PC 08-27-01CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 27, 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; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior
Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Mike Fuller, Public Works; Eileen
Murray, Assistant City Attorney; Melanie Shaffer Freitas, Consultant.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the June 25, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of the July 9, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of the July 9, 2001 Planning Commission/Housing Committee meeting
Minutes of the July 23, 2001 regular Planning Commission meeting
The minutes of the July 9, 2001 combined meeting of the Planning Commission and the Housing
Committee were continued so that more detail could be added.
Com. Corr requested that the July 23, 2001 minutes be amended to read: "walkable" instead of
"workable" on Page 8, Paragraph 2.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved approval of the June 25, and July 9 Plauning Commission
minutes as presented; the July 23 Planning Commission minutes as amended; and
continuation of the July 9 combined Planning Commission meeting and Housing
Committee meeting
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Kwok noted receipt of a letter from the office of
Majority Leader Kevin Shelley introducing the diabetes postage stamp for 2001; sponsored by the
Children's Diabetic Association.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
Plannin Commission Minutes z ^ugust 27, 2001
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application Nos.:
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 thau 30%.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Request postponement to September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved to postpone Application 07-EXC-01 to the
September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Patnoe
Passed 5-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach requested that Items 2 and 3 be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
0 I-INT-01
Byron Navid
10950 Stevens Canyon Road
Interpretation of setbacks for yards for three existing lots.
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reviewed the application for interpretation of
front, rear and side yards for two proposed lots. Staff requested that the applicant orient the lots
to front along the private driveway in order to maintain a rear-to-rear relationship with the lots on
Mira Monte Avenue; once again maintaining the rear-to-rear separation vs. a side-to-rear
relationship which would have brought the homes much closer to the residences than presently
proposed. Staff also asked that the Planning Commission look at establishing a setback of the
fence from private streets. Staff recommends approval with the condition of establishing the
setback between the fence and private driveway easement.
Com. Corr questioned the reason for tile landlocked approved lot with no easement or way to
access it. Mr. Jung explained that the properties were part of a 1907 or 1917 division of
properties, and said that things were done quite different many years ago.
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Auerbach stated that he had walked the property and was in favor of imposing couditions to
ensure that on private roads the same situation did not occur. He noted sotne oddities included a
street light fixture behind a fence to a resident's yard; a regular street lamp post behind a fence; in
addition retaining walls had been set up creating situations where there are six foot fences on one
side of the property which looked downhill from a large house to 8 or 12 foot elevation downslope
¥1 nning C0mrniooi0n Minm Augu 001
to a one story house. He questioned if the city would be willing to entertain an exception to
maintain Ricardo as a rural lane concept rather than a street, and noted the issue of ingress and
egress to the driveways.
Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, clarified that discussion was related Item 3, and noted that
because there is a limit to access from flag lot driveways, the two driveways tbr the l¥ont
properties are actually fronting off Ricardo with their own driveways. She said the other issue
was the larger homes in a traditional setting of smaller homes, calling for DRC review of any two
story homes more than 35% FAR, and if the homes were under 35 they could come in for a two
story, but will be reviewed for conformity according to the ordinance with the design of the
existing character of the street.
Mr. Jung said that Public Works suggested that there be no multiple curb cuts out on Stevens
Canyon Road because of the narrowness and sharpness of the roads and the large volume of truck
traffic. He said that because of the ruralness of the area, especially on Stevens Canyon Road, it
might be appropriate in the future to have a sidewalk for pedestrian safety along Stevens Canyon
Road. He said that presently there is no rural street standard, but in the past the residents of
Ricardo Road were interested in a rural street improvement standard for their street; bnt the issue
never came up of what to do with Stevens Canyon Road. Public Works would have to work out
what would be appropriate for the residents, neighborhood and city as well.
In response to Chair Kwok's question if maintenance would be a part of the requirement
improvements, Mr. Mike Fuller, Deputy City Engineer, said that standard street improvements
would be; but as pointed out by Mr. Jung, there were no rural street standards. He said they would
not be opposed to them as they had an interest in curb and gutter in warranted areas.
Com. Corr said that his concern, as stated earlier, was how they ended up with a landlocked lot,
and that they would have to address the juxtaposition of the places. He said he was in favor of
moving on with the application.
Com. Patnoe concurred, stating that they should not delay the application, and suggested a later
discussion with the community relative to the sidewalk and the concept of preserving the rural
concept. He said that he felt the two items did not have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
Com. Chen said she concurred with Coms. Corr and Patnoe and noted that the approval was for
the issues as set forth in the application and staff report. She said she felt the other issues required
further evaluation and analysis and she would be interested in addressing them in the fim~re.
Com. Auerbach stated that if they are built at 35% FAR, the particular properties might not come
back to the Planning Commission at all, and this was an opportunity to influence staff in terms of
the planning and development of this particular section. He said he had no issues with the
setbacks. Com. Auerbach said he felt it was sufficient to direct staff to investigate a rural street
improvements standard to be used as a guideline in the future, and perhaps be applied to said lots
as well. He said it was speculative at this point being asked to clarify it in advance so that they do
not do a lot of work in advance only to have them discarded at a later date after plans are already
made. Com. Patnoe said that he would support that.
PlannJnl Commission Minutes4 August 27, 2001
Chair Kwok said that he was not opposed to approving the interpretation, but was concerned that
if the properties are to be developed not all the properties would be developed at the same time;
therefore curb and gutters could be put on certain developed lots and then leave the other
undeveloped lots with no curb and gutter so the drainage would not go into the empty lot. He said
he assumed PW would address the concern and make sure that the drainage is not dumped onto
other people's property.
Com. Auerbach said that it could be included as a condition of approval for tile setbacks to look at
some additional setbacks of fencing from the curbs.
Mr. Jung said that it is set back from the private street or driveway easement; 5 feet or what is
required in the fence ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. He noted the reason is that some o1'
the easement lines are in the front setback and the city does not allow 5 foot setbacks in the l'ront
yard; therefore it is a way of getting the best possible relationship with the fence to the street. Mr.
