PC 02-10-97CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 77%3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Austin, Mahoney, Doyle (asrived at 7:03 p.m.), Roberts (arrived
at 7:13 p.m.), Chair Harris
Staff present:
Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy
Wordell, City Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Colin
Jung, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 27, 1997 meeting:
PostponedtotheFebruary24, 1997meeting.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
10-TM-96and 38-EA-96
Lands ofTresscr
22110McClcHanRoad
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.49 acre parcel into 9 lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE C1TY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 3, 1997
REQUEST CONIINUANCE TO FEB. 24, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application No. 10-TM-96 and 38-EA-96 to
the February 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Austin
Coma. Doyle and Roberts
Passed 3-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
P~ann~u~ Commisfiou Minutes 2 February !0, 1997
CONSENT CALENDAR
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
20-ASA-96
Stargazer C-roup (Nora Chao)
10062 Miller Avenue
Architectural review to locate personal communications services transceivers site on an existing office
building.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 20-ASA-96
Com. Austin
Corns. Doyle and Roberts
Passed 3-0-0
Chair Harris announced that Items 3 and 4 would be discussed together, with a separate vote on the
items.
Application No.(s)
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
81,052 and 31-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Various
Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Torte Avenue,
Rodfigues Avenue and South DeAnza Boulevard.
AMENDMENT TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN BY ORDINANCE to define
future office, hotel and eommereial sites, their future development intensifies and to make a deletion or
modification to the medium density residential overlay in the area commonly known as City Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETE~ATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 3, 1997
CONrflNUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1997
Application No.(s)
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
2-Z-g3(Mod.) and 32-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Various
Pmperhes bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Torte Avenue,
Rodrigues Avenue and South DeAnza Boulevard.
MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING to define futura land use types,
development intensifies and building forms in the area commonly known ns City Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 3, 1997
CONI'INUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1997
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, referred to overheads of thc Cuper~no City
Center Master Plan (August 1966) end the City Center Land Use & Development Summary and
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 1 O, 1997
explained that the modification of the planned development zoninE alld the ameudment to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan would be discussed to look at the remaining parcels of land that are undeveloped
or have not yet been committed to some other use. The particular parcels are the parking lot on
Stevens Creek Boulevard, the hotel site, the former Sirens restaurant site, the parcel owned by the
larger City Center conglomerate, and the comer lot designated as open space. He said that the recent
approval of the Symantec project brought forth issues of the overall level of development in the City
Center area and the idea is to be proactive in this particular circumstance, and decide what the City is
interested in having on the remaining parcels of land. Staff feels that the City Center plan has been
largely completed with the exception of the hotel site and the properties surrounding the Sirens
restaurant.
Staff recommends a planned development zonin~ that would have that modified such that the parking
lot parcel and the Sirens parcel be limited to retail commercial development with not more than a two
story height limit, the strategy behind being that in the Heart of the City Specific Plan the area has been
designated one of the activity centers. He noted that the area has not achieved the sort of intense
pedestrian human activity intended for the area but staff believes the missing component is the
commercial development. The strategy behind this would be to have commercial development, the
hotel with some ancillary commercial development, and if it were to redevelop in the future, retail
development to try to link all these three together to provide some synergy between the retail
development, the residential uses and the office uses on the other surrounding parcels.
Mr. Jung discussed Specific Plan Chan~es to make sure the zoning, the General Plan and the Specific
Plan are consistent. One change is to correct a procedure error by adopting an ordinance rather than a
resolution. He reported that there was a section in thc Specific Plan where a residential overlay over
one of the parcels was discussed, and the purpose of the rezoning and the Specific Plan change would
be to ~move future residential uses in this area on those underutilized parcels fxom consideration by
deleting the City Center areas and amending the Heart of the City Specific Plan land use map to delete
the residential overlay and designate it for future retail use.
Mr. Jung repor~d that s~ffis recommending a Negative Declaration on the project.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the available development pools wherein staff answered
Commissioners' questions.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Mark ICa-oil, 393 Vintage Park Drive, Foster City, representing two property owners, Cupertino
City Center Buildings and Cupertino City Center Land, addressed the issue of permuneat open space.
