together a package that illustrates that the planned building permit plans are identical or closely reflect the approvals; in some areas they are doing enhancements to the approved exhibits. Relative to the city library project, Mr. Piasecki reported that City Council met and agreed that the old library be demolished, and the new library be built on the land of the present library. Consideration was given to the merit of the location, and cost of renovation of the present library to be used for something else. Mr. Piasecki reported that there has been some discussion about the Oaks Shopping Center. The importance of a market that would contribute to the community in the same way the Andronico's was envisioned was emphasized. Mr. Piasecki reported that the City Center project was progressing with digging out the parking structure area and preparing the foundation area. The exhibits being presented to the City Council at their next meeting are consistent with the present plans. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None Planning Commission Minutes 16 §evtember 24, 2001 OTHER: Mr. Robert Levy spoke again and comlnented again on the school issue and the impact of more housing units on the community. He expressed concern that consideration was not given to the impacts ou traffic, schools, whether or not there is enough water and gas for the increased population. He said the Planning Commission should be more in a positiou to recommend to the City Council things they should be doing, rather than merely checking to see if the Planning Department was doing their jobs. Com. Auerbach clarified that Cupertino was a government code city and said as part of the government code, there are specific duties outlined for the Planning Commission. One of those duties is to implement the existing General Plan including the existing zoning and all the other recommendations, which are the guidelines the Planning Comlnission must follow. He said the opportunity to give the guidance that tbe residents have asked from City Council comes when the General Plan revision is done. Chair Kwok added that the Planning Commission is all advisory role to the City Couucil, and they took tile staff report into consideration, and raised a tot of questions to be certain they were comfortable with their decision. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the regular Planuing Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on October 8, 2001. Respectfully S. ubmitted, Approved as amended: October 10, 2001