Jung said that the tree wells are a way of preserving a tree when the grading and engineering Ibr
the lots does not allow it. Tree wells or building a box around the tree would have to be addressed
on a case-by-case and lot-by-lot basis.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 01-1NT-01
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
02-INT-01
Anthony P. Wrzosek (Excel Homes)
22551 Ricardo Road
Request for a Planning Commission interpretation regarding front setback and request to remove a
specimen tree.
Staff presentation: Ms. Shrivastava referred to the vicinity map and stated that staff recommends
the Planning Commission approve the interpretation of the front yard setback for Parcel 3 as
fronting onto the private drive and approve the removal of one 25 inch deodor cedar tree. She
noted that the tree has created a hardship for the parcel, and as mitigation the applicant will plant
three similar trees at the rear of the property, which would provide screening for both properties.
Staff recommends approval of the application.
Chair Kwok opened the public hearing. As there was no one present who wished to speak, tile
public hearing was closed.
MOTI ON:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Patnoe moved approval of Application 02-1NT-01
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
04-U-01
Grosvenor California Limited
10120 Imperial Avenue & One Results Way
Planning Commission Minutes : htlgtlSt 27, 2001
Use permit to transfer floor area ratio development credits from Imperial Avenue to Results Way
Corporate Park
Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 2001
Tentative City Council date: September 4, 2001.
Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed the application to transfer floor area
credit from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2 and 3; the amendment of a covenant between the City of
Cupertino and Honeywell Measurex Corporation; conversion of 17,394 square feet of amenity
space to office space per the attached plan set; and restriping of the parking lot aud creation ot' a
five foot pedestrian pathway along the eastern border of the property. She discussed the
transferring of floor area ratio (FAR) credit; amenity space conversion, covenant; and pedestrian
path and parking as outlined in the attached staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution with one
change to the model resolution: No. 4, change "if the rezoning is not completed within 60
days...." to "if the rezoning is not applied for within 60 days ..... "
In response to Chair Kwok's questions relative to the possibility of non-approval of the amenity
space conversion, Ms. Gil said that the applicant could leave the amenity space as it curreutly
stands, but they would have to sell the parcel and lose the industrial credit.
Com. Auerbach said that often as a condition of approval the previous Planning Commissions and
City Councils have said they want that amenity space because it is good for the employees, lie
expressed concern that on the one hand those spaces are approved and then a few years later they
come back and convert them; and said this kind of trading that went on did not count it as FAR
and it becomes buildable area. He questioned if this was the case with this particular set of
amenities considered for conversion.
Ms. Gil explained that none of them were considered commtmity space; the largest amotmt is
one of the buildings that has a cafeteria which takes up ahnost att entire floor; the rest of the
amenity space is a mezzanine level which is not fully occupied because of height restrictions; aud
there are things such as loading docks which have been designated as amenity space {bt some
reason, but none of it has been designated as community space. She said that it does ,tot cotmt
towards the floor area credit, but is seen as a benefit for the developer.
Chair Kwok questioned if a change in ownership, the new owner would be obligated to keep the
amenity space, and if the new owner wants to make some changes, does he or she have to come
back to the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Gil responded that the covenant runs with the
land and details the amenity space in each building. If someone wants to convert more amenity
space to office space they would have to come back and make an application to amend the use
permit and the covenant would have to be amended as well.
Com. Auerbach questioned if it was a use it or lose it proposition where you need all tbe elements
of the model resolution to proceed with the transfer of the land to Summerhill development.
Mr. A. Shimoro, Grosvenor California Limited, clarified that if they did not get the FAR transfer,
they would be in violation of the zoning, which would cause problems for refinaacing tbe
property, and they would be unable to sell the land to Summerhill for the residential. He said the
easement on the east end of the property is a benefit which is a require~neut of the Sumn~erbill
Planning Commiasion Minutes 6 ^ugust 27, ZOO1
conditions. Mr. Shimoro said that regarding amenity space conversion, he felt it was not
necessarily a benefit to him, because what it does is allows him the ability to develop about 30,OO()
feet on the property of additional building area, which is similar to giving back space which was
granted to a previous owner.
In response to Com. Auerbach's question about the possibility of planting more trees in the area,
Mr. Shimoro said that they had not planned the landscaping yet, but said it would conform with
city guidelines relative to landscape requirements. Ms. Gil noted that there were no landscape
requirements for tree planting for office industrial, but that the requirelnent for planting more trees
could be added as a condition of approval and staffwould follow up.
The applicant said that he was not opposed to the wording change in the model resolutiom and
was also receptive to planting more trees for screening.
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public comment. As there was no one present who wished to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Com. Patnoe questioned if there was a way to move forward and allow the Summerhill project to
move forward to transfer some of the credit, but not allow them to convert so much of the amenity
space into pure office. Mr. Gil said that she had a different computation from that of the property
owner and said that could be worked on. She explained that if the applicant does not convert
amenity space, he would still be in compliance and in conformance with the General Plan; if the
amenity space is converted to office space, it increases the floor area, which is what is causing the
problem, where he is actually required to come to transfer the floor area credit from the parcel 1
portion which is being separated for Summerhill. She said that the Planning Co~nmission could
require the applicant to keep some amenity space; what is actually causing the problem is
converting the amenity space to office space which results in the deficit. It is up to the property
owner to agree or not.
Mr. Piasecki said that when the FAR was applied citywide, it was deemed unfair to people who
build a lot of amenity space under their projects, that they would be penalized. It is actually space
that is invisible to the public, good for the project. If the applicant in the course of doing this,
converts some of it into office space, they may still want to add some amenity space and not be
charged for that. If there is a marketing reason to have this kind of space, they will probably build
it back and ask that it not be counted under the rules, which is not deemed negative. I1' it is not
done this way, they will end up building more buildings. Chair Kwok commented that it was
typical of converting a non-functional space into a functional space.
Ms. Gil said that because they are converting it on paper from amenity space to office space, it
does not mean that they have actually applied to convert the cafeteria to office space; but they
want the freedom to market the building.