He said that consistently over the last 14 years the comer park was considered a comer park and has
never been in question, but that there may be confusion with the issues that were enntentious
concerning the triangle which was not considered a park. He noted that several hundreds of thousands
of dollars were spent creating the park and helped fund the charette which cmpt~cl the concept of the
four seasons orchard, which they have always felt was appropriate. He said they have been working
with staff tu dedicate it to the city or work out appropriate language. He said it has not been aa issue,
nor should anyone make it an issue. Relative to Lot No. 6, Mr. Kroll clarified that the area was not
common area and is not owned by the Cupertino City Center Owners Association and the CC&Rs call
out specific and acceptable uses to that site.
P~ming Commission Minutes 4 February 10, 1997
Mr. KroH said that while they understood the concerns about density in City Center, there was no
better place for housing and for the needs for the City's housing to be accommoa~_ted than City Center.
He said that housing is badly needed to maintain the long term health of Silicon Valley. In addition,
increasing the supply of housing is the best way to deal with the escalating rents. He said that they
were not askln,qo to approve a use pennit; the existing Heart of th~ City Specific Plan designates these
two lots for housing as does the General Plan. Mr. Kroll said that following staff recomme~datloas
would in fact place the zoning in the Heart of the City Specific Plan in conflict with the existing
General Plan in a number of ways but most importantly, the exis~in~o General Plaa shows a potential
for 316 housing units in the Heart of the City. It is a goal that helps thc City get the certification oftbe
housing element of the General Plan. He said they did not feel this was the fight thing for the City to
do, and that the elirnlrmtion of this housing will create several environmental impacts; and that its
mitigation has not been adeqn~te!y addressed in the environmental assessment. He said they also felt
that the CEQA documentation prepared for this rceoning and change to the Hear~ of the City Plan is
not adequate, lie urged tbe Planning Commission to leave the existing zoning and the existing Heart of
the Specific Plan in place.
Chair Harris asked Mr. Kroll if he disagreed with the Planning Director's statement that the
development fights were traded away from Lot 6 when the eight stories were put in. Mr. Kroll said
that he did not ~a,~ress the issue. He clarified that there was eur~nfly a General Plan that allows
housing on both sites and a Specific Plan that allows housing on both those sites.
Chair Harris requested that staff clarify whether housing was a consideration for Lot 6. Mr. Jung
responded that the General Plan land use designation for these properties as well as most of the other
properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard is commercial/office/residential which states that they are
allowed uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Referring to Exhibit B, Mr. Jnn~ said he differed with
Mr. K~ll on the language of the zoning for those particolar lots and the lots being addressed are Parcel
22 and 37. Mr. ~'ung said that it was his interpretation of the zoning, dating back to the 1983 zoning
plan, that Lot 22 is shown on the conceptual plan as a parking lot and that is why it is designated as
parking. Lot 37 in the 1983 conceptual zoning plan shows development and the assumption is it was a
developable piece of property and based on the zoning in effect at that time, and retail could be put on
the lot and residential development on that parcel given the allowed land uses.
Father Michael Mitchell, representing the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, stated that there were
existing traffic and parking easements surrounding the parcels on the comer that may preclude some of
the earlier conversations He said there were several entrance easements and cross park~g easements
that already exist among the owners that may conflict or constrain possible development. He said he
wanted assurance it was on the record now so people won't be operating in an environment where they
are mistaken. Referring to the map, he said there was some understanding about the comer opposite
open space where the former gas station existed, and there are buildings surrounding that. Among the
owners of the existing buildings beyond the gas station there are eruss easements for entnmce and
parking.
Chair Harris dosed the public hearing.
