Loading...
PC 04-22-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 22, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Doyle, Mahoney, Chairman Roberts. Com. Austin arrived at 6:50 p.m. Hah'is Staff present: Robert Cowan. Director of Community Development; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II; Vera Gil, Planner II, Carmen Linaugh. Public Works; and Charles Kilian. City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the.4pril 8, 1996 meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the April 8, 1996 meeting minutes as presented. Chairman Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Roberts noted an addendum to meeting documents and several magazines. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-U-77 (Mod.) JM Consulting Group John Vidovich 2040 l Stevens Creek Boulevard Administrative approval of a minor use permit modification to install antennas on the roof of an existing building with a recommendation tiom the Plenn'mg Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. April 22, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application as presented in the attached staffreport. Ret.emng to an overhead of the site plan, Mr. Jung illustrated the location of the antennas at the back of the building roof which allowed limited to zero visibility liom Stevens Creek Boulevard, but greater visibility t~om the rear parking lot. He explained that the antennas had to have a view of the street to service the units, and required additional height tbr that purpose. Staff' recommends Planning Commission concurrence on the approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution. Ms. Suzanne Hook, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, So. San Francisco, stated she has been working with staff to move the antennas back f~om the parapet to minimize the visual concern communicated by stall: She said she concurred with the staff report. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. Hook explained that the antennas were line of sight type and the antenna had to be mounted on a pole so that it clears the roofiine and views the coverage along Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard. She said that coverage would not be received fi:om the antenna if the view is not in range. Referring to the photo simulation, Ms. Hook illustrated the profile of the antennas. Ms. Hook explained that the original design consisted of shorter antennas on the parapet in three separate areas of the building, providing 360 degree coverage. She said that staff suggested that the antennas be set back In the rear of the building clustered together so that they wouldn't be as visible. Com. Doyle suggested that in the future when there is a project of multiple antennas, they be presented as one project. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 5-U-77 according to the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 ENVIRONMENTAL DE'I IzRMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED PUBLIC HEARING 2. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Historic Preservation Ordinance and 4-EA-96 City of Cupertino Same City. de Consideration of creating a historic preservation ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 6, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996. Staffpresentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner I1, explained that the item was continued fi:om the March 11 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to research additional information on 3 April22, 1996 Planning Commis~ten Minutes how the proposed ordinance related to other cities' ordinances, to strengthen and reduce the number of findings for economic hardship, to clarit~ the proposed historic preservation process, and determine the benefits of becoming a certified local government. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the process for designating historic sites and districts, which included in part: creating a historic resource list; introduction of a valuation system into the second draft of the ordinance which allows staff to rank the value of historic resources to make future recommendations on historical resources; and initiation of a public hearing; Ms. Bjurmen reviewed the comparison of Cupertino's ordinance to other cities' ordinances in a variety of areas. She indicated that the areas examined included the conformance with State preservation guidelines. She said that all had a separate Historic Preservation Commission with the exception of Morgan Hill. All with the exception of Milpitas, Monte Sereno and Saratoga required a historic preservation overlay zoning and only 6 were certified local governments; and one required interior modifications to be reviewed. Staff is not recommending that mandato~ confon-nance with the State preservation guidelines be requi~ed when comparing them to the separate Historic Preservation Commission, and not suggesting that it create a separate Historic Preservation O~dinance, but thai staff go through the ranking system, identify a value and then if an addition is proposed in the future, it require that a historian make recommendations to staff for the changes. Ms. Bjurman said staff recommended zoning of the property H; and suggested that it not pursue the Certified Local Government Process primarily because it was onerous with all its requirements. Stuff suggests that the draft ordinance remove the requirement for interior modification review. Ms. Bjurman explained the four distinct treatments of historic properties as outlined in the attached staff report. Com. Mahoney requested clarification on the ranking system. Ms. Bjurman explained that staff would work with the Historical Society to come up with a checksheet for them to use under the three categories of architecture, history and