Com. Auerbach said he was not opposed to any of the items, and suggested adding a provision to
tree the parking lot to a greater extent, because he said he felt the example was good fodder lbr a
policy discussion later on with regard to the housing policy, and whether they allow the ability to
transfer all of the FAR from one parcel to percentage. He said that because they state that could
be developed as industrial today as they look at the General Plan, something has to be done about
the jobs housing balance that is more aggressive, that has more to do with potentially limiting
developing of property producing more jobs that cannot be sustained within the area; and given
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August
these kind of credits is not as necessary because if there is industrial buildout in Cupertino, then
properties only become valuable for either more housing or mixed use. He said he felt it was a
good understanding that provides a good test case for a policy discussion later. However, other
than for this specific instance, he said they would have to pay the piper.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to approve Application 04-U-01 with the change in Condition
4, indicating that if the rezoning is not applied for within 60 days frmn approval,
the transfer of the development credits shall become null and void; and adding
Condition 9 that the additional parking lot would receive trees and landscaping
consistent with what has been provided in the remainder of the development
Com. Chen
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Kwok declared a recess from 7:47 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The agenda was moved to Item 6.
OLD BUSINESS:
6. Housing Element Study Session
Staff presentation: Ms. Gil said that the background would be provided on how they reached the
document itself, and discuss in detail some of the programs and policies. She clarified that the
document received would be a technical appendix which she felt was not clear from some of the
comments received. The document would not be inside the General Plan section tbr the housing
element; but would include an executive summary with tbe goals and policies. Sbe said that the
document has already been forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development for their preliminary review; the review period ends in October. There will be
preliminary comments by the time the report is sent to the City Council for their review. Ms. Gil
referred to the map illustrating Cupertino residential buildout and reviewed the housing units by
planning district.
Com. Patnoe requested clarification on the 605 units in the Homestead Planning District. Ms. Gil
said they were assuming there could be some redevelopment of property; that with the property
owner's consent, a redevelopment of the PW Market site similar to the Pinn Brothers' mixed use
had received approval of permits on Stevens Creek Blvd. It is also assmned that there are some
underdeveloped apartment complexes and those could develop at a higher density. The 605 units
would be flexible; if Villa Serra and the Grove and some of those other areas already discussed lbr
redeveloping, would not redevelop and take up the whole 605 units; other areas in that Homestead
Planning District could redevelop potentially and take those units. She said the housing element is
on a faster track since it needs to be approved by the end of this year; and hopefully will be
approved by City Council in October. The remainder of the General Plan will follow and be
adopted in the spring of 2002. She said that there were some land use designations that need to
increase the density on certain parcels in order to achieve the city's goal.
Ms. Gil reviewed the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Relative to Program 5, she said they
discussed the General Plan update, which is where the Housing Committee and the Planning
Commission had discussed at the joint session about providing for 500 units in addition to what
Planning Commission Minntes Atlgtlst .2001
was being revised; which would be in addition to the 2,225 units. A program will be provided
which states that it will be evaluated in the General Plan process.
Chair Kwok questioned a category for low income seniors. Ms. Gil said they would be a special
needs population; ABAG and the state designate the number of units that need to be created based
on income level, which is the reason for the Iow, very Iow, median, etc. categories. She said that
they could choose to have a special needs population to target uuits to, but for purposes o1' meeting
the adequate sites, they have to meet target goals. She reviewed Program 6, 7, and noted that 6
would be combined with 7 as they were similar. She noted that there is currently a requiremetlt
that 10% of all new residential development must provide affordable units, and if the development
is 9 units or less, they would provide a fee, because it only provides for a fraction of a unit. For
program 7, consideration is being given to increasing that requirement to 15%.
Ms. Gil briefly reviewed Programs 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 24 as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the Cupertino 2000 Jobs/Housiug Ratio table, Exhibit
B. She said that staff was suggesting during this round they meet the ABAG ntunbers, aud tire
jobs housing balance approach in future developments be discussed, or perhaps set a ratio il' that
comfort level could be reached.
Ms. Gil distributed an existing version of the programs in tire housing element, and tire housi,~g
element review worksheet.
Ms. Melanie Shaffer Freitas, consultant, reviewed tire housing element review worksheet, which
sets up the parameters on how the element is organized and explained the reason certain data was
included even though it may not appear to be relevant to the city's situation. She noted that it was
the checklist the HCD staff used to review the housing element; and requires that tile previous
housing element be reported on; how effective it was; specify special housing needs; identify
ABAG regional needs by income category; employment and population treuds; available sites for
housing; affordability and how it relates to income levels; public participation in the development
of the housing element; energy conservation; consistency with other General Plan elemeuts; proof
that adequate sites have been provided; develop housing to meet the needs of Iow and moderate
income households; and reduce where possible any governmental constraints that we can serve
and improve the condition of the affordable housing stock.
Mr. Piasecki said that it was a boiler plate approach statewide, and if tile require,nents of tile
checklist are met, the city has an acceptable housing element, and if not, there will be specific
problems, but you can go beyond it and customize it, but all areas must be covered.
Ms. Gil reviewed the projected need by community. The Regional Housing Needs was made a
part of the record.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
Jurisdiction Very Low Low Moderate Above Total Projected
Moderate Need
Campbell 165 77 214 321 777
Cupertino 412 198 644 1,466 2,720
Plannin Commission Minutes 9 August
Gilroy 906 334 1,020 1,476 3,746
Los Altos 38 20 56 147 261
Los Altos Hills 10 5 15 53 83
Los Gatos 72 35 97 198 402
Milpitas 698 351 1,146 2,153 4,348
Monte Seren0 10 5 13 48 10
Morgan Hill 455 228 615 1,186 2,484
Mountain View 698 331 991 1,403 3,423
Palo Alto 265 116 343 673 1,278
San Jose 5,337 2,364 7,086 11,327 26, I 14
Santa Clara 1,294 590 1,786 2,669 6,339
Saratoga 75 36 108 320 538
Sunnyvale 736 361 1,075 1,664 3,836
S. Clara Unincorp 325 158 651 312 1,446
County Total 11,424 5,173 25,659 25,735 57,99 I
Cupertino's Share
of County Total 3.6% 3.8% 2.5% 5.6% 4.6%
Chair Kwok opened the public hearing.