For discussion purposes the issues were summarized: (1) Environmental: A change from the land use
designation in the General Plan, a change of zoning, change of adopted Specific Plan and a change in
the present land use; (2) Zoning: Decide whether parcel 22 should remain as parking, leave the
residential overlay or convert it to retail/commercial; Hotel with internal retail space; Parcels 1 and 37
suggested use v~all commercial (Pared 37 possible undeveloped); Lot 8 designated as park area; and
Planning Commission Minutes s February 10, 1997
(3) Specific Plan: R~onsider Symantec lan~mge for the ordinance to replace the resolution; taking
City Center area properties out of the list for potential residential; D¢I~ residential overlay
requirement from Parcel 22 and to limit to retail commercial Parcels 22, 37 and 1.
In response to Chair Hanis' request for comment on the viability of two story retail, Mr. Jung said that
two story retail was not viable outside of a major mall. Mr. Cowan said that it would have to be a
unique retail tied into the parking supply for the balance of the development.
Com, Roberts said he was not concerned with the environmental issue as it was minor; he said that he
opposed the Symantec resolution in its original form and opposed the ordinance. He requested that it
be separated so that voting would not be on the entire package. Parcel 22: it isn't clear whether the
ownership on Parcels 22 and 29 differ or whether they could be combined, ff they could be enmbined,
he suggested leaving open provision for that and would like to see the same height limitation on Parcels
22 and 29 as the existing office building on Parcel 19. He said that in this important part of the city, I
would like to see some unity of development and the two story ~ between the four story office and
tim six story hotel docs not satisfy the criteria. Com. Roberts said that the hotel with the ancillary
retail was acceptable. He reiterated that he would prefer to see Parcels 19, 22 and 29 compatible in
height. If Parcel 22 remains as a separate parcel, and fi`we were thinking in terl~ of more level height
limitation, I could envision retail commercial on the ground level and mixed retail residential. Relative
to Parcel 37, Com. Roberts said that he would prefer to have all the parcels combined and developed in
a uniform and cohesive way (retail commercial). He said he would not be adverse to mixed use with
residential on 37. The overall pattern of development would be more orderly and attractive fi` there
were a two story commercial development located on the parcel. For the sake of appearance the same
heights on 29 and 37 complex would be ath-active and fit well together with the high rise.
Com. Austin said the environmental issue was not a concern; the ordinance revision was acceptable;
Parcel 22: leave zoning as is, parking with residential overlay (mixed use); fi` hotel is to remain 4
stories, have mixed usc in parking residential retail commercial. She said that she concurred with Com.
Roberts regarding thc hotel; Parcels 1 and 37 as retail residential; Parcel 8 designated as public open
space; Parcel 6: opposed to changing land use map.
Com. Doyle said the environmental issue was appropriate; Symantec ordinance is acceptable; Parcel
22 to be left as parking only, no additional development potemial allocated; hotel with ancillary retail is
appropriate; Parcel 37 should be retail commercial with 30 foot maximum; Parcel 1 retail commercial
with 30 foot maximum; Lot 8 park area with no permanent structure except public art, open to public;
Lot 6 Stevens Creek Specific Plan - delete City Center and make others examples not allocations or
Com. Mahuney said the environmental issue was appropriate; ordinance mvisiun acceptable; Parcel 22:
concur with staff~port to limit to retail commercial; hotel with ancillary retail is acceptable; Parcels
1 and 37 limited to retail commercial; Lot 8 park with appropriate wording; Policy 6 delete overview
and policy.
Chair Harris said the environmental issue was appropriate; she was opposed to ordinance revision;
concurred with Com. Roberts that it be separated for voting purposes; she said she would like to see
Parcel 22 remain as a parking lot; hotel is acceptable with specifications that ancillary commercial is
part of the original plan for the hotel and not added later; was in favor of Parcel 1 being retail and
Parcel 37 not being developed since that was a previous agreement; would like to have specific
Plmming Commission Minutes 6 February 10, 1997
language for Lot 8 to be used as a park for public use; acceptable to remove residential overlay and to
remove City Center parcels bom the list of potential housing sites.