Ms. Penny Whitaker, Cupertino resident, said that she had comments about Com. Auerbach's
comments at the end of the July 23rd Planning Commission meeting. She said she was concerned
that there is a feeling that the people who attended the July 17th General Plan meetingdid not
represent many in Cupertino; and that even if they only represent a small portion of citizens, their
opinions are not considered important. She expressed concern about the statement that those who
live here do not matter as much as those who work here, or those who would like to live here. She
said she agreed that housing is very important, but asked that the planners and council members be
responsible in making decisions about where to place high density, so it is not hurting those who
live here now. Ms. Whitaker said that she felt no matter much housing is increased, it will still be
difficult for Cupertino's teachers, fire fighters, etc., to live here because the builders have to make
a profit. Relative to the discussion of housing and jobs imbalance, she questioned how land space
is figured into that figure.
Ms. Gil responded that land space is not used for the formula; the formula addresses the increase
in jobs that we have had and what our projections for jobs are; the increase in number of housing
units and what the projected housing units are going to be. Mr. Piasecki said that it is indirectly
implied in the formula, because if there has been growth, the implication is growth can continue,
and that is why some of the higher growth communities end up with higher numbers.
Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkenson Avenue, said he sent editorial comments to staff a week ago,
and noted that there were different versions of the draft report being circulated, which caused
confusion. He suggested date stamping the different versions of the report for reference. He
expressed concern that the basic assumption from Sacramento and ABAG is that growth is always
going to be there in the future and that assumes water, electricity, natural gas and sewer hookups,
and adequate dump space for all the people will be available. He said he was concerned with the
idea that Sacramento dictates that the city must have more houses; ABAG has said the city must
have more houses, therefore it is a directive that the city must have Jnore houses. He said he was
Planning Commission Minutes to xugust ZT, ZgOI
not opposed to the idea that the city should aim at getting houses for the people who lived in the
city. He suggested that the city look into providing housing or help with the financing of~ houses
for people offered jobs, such as city managers, etc. He illustrated the example of John Statton
who recently resigned from his city position because he was offered a position in another city with
more money and in a community where he could afford to own a home. He also cited the example
of Union Church, which provides a sizable housing allowance for its pastor so that he can live in
Cupertino. He said it would be desirable if the people who worked in Cupertino could aflbrd to
live in Cupertino. Mr. Levy said that in terms of limiting growth, the city should question it' there
are enough schools before more houses are built; is there water, electricity, roads for the increased
population. He suggested that if they are going to help the very Iow, Iow and moderate income
people get into housing in Cupertino, Cupertino should be in a position to make a profit on houses
rather than the tenant if the city finances it, and the house could revert back to the city it' the
resident moved.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident, said that he felt quality of life was the most important
thing; more housing is needed, and also the infrastructure to afford it. Jobs come and go; land is
here once and only once; once the building is started, it cannot be taken away. He questioned who
ABAG was and why they had such authority to make demands, and suggested that the State ol'
Calfiornia people should attend the meetings to take the flack from the people instead of city stall:
He said he was surprised at the numbers for Los Gatos and Los Altos; and although many
residents of Cupertino want to equate what Los Altos looks like, he questioned how they could pta
2300 houses into a land locked community such as Cupertino, whereas Los Altos and other
communities can grow. Relative to the Heart of the City, he reiterated concerns that they are
trying to put 433 housing units in, and spoke for the building owners who already own there who
have been told time and again that they do not have to worry about eminent domain or being
displaced because they need housing in the future. He said serious thought should be given tbr the
people who already live in Cupertino, including the firemen and teachers who deserve housing,
and not just the people who might come in the future. Mr. Whitaker said at the last meeting, there
was a series of priorities that the public was asked to come up with and he questioned what was
added to the list or if anything was taken away from the list.
Ms. Wordell said that the bulleted comments were made a part of the draft General Plan, which
will come forward in January. Com. Patnoe questioned if consideration was given to answering
the questions and posting them on the General Plan portion of the city website. Mr. Piasecki
reported that a number of the comments fell within the guiding principles, and said staff will take
them into consideration in looking at how the guiding principles are ultitnately crafted, as well as
the series of policies and implementation strategies are ultimately crafted tbr the General Plan
update which comes up at the beginning of next year. He added that a number of the questions
were rhetorical questions; many pertained to a particular development which is good in terms
that particular development, and will be addressed when the General Plan update is done. Mr.
Piasecki also invited residents to e-mail specific questions to the city staff.
Chair Kwok closed the public hearing
Com. Corr said that he felt some parts were rhetorical in nature, as no one expects that 2,700
houses will be built by the end of this; however, where they are intended to be built needs to be
identified if the community is going to build them, and what the density might be. He said the
reality is that they will build some houses, and do some things and the plan needs to reflect that;
and in order to make sure the plan reflects the reality in it as to how it is going to be done, one ol'
l'lanning Commission Minutes ^ugust 27.2001
the drivers would be Policy 3-23, priority placement and that in terms of below market housing or
affordable bousing, give first priority in any affordable housing projects to individuals who reside,
work, attend school, or have a family in Cupertino. He said the housing manual was very specific
on how that would be carried out and addresses groups of people and priority points for being in
line for the homes, and yet it defines the public service employee as an employee of the city, fire
department or sheriWs department or district teachers. It fails to recognize that organizations
such as school districts cannot be run only with teachers, but also needs bus drivers, food service
workers, custodians, nurses and clerical workers; and the mistake has been made by granting all
those people in other agencies access to the housing, but have cut it off from the people supporting
our children. Com. Corr said that revision of the housing committee manual needs to occur and he
wanted to ensure that the other employees previously omitted from the program be included.
said that mixed use and high density would work well in Cupertino if done properly, and referred
to the Pinn Brothers development, the PW area where areas can be redeveloped very well and are
already on the major trunks where people can live and work and take part in recreation without
having to use their cars to go somewhere. He said it has been accomplished successthlly
elsewhere, and it can be done in a way so as not to negatively impact the remainder of the
community. He said he wanted to make sure that the way they will accomplish it will be made
known.
Com. Auerbach said that he read Mr. Levy's letter detailing his issues with the nature of the
documents produced so far, and encouraged other Planning Commissioners to read it since it
pointed out problems with consistency and usage in the document. He said the problelns of traffic
and lack of a downtown area could be addressed by more concentrated housing that needs the
critical mass in order to support downtown activities. He said the concerns over the urban tbrm
cannot be addressed because they are not at that portion. He said his comments fall along three
lines; the content of the documents themselves as they presently stand; the forum of those
documents and'the resulting policy, and what was presented so far on the policies in the e-mail
and in a recent report to City Council.
Com. Auerbach reviewed the following slide presentation:
How much housing does Cupertino need. Everyone is asking about jobs housing and balance and
according to ABAG they have a 2.7 jobs per household in Cupertino, but it is hard to decide what
is the target from that; what is a household?
The problem - Cisneros stated at a meeting in Monterey that a bed is where a job goes to sleep.
He said it would inspire him to suggest looking backwards at this; how many worker beds are in
Cupertino and is the number realistic?
The numbers: According to ABAG and the census, tbere are 50,000 people in Cupertino; 18,000
households and 44,000 jobs. Who are the 50,000 people? According to the census there are 20%
living alone, 37% working age, 10% over 65. He said he assumed 50% spouses work, 100% ol'
those living alone work; 25% of college age persons work full time; retirees 65 and older don't
work full time; and everyone that lives in Cupertino and is of working age, works in Cupertino.
Relative to the number of households, there are 11,000 two-parent households; under the
assumption that 50% of those spouses work, that leads to 16,000 workers supported by the I 1,000
households. There are 1,400 single parent households; singles households with no children 2,400.
He said he arrived at 21,425 jobs supported by 15,000 households; did not show retirees living
alone. The result is on average each household in Cupertino supports 1.2 jobs; that implies that
Plannin Commission Minutes tz ^nl ust 27.2001
22,000 people a day are commuting into Cupertino. Based on this model, to support the current
45,000 jobs at 1.2 jobs per household, an extra 19,000 households are needed; if it is desired to
achieve the ideal of one bed per job as a starting point, there is perhaps the ideal that it is not
realistic policy from policy point of view; perhaps we can support 80% of that number or 75% of
that number for a target out of that.
Com. Auerbach said the model may be wrong, but he felt it was a good approach to say what
Cupertino's needs were; the city is chartered to meet the housing ueeds, not chartered to identify
adequate sites to potentially build some housing to meet ABAG's needs; but to identify progrmns
that will meet the housing needs in Cupertino. He said they have to decide ou thresholds, levels of
significance that determine what does meeting that need mean; does it mean we support 10% of
people commuting into Cupertino every day, or 20% or 50%, those are the kinds of ntnnbers he
said he wanted to see. Com. Auerbach said the ABAG targets as Mr. Levy and others have
mentioned are really designed to spread the pain around; they are really sayiug this is how many
housing units we forecast will be built, not related to how many are needed. He said they needed
to make sure they are not all built in one area and although the split on the ratio is 50-50 as council
member Don Bumett said, there was discussion on making the ratio split 90-10 which would
change the numbers entirely. It is arbitrary the way they arrived at that, eveu in that context. It is
very important to understand the magnitude of the problem to evaluate the euonnity of the
compromise you make in meeting the needs of community. He said he concurred that they do not
have enough information, which leads directly to a problem. Tonight there is disct,ssion about
policies for the housing element in the absence of the data to formulate those policies.
Com. Auerbach said his main objection to the content portion, the techuical review portion of the
document is that they have not solidified that, yet in order to make adequate policy decisions and
that in the document there is not enough correspondence, the questiou is how much housing is
needed or even some expression that there is doubt that we have heard tonight around the numbers
that are used or of the formulation ABAG provided. He said it would take a siguificant amount of
time to ascertain or get better clarity on the numbers. He said that uutil they could get the research
necessary to do a General Plan update, the housing element could be in place Iouger thau
originally thought in spring or summer of next year, which is even more reason to do it right.
Com. Auerbach also noted that special needs housing and the seuior populatiou have uot beeu
addressed. He pointed out that there was no correlation betweeu the problems aud solutious
because they were trying to architect the document to meet ABAG demands rather than
Cupertino's own demands.
Com. Auerbach said that there was a tremendus amount of work to be done ou the document to
bring it up to form, and he is requesting that staff present it again in two weeks to review the
changes made as a result of this meeting; and review them again in a public forum, since a vote is
expected at the following meeting. Relative to the policy issues, he requested feedback from the
other Planning Commissioners, and review of the Los Gatos and Palo Alto housing elements that
might be relevant to Cupertino.
Com. Patnoe asked staff to respond to some of Com. Auerbach's comments since it appeared that
he may wish the Planning Commission go back to the drawing board strategy ou the hot, sing
element so that it might be more reflective of what the community needs as a whole; and how
would it affect timing with regard to state requirements.
?)annin Commission Minutes ,3 August
Mr. Piasecki said that Com. Auerbach made some worthwhile points about form, content and
policy, and encouraged the commission take on the policy, because it consists of wlmt tbey want
the element to look and sound like, and it is constructive to go to other elements and say look what
they are doing, can't we do something like this and one of the pros and cons of doing that is that
applicable to Cupertino. He said that if special needs housing sucb as senior housing is a high
priority, data will have to be gathered at this stage to help support that priority. Although uuder
the gun, a legible supportable document still has to be produced in a sbort amount of time;
however, they are fortunate to have a two step process and will have the opportunity to state that
the issue has to be addressed when doing the comprehensive update, since they are talking about
hitting a target of 1,000 units over the current General Plan. If considering going beyond that,
they need to provide and rely on much greater data which the census will help with. Mr. Piasecki
said that he was not as concerned about meeting ABAG numbers as meeting the needs that
Cupertino perceives it needs, and there is a great opportunity with mixed use and some higher
densities in the right locations to meet both housing needs and provide vibrant commuuity that
activates some of the spaces. He said most of the numbers are in the core area, they are not spread
all over the community because the opportunities don't exist and it is not necessarily desirable to
intensify the areas that are already built up suburban neighborhoods. Mr. Piasecki said that he
would like to start going through the comparable cities' documents information, through the policy
structure and then ask if they have the support for that policy. There may not be adequate support,
either they will get it in the next 12 to 18 months or possibly have to revisit the whole strategy.