A lengthy discussion ensued wherein thc Planning Commissioners considered thc rationale for specific
land uses. Changes in decisions arc reflected in the motions as noted below.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to grant tho Negative Declarations on 31-EA-96 and 32-EA-96
Com. Mahoncy
Passed ~-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve thc change of the Symantec ordinance to a resolution
Com. Mahoney
Com. Roberts and Ch~ir Hah'is
Passed 3-2-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoncy moved to amend thc Specific Plan per thc language in Exhibit A-1 to
delete City Center area properties from list and remove residential overlay from
Parcel 22; limit to mixed use retail commercial and residential on Parcels 1 and 37
with a height limitation on Parcel 1 of 30' and Might limitation of Parcel 37 of 50';
~tain current land usc designation on Parcel 22 as parking; add Lot 8 to Specific Plan
Use Map as permanent park ar~a available to the public.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved that ther~ be no change in the zoning of Parcel 22; add
ancillary commercial uses to hotel zone on Parcel 29; zone for mixed usc retail and
residential with a 50' maximum height on Lot 38; zone for mixed use retail and
residential with a 30' maximum height on Lot 1; zone Lot 8 as permanent park space
available to the public.
Austin
Passed 5-0-0
Mr. Cowan repor~d that the recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council on March 3.
Chair Harris declared a recess at 9:02 p.m. Upon rceonvening at 9:23 p.m., the same Commissioners
and staffwerc present.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Historic Preservation Ordinance and 4-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Consideration of Historic Preservation Ordinance.
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 18, 1997
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1997
Staff vresentation: Chair Harris noted that the staff repor~ was reviewed. She read the
recommendation to add an interim historic protection measure.
Planning Commission Minutes ? February 10, 1997
Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner H, reviewed thc Deed Restriction requirement on Page 5-7 of the
attached staff report and explained that removal was proposed because the burden of proof falls with
the property owner and the real estate agent. She said that some of the people involved with the
ordinance felt strongly that the restriction was not necessary and staff concurred.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the la~,a~e in 19.82.090 relative to the number of exceptions
listed. Following a brief discussion, there was cons~sas to change the wording to read: Insert the
word "of' after "element" in the first line; delete context after "except" and insert "fence repair or
construction to a good nefghbor fence."
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Father Michael MiteheH, 110 No. DeAnza Boulevard, representing the Roman Catholic Bishop of San
Jose, commended staff for actin~ in an efficient and professional manner in c,-u~g out the mand_~t_~d
duties directed by the Planning Commission. He stated his objection to staffs direction, in that there is
no distinction made among the terms landmark site or building in the General Plan, and the current
ordinance with tonight's amendment lumps all of them together. He pointed out that a site may be
historical without any of its buildin~o~ being constrained by the ordinance; the site may he historic but
none of the buildings may have any architectural merit at all. He offered the example of the Kaiser
property which is listed ns a landmark. He said that the General Plan declared St. Joseph's site as
historic, but the amendment is most restrictive. Further, he stated that if there was economic merit in
listing the property, why is it that none of the property owners who have these properties believe it?
The interim measures are most restrictive, more than the ordinance was before it stzm~. In fact, what
we are asking is, if the economics of having a historical property dictate that it he listed, why is it
necessary that the police power of the city he utilized to restrict these buildings? That is an answer that
no one here has been able to respond to. There is no economic advantage to having your building listed;
it restricts you unduly and if there is a mechanism to make this happen, let the property owner list the
property voluntarily and there would he no more discussion.
Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue said that he had sent a letter earlier with attachments
indicating that there would he a potential 20% to 30% property value reduction for any property
designated under the ordinance. He said that if Cupertino were a city with a significant historical
district, the sto~' might he different, but in the Cupertino context, it is unfortunate that there will be a
significant price reduction. He asked again that a clause be included in the ordinance allowing owners'
consent to listing to allow the owners to avoid personal financial catastrophe. He said that he looked
forward by the Commissioners' votes who truly believes they have been given a mandate to take
$50,000 to $100,000 out of the homeowners' pockets, because that is the result of the listing.