Mr. Piasecki suggested reviewing specific recommendations raised by Coin. Auerbach, as well as
some of the speakers and schedule another work study session if needed to continue working
through it. He said he was not certain that the compact housing element could be produced within
the timeline, however, it was the technical document that will be compiled into an executive
summary. He said many cities adopt their technical background report as their element which he
said they felt was not an easy read.
Com. Patnoe stated that regarding the policies, he has stated since April that ABAG does not help
meet the need, and it should be addressed what they need for housing above and beyond what
ABAG is calling for. There is a section in the draft that discusses at !east looking at the
environmental impacts of possibly going above and beyond the ABAG uumbers (Page 62). Coin.
Patnoe said that he reviewed the version of the element on the housing committee and was pleased
to see that f~r t!~.e a sense of increasing the level of discussion instead of settling with what ABAG
is directing w.h. at the city to do, they are actually considering people here who want to live and
work in the same community, which is a way to get to that number.
Com. Chen said that she concluded from the input received tonight and from reading the reports
that they are reacting to the ABAG numbers. She said that she was concerned and there was
concerns on people's minds how to maintain the quality of life for existing residents here. She
questioned what the timeline was for the two step process; and said she felt it was important while
adopting or approving the housing element that the people be assured the Planning Cmnmission
would be looking at the comprehensive review and evaluation of the environmental assessment,
which would ensure the same quality of life, if not more, for the City of Cupertiuo.
Mr. Piasecki said that some of the discussion reverts back to Com. Auerbach's point about tying
these new units into the kinds of development form we would like to see it take. Some of that is in
the Heart of the City Plan, and it is the intent to revamp the land use element so that it talks about
community character and how that development should occur. He said he was not certain il' in
Planning Commission Minutes August g7, ZOO1
Phase I they would get 100% assurance; it can be addressed and some strategies and policies can
be put into the housing element, albeit inappropriate. He discussed the various areas where
housing was proposed having the least impact to neighbors. He cautioned that it would likely be
80% of what they are after because not everything can be anticipated. He eucouraged trying to
build it in, as they are being gold they must provide the bousing element. There will be
opportunity to revamp it; many other communities are not doing it that way and the city should
take advantage of that.
Ms. Wordell added that an environmental assessment is being conducted as part of the housing
element; although it would likely not be as deep as perhaps the quality of life issues being
considered, but would provide a barometer of what kind of impact would be created at this level.
Com. Auerbach questioned what were the actual consequences of not producing the housing
element on time.
Ms. Shaffer Freitas said that SB 910 was sidetracked with little hope of being passed; which~ if
possibly the city did not have a certified housing element for every unit in the projected new
housing needs, the state would financially penalize by withholding gas tax. She added that the
thinking is if it doesn't pass this year, it will come back next year; there is enough support tbr
some penalty for not having a certified housing element. She said for not baying a certified
element by December, there is no specific financial penalty, the city could be sued for not having a
legal General Plan document, and the subdivisions shut down and approvals and permits withheld.
Mr. Piasecki said that under the redevelopment law, there is a series of rules about having
adequate housing elements and having a valid redevelopment plan. He suggested making an
attempt to understand the great opportunity available and address what was done this time and
question it; and if it is decided that it is felt that ABAG overestimated the need, they could return
with a housing element that adjusts it with better numbers in a year to do that. He said he did not
feel that ABAG overestimated their need, but it depended on the numbers derived. He said be felt
the numbers were not that important, as they would not build 1,000 units in 18 months. Mr.
Piasecki said they should be selective, as the situation existed in the housing element tbat they
were bumping up against the ceiling, with no more units left.
Chair Kwok summarized that the document was quality information; staff and consultant had done
an excellent job, but there was still a fair way to go. He said he would like to see more input l¥om
the residents, and at the same time the document offers a framework to work even if the document
is adopted, it can still be amended when at the General Plan process. He said touching ou the
growth issue, Cupertino is in the center with the major freeways, highways 880, 280 and 85;
excellent educational system; and high tech industries to attract a lot of people to Cupertino; hence
growth is imminent. He said they must consider smart growth, and said that Com. Corr's idea and
the previous Planning Commission's ideas are to encourage more high density and mixed use is a
good way to do that. Chair Kwok said he was pleased to see that most of the housing elements
increased are in the major arterials. He said he was supportive of the citizens iu Cupertino who
have been living here, and said he felt it was important that tbe senior citizens in Cupertino who
have worked hard and are retiring, are able to remain in Cupertino and not have to move out of the
area. In the absence of data, he said some data decisions will have to be made, and the uext
months would be the opportune time to collect data to address the senior citizen numbers.
rlanning Com nis ion Minutes August ZT, Z001
Relative to the ABAG goals, Chair Kwok questioned the expectation of increasing the goal to
2,700 units for 5 years, when it took 8 years to come up with 1400 units. He said it was merely a
projection and was not taking the economy into consideration, and should be revised in
accordance with the economic climate. He reiterated that smart growth was the way to grow.
Chair Kwok said that growth must be controlled, and you have to be smart; and take care of the
senior citizens and the people in the community already, including the teachers and law
enforcement people. He said he was pleased to see the 15% increase in the BMR, and encouraged
staff to look at some innovative ways to look at funding some of the projects such as partnering
with other agencies to purchase land at a lower cost. He said there were a lot of good ideas
discussed, but they must go back to the drawing board. He said he was pleased to see the inpnt
from the Planning Commissioners, and said he did not object to having more workshops to review
guided principles, different policies and different programs.
The Planning Commission commenced comment on individual sections of the report.
Policy 3.1 - Com. Auerbach referred to his e-mail with comments tbat were included in the staff
report. Goal 1 states "expand the supply" however, he said they were merely identifying
"adequate sites". He questioned what could be said about activities to turn the sites into buildings:
what could be done to identify more things to encourage becoming actual units rather than just
adequate sites. He said that related to that, is softening the language so that it does not appear that
these are the actual numbers they believe in, to make it clear this is how the ABAG requirements
are met; not necessarily the needs of Cupertino because they have not been ascertained yet.
Com. Corr said he had no argument; but wanted to make sure they understood what they were
saying, that principally they require that 10% of development be in the BMR program; and in
changing it, will it move to 15%. He said he was supportive of that.
Relative to Policy 3.1, Com. Auerbach suggested the change frown "will meet Cupertino's new
construction requirement" to "will meet Cupertino's new construction requirement as identified by
ABAG of 2,325 units" so that it is clear that the program is to address ABAG and not the overall
arching goal of the needs of the community which have not been ascertained yet.
Chair Kwok said that relative to the ABAG 2,325 unit requirement, he wanted to add "as well as
community needs" to address the community needs first.
Policy 2 - Land Use Designations: No issues
Com. Auerbach referred to the housing mitigation fees, and questioned what the housing lees
were; why could they not make a recommendation to increase them from $2 per 1000 sq. ft.;
asked why they could not use that calculation to get an increase for the in lieu of fee; and why
could they not get a justification of the housing element for an increased mitigation fee.
Ms. Gil said that the nexus study was from 1993 and was for legal purposes; it backs up the lee
charged to the developers if ever legally challenged. She said they would like to update it with
current information, and during that process, the consultant hired for the nexus study would survey
the different corporations for the number of workers in each job designation to ascertain the
number of technical, janitorial, etc. employees. The numbers are used for determining how many
housing units would be needed and from there justify the fee. She said the BMR is a requirement,
not a fee.
planning Commission Minutes August ZT, ZOO1
Com. Patnoe said relative to Com. Auerbach's e-mail and attached housing elements provided
from the two cities, he wanted to ensure that the information on Los Gatos, H.P.1.4 and H.I.2-I
was available to discuss. Mr. Piasecki said that the first one was simple with no issue, and
something they wanted to do; the second one is more difficult for Cupertino vs. Los Gatos,
wherein the applicant with a small unit is told they will be scrutinized to the miniscule degree; and
someone with a larger unit will not be scrutinized; which is an equity issue. Com. Patnoe
concurred that it was important to include, particularly since Coin. Auerbach's area is very
different from the newer ones.
Com. Auerbach said there was language in the draft plan to try to keep the rental units, many of
which are in poor shape, and he said it seemed they were more willing to demolish them than to
provide adequate funds to rehab them. He said it was discussed, but he was not certain how much
energy went into the issue.
Mr. Piasecki said that is why the criteria is set up for when that could occur. You have to provide
many more units, more affordable units; and he cited an example of the siugle family homeowner
that owns a 1,200 square foot house who is told he cannot add on because it is considered to be a
more affordable house, whereas somebody with a 3,500 square foot home can add on or modify it
without any p?oblems. He said it is a relevant topic for discussion, lu the case of apartments,
there are some rules.
Com. Auerbach referred to the $5 per square foot in-lieu-of fee in the 1993 General Plan, and
noted that with inflation it should be $6.16. Ms. Gil clarified that the fee should not be in the
current General Plan since the amendment was made by City Council in 1994. Coin. Auerbach
said that it should be explicitly stated in the housing element that affordable housing be scattered
around the development, not just in one place. He suggested that the language relative to permits
be more explicit, such as the use of the word "shall" for stronger language, and staff be more
specific in terms of expediting. Relative to conversion of apartments to condominiums, he said
they had not seen much of that concept, and he suggested different language. He said it appeared
the conversion was strictly contrary to their goal of providing affordable housing and there should
be a different threshold, and one way would be to consider the conversion if the vacancy rate is
5%. Com. Auerbach said that he felt 5% as a Iow threshold; and iu other towns and cities, the
language was a lot stronger about discouraging it entirely; and he felt they could use some other
metric in terms of occupancy. For example, for hotels, 80% occupancy is considered a threshold
of operation, can the city determine from a study of apartment owners or some other
documentation, what the levels of break even point are and set the vacancy rate consistent with the
break even point rather than just 5%. He said it may be that they may need 95% occupancy, but
he did not have the data to back that up.
Ms. Shaffer Freitas clarified that it was a 5% citywide vacancy rate, uot for the particular
development; and it has to average under 5% for the past six months also. Ms. Gil said that she
did not think they ever met that threshold, and historically it has been 2% at the highest relative to
its vacancy. She pointed out that two years ago, during the apartment building boom, the vacancy
rate was less than 1%, and now is probably higher; but said in her ten years with the city, it has
never come close to that 5%.
Planning Commission Minutes August
Mr. Piasecki said that staff would work through the report, and address what they are already
doing, what they are not doing, and the reasons; and whether they can do it, so that the Planning
Commission can participate in an ongoing discussion.
Com. Auerbach noted that Palo Alto had considered enacting a minimum density require.nent in
multi family zones. He suggested considering policies and rezoning 12,000 square lbot lots to
divide into two 6,000 square foot lots to build smaller homes for starter homes. Chair Kwok
suggested selecting certain areas where the density could be increased; addressing subdividing one
acre lots into several parcels; and increasing the density by going up. He said that they wotdd
have to address a certain geographical area in order to do so. Com. Patnoe asked what would be
the most effective method of informing the City Council what the Planning Commissioners'
thoughts were regarding the broader issues of the General Plan.