Mr. Mike Urn, 10518 Phil Place said that he would like to see three changes to the ordinance before
voting on it. First, the ordinance should he clear, noting that its lack of clarity was addressed earlier;
except that near the end of the ordinance in exceptions, it lists as one of the exceptions work not in
conflict with the designating ordinance. For this-ordinance to be clear and consistent, he suggested that
it not he listed as an exception. It should be more in the way of an exemption in accordance with the
section just modified. Second, the ordinance should have a clear standard for modifications that
require this higher level of review which the ordinance has lacked from the beginning. What
modifications will and will not be allowed? He said that people dislike uncertainty, property owners
dislike uncertainty as do markets and economy, and that is what this ordinance erentes in not setting
forth what modifications will be allowed. He said that it could be addressed by eliminating some
paragraphs f~om the homeowners ordinance and could be remedied. Thirdly, the issue of consent. He
Planning Commission Minutes g February 10, 1997
said there could be some middle ground; consent should be required ifa single property is to be singled
out for designation because there will be si~ificant economic impact from that designation. In the case
of designation as part of a historic district, the evidence supports that there would not be siEnifleant
negative impact, but there may be some possible positive impact, which returns to the question of
uncertainty. In the ease of singling out a property for designation, it is clouded by uncertainty; what
modifications can be made, the ordinance does not specify. In the ease of designation as part of a
historic district, it is offset by the fact that you know what your neighbor is not going to be able to do.
He summarized that the ordinance should be clear, have clear standards for what modifications are
allowed, and it should provide for consent in the instance of a property being singled out and not
designated as part ora historic district.
Mr. Don Westwood, 10090 Hillcrest Road, expressed concern with the ambiguity of the ordinance. He
said as an example at the last discussion of the issue, there were many things that needed correction
and were to be fixed, but there were still changes ongoing. He said he felt the Planning Commission
had retained a great deal of latitude over what will be captured in the ordinance at the expense of the
homeowners. He said that shifting standards brought to bear on the issues seem to make it impossible
to administer it fairly. Mr. Westwood said he reco~niT~xl there was no language in the ordinance to
protect the' interior space; however, the one example given graded subjective criteria about the interior
of the place as being important and whether it gets included in the list or not. He said that he felt
mistrust in the fairness of administering these, given that it's in conflict with his rights. He said he
heard no cleat objective d~cripfion of how tbe ordinance will work from start to finish. He presented a
challenge to the Planning Commission to explain tonight from star~ to finish how this thing will work
and until the entire program is heard, they will unfortunately remain unconvinced that they will be
treated fairly.
Chair Harris asked Mr. Ure to explain the section of the ordinance he felt was unclear.
Mr. Ure ~ferred to Section 19.82.120 (e) The work is not in conflict with the designating ordinance,
stating that in accordance with the section atltl~essed at the meeting, the work would only be subject to
ordinary code review; it would not be subject to any heightened review and there wouldn't be any need
for an exception that may or may not be granted. Ms. Bjunnan said that it precluded the Planning
Commission or City Council from agtln~ other than saying that the ordinance has to be upheld and
there would not be any condition that would allow the work to be done.
Chair Harris summarized the issues to address: (1) The interim clause. Enact the interim clause as
written, or in some other form. (2) Deed restriction issue. Leave it up to the buyers and sellers, or
require it that it be in the deed? (3) Two phase (4) Should it be voluntary for the owners/owner
consent? (5) Should it be specific about site vs. all the buildings on the site being restricted? (6) Are
the interiors included? (7) Strike 19.82.120 (e) language and allow Planning Commission and City
Council to act on exceptions?
Following are the Planning Commissioners' comments on the issues of concern:
Com. Mahoney: (1) Opposed to the interim clause adoption (2) Remove the deed restriction
(3) In favor of, if it is to create au ordinance, set up the Commission that designates the places that
talks about what specifically is restricted, i.e., what on the site, on the buildin~ and then go back and
do phase 2 of the ordinance, what am I going to do about it (4) If two phase, no owner consent for
phase 1; if it is a one phase, would favor owner consent (5) Restrict the designation to what is
protected (6) Interiors included only if they are the things that are historical (7) Eliminate (e).