Mr. Piasecki said it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to say they wanted to explore
innovative ways to provide more housing supply in the community. As a commission, be said
they would want to have the benefit of some analysis and some background on specifically which
ones to address because something as innocuous as stating they will allow a subdivision of I O,O00
square foot lots could concern a lot of neighbors that have 10,000 square loot lots. Rather than
choose one, he said it would be advantageous to look at things, get the information, and do a
comprehensive review as part of the second phase of the General Plan update.
Com. Auerbach said that the final policy item was the transfer of FAR, which if stated tbat if you
are going to transfer FAR, perhaps it would be 50% or 75%; or if there are other elements in tim
General Plan that limit job growth without commensurate housing, it is decided that the transfers
are not needed any longer. He said he felt it was another fruitful area of policy discussion. He
said it was also mentioned that the housing element needs to be revised since the housing element
has a ceiling of so many units; and in the new housing element, he assumed it becotnes a
minimum that we have the ability to provide more housing.
Mr. Piasecki said the first thing to do is raise the ceiling; every time someone comes in and wants
to build a few units in this particular location, they are told there is no allocation left in the General
Plan. The General Plan needs to be amended and everyone gets excited about amending the
General Plan. The other question includes does there have to be a minimum per site, which is
something to consider. He said there were situations on some sites that on the surface it appears
that you could provide X, but after analysis, there is an impeding oak tree and the privacy views
are imposing and traffic is not as good in that particular location. In some cases it may be in the
interest of the broader community not to necessarily hit the minimum, but it can be addressed.
They are likely the exceptions and can be written up to encourage not going below, and il' it
occurs, it will be really scrutinized.
Mr. Piasecki said that staffwas equipped with many thoughts and ideas, and he suggested that the
item be continued to September l0th, beginning with an earlier study session. Staff will provide
background data on the material gathered this evening and provide a consistent document
everyone to work from.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to continue the Housing Element Study Session until
September l0th at 5:30 p.m.; Housing Committee members to be invited to attend.
Com. Auerbach
Passed 5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2001
NEW BUSINESS
Design Review Committee: Appeal and/or referral procedures related to the Planning
Commission.
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell highlighted the two issues that Com. Auerbach requested be
addressed relative to the Design Review Committee (DRC); namely can the decision of the DRC
be appealed; and also what if the DRC feels there are some issues that the Planning Commission
needs to address.
Ms. Wordell stated that any item from DRC may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
anyone, including a Planning Commissioner, the applicant, or a resident. The Planning
Commission would always have the opportunity to discuss an item from DRC if they chose to do
so. If the DRC made a decision on something but wanted a general issue brought to the Planning
Commission, such as a zoning question, it could be brought to the Planning Commission as an
issue and a separate agenda item. The third option is that a committee member could say as the
DRC that it is not comfortable making the decision and defer it to the Planning Commission. The
Assistant City Attorney felt that even though it was not explicit in the DRC ordinance, it is
possible to argue it, and it could actually be written into the ordinance and the ordinance amended.
She noted that if the vote is a no vote, it is denied/final.
Com. Auerbach noted that the issue was related to the Tilson property. He said he heard l¥om
some committee members that if they had known they had a different option, the might have
exercised it and kicked it up to the Planning Commission. He also said that the applicant felt that
when they had given their testimony, and the staff was answering some questions related to the
property, they were not given the opportunity to speak again. Com. Auerbach said that the
applicant or audience may have further input and may have to be asked if they have further
remarks to make. Discussion continued relative to the issue related to the Tilson property. Com.
Corr pointed out that the issue was a request for an exception. Com. Chen reported that the
decision on the Tilson property was made in evaluation of the overall situation of the particular
property, and the applicant was attempting to use the side as the front which has the requirement
of 12 feet setback instead of 20 feet setback, and they chose to have the front door on the side of
the property.
Com. Auerbach reiterated that the applicant felt because of time constraints and building the hot, se
was time critical, they did not feel they could take the time to go through the extra cycle of the
appeal.
Ms. Wordell said that the appeal procedure is longer because of noticing; hence they would have a
better chance of getting heard more quickly if the DRC referred it to the Planning Commission. Il'
the DRC refers it to the Planning Commission the applicant is not charged a fee; if the applicant
appeals, they have to pay an additional fee, which is returned if they are successfifl in their appeal.
Chair Kwok noted that the issue pertaining to the Tilson property has moved forward. Relative to
the DRC, they should consider other options. Mr. Piasecki said that it is implied that the
committee has flexibility; but if problems occur in the future, specific language could be added lbr
clarification.
Planning Commission Minutes 19 August 27, 2001
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmntal Review Committee: Chair Kwok reported oil the recent ERC meeting,
including the Mercedes Road development, hillside development; uoting that the project was
subsequently deferred. More information is needed before it can be brought to the Planning
Commission for final approval
Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported on the receut meeting, the item of
discussion being the housing element. Two members of the cornmittee were absent, and the
committee voted 3:0 on the housing element.
Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Corr reported that be was unable to attend file last breakfast
because of an emergency.
Other: Com. Patnoe discussed the Cupertiuo Leadership program which begins
September, and encouraged Plauning Commissiouers to participate in tile program.
Chair Kwok reminded the commissioners and staff of the upcoming five day Rai lvolution
conference in San Francisco, and briefly discussed at previous Railvolution conferences.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported
that the 56 units of Summerhill homes was approved by City Council, and he pointed out that the
City Council liked tbe fact that the trail was built iuto tile project and connected through to Bubb
Road. He reported that the Marketplace Portal Avenue gateway treatment coudition of approval
required tbat it be agreed upon prior to issuance of building permits. The Compact study session
scheduled for August 23 was cancelled at the request of the applicant. Garden Gate Annexation
schedule update was provided in the director's report. The Stevens Creek apartments (Verona)
appeal: the Council took it off calendar and asked them to come back and assure the City Council
that they will be building the project consistent with the approved plans instead of creatiug
variations on a theme. Applicant is agreeable to doing that. He noted that the applicant
understands the requirement relative to the thickness of the window.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: Tile meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to tile regular Planning
Commission meeting, at 5:30 p.m. on September 10, 2001.
Respectfu Ily S u bm i tted,
Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: September 10, 2001