Planning Commission Minu 9 February !0, ! 997
Com. Doyle: (1) Opposed to the interim clause adoption (2) Remove deed restriction
(3) Approve two phase (4) Still needs owner conse~ (5) Need to have the Planning Commission
specify what is practical and reasonable and provide guidance (6) What the Planning Commission
deci (7) £nm ate (e).
Com. Austin: (1) In favor of an interim clm,~e (2) Keep deed restriction (3) Approve two phase
process (4) Would not require owner's consent (5) In favor of having the entire site designated
historical (6) Committee should decide (7) Elimi,~*~ (e).
Com. Roberts: (1) In favor of interim clause (2) Remove deed restriction (3) Favor passing of full
ordinance rather than two phase (4) Ordinance would not be meaningful if it was volunta~
(5) Favor end result which would protect historically important elements of the property
(6) Protect only the aspect of the property that is visible to the public eye (7) Do not delete.
Chair Harris: (1) In favor of the interim clause until such time as the property determinations have been
made (2) Keep deed restriction (3) Approve of two phase process, in tandem with interim clause (4)
Would not require owner's consent (5) Restrict the portion that is historical (6) Yes to interior items
(7) Eliminate (e).
Chair Harris summarized the areas of agreement: 3:2 for interim clause; 3:2 against deed restriction;
3:2 on two phase, with a possible motion for one phase; 3:2 on owner's consent; 3:2 on designated
portion (Com. Austin changed her vote, making it 4:1 for designated); interiors if they are deemed
historical; eliminat~ (e).
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve the interim clause, adoption of single phase
ordinance, involuntary process, zoninc, of protected elements only, interiors if
required by the committee, designated portion or essential other portions to maintain
the integrity of the designated portions.
Com. Mahoney, Doyle and Chair Harris
Failed 3-24
MOTION:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Phase 1 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
which includes the functions, criteria, designation process, and in the interim require
review of change, removing community landmarks offthe interim list with the
exception of downtown Monta Vista
Following a lengthy discussion, Mr. Cowan clarified that two ordinances could be created, one to
c~te. the committee with direction on what to de, and one ordinance that actually creates the
enforcement, with an interim ordinance stating that demolition was not permitted.
Com. Mahoney withdrew his motion.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to adopt the interhn ordinance, removing community landmarks
except for Monta Vista commercial retail properties, as written by staff
Com. Roberts
Corns. Mahoney and Doyle
Passed 3-2-0
Planning Commission Minutes to February 10, 1997
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahon~ moved to approve the Historic Preservation Ordinance coot~inins the
first pha:~s as discussed, with se~ting up committee, go'rog through the designation
process, having to review the d~i~t~l sites and define thc scope
Com. Doyle
Corns. Austin and Roberts
Passed 3-2-0
Com. Roberts noted that his negative vote indicated he was in favor of a more decisive one stop
process. Com. Austin concurred, ~ntln~ that silo felt it should be much more de~isive that tbe
committee should have more parameters and mom direction from the Planning Commission.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve a Minute Order suggesting that there be no
additional fees associated w/th interim hiswrical protect/on measures.
Com. Doyle
Coms. Austin and Roberts
Passed 3-2-0
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
6. Discussion of 1997 Planning Commission Work Program.
Referring to the Community Development 1997 Work Program chart, there was a discussion about the
timeline of the proposed projects for 1997. Chair Harris expressed concern about the items brought
forward by the Planning Commission not be'mE addressed bec~se of lack of ,~W to handle the
projects. Modifications wcre made to thc timeline for the review of singlc family FAR and other
projects. Ms. Wordell pointed out that more cl~tailed information was provided in the two column
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the tentative 1997 work program with changes to
Item C1 and review oftbe single family FAR to begin in July.
Austin
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-i-0
Com. Doyle noted that he voted no because he felt insufficient information was available relative to the
number of staffhours for each project.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Chair Harris reminded the Plann/ng Commissioners about the League of California Cities annual
Commissioners Institute on March 12-14, 1997, in Monterey. Those planning on attending, please
submit information to Mr. Cowan.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None