environment. Based upon their experience, they would rank the value of each of the categories, and ultimately the end ranking would indicate that the proposed building is very significant as far as a method of construction, as an example. Therefore any future decisions would be focused only on the method of construction vs. all other approaches. In response to Com. Doyle's comment about most communities having a separate Historic Preservatioin Commission, Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, explained that presently there were 16 buildings on the resource list in Cupertino's General Plan and it could double based upon the work of the Historical Society and staff He said that the likelihood of having a constant flow of activity was remote and did not warrant another committee to do the work. Mr. Cowan expressed concern about the potential fra~mnentafion of the planning process if there were separate committees working on different aspects. He said he preferred to have the Planning Commission act as an umbrella to examine the issues involving planning. The ASAC wcts disbandedJbr that reason, and the trend in this community is to try to consolidate committees. 4 April 22, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes In response to a question fi.om Com. Austin, Ms. Bjurmma said that the members of the Historical Society would be able m respond m how the list was determined. Ms. Bjurman clarified that the five items listed on Page 2-3 of the staff report were items that warranted discussion and resolution at the meeting. Chairman Roberts said he was unclear if the Planning Commission proceeds with its own guidelines on registration, how the property owner enters into deliberations and how does that differ compared to the state registration? Ms. Bjurman explained that the property owner would participate through the designation process, only to the extent of being notified that their building is of historic significance and that in the furore if they propose to make modifications to the site or to the building, that additional review may be required., e.g. providing a historic preservation report and recommendations on what they can and cannot do based upon the standards of review and the Secretaw of Interior standards. The difference between that and die state is that at the state or federal level they will not begha processing an application without property owner participation. In response to Com. Doyle's question of how the property owner benefited fi.om the designation as a historic site, Ms. Bjurman said that the Mills Act process and a variety of other processes at the state or federal level provided some benefit, in that the city can help the property owner to gain funding and so forth to do improvements, as well as get decreased tax exemptions for the Mills Act. She pointed out that at the local level, Cupertino does not offer anything at ttds time for designated properties. Mr. Cowan pointed out that a tangible benefit in terms of the building code is that the property owner has the option of using the earlier codes as opposed to the new codes, which could be of benefit in terms of constxuetioa costs. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, 879 Lily Avenue, commended Ms. Bjurman for her work on the ordinance. Ms. Lyon indicated that she suggested last fall that the city should have something on the books for historic heritage preservation. She pointed out that it is an honor to be on the national register, and it automatically puts the property on the state register. She said there are various buildings in the county that ate on the national register, and emphasized that Cupertino needs to direct its attention to the importance of having historical things. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance. Com. Austin asked Ms. Lyon what her m'commendmion for the fiiteen Cupertino sites would be in light of the four different categories: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction. Ms. Lyon responded that Ms. Bjurman's recommendations would suffice and that the middle road choice is the most practical one. She commented that at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco, the Garden Court room, not the hotel, is on the National Historic Register. She said that Cupertino did not have as many old buildings as Santa Clara and Los Altos. Ms. Lyon highlighted the DeOro House and said many community members are supportive of its history and importance to the community. She said that as a historic designation, the properly owner can avoid complying with certain updated regulations, such as not having to conform to handicap access, etc. Planning Commission M/nutes 5 April 22, 1996 Mrs. Frances Bush, 10712 Larry Way, said she was an active member of the Cupertino DeOro Club since 1954, an active three year member of the Cupertino Historical Society, and serves as a museum volunteer, as well as assists Henrietta Marcotte and Mr. Bush with the traveling museum. Mrs. Bush said that her loyalties were in two places. She said she had empathy for, and an understanding of, the need for a historical ordinance; however she felt it should have been in place long ago and not suddenly this year causing the DeOro Club to be a victim of community criticism. She pointed out that most of the ladies of the DeOro Club felt very resentful that an ordinance with its roles and restrictions could be put in control of the private property when its application was instituted last fall. She said for months the club has been like a mouse being taunted by the cat of outside powers. Mrs. Bush said that the DeOro Club would have graciously complied had these guidelines been in place. A letter in 1993 fi.om the Cupertino Historical Society board signed by both the city and the historical board did not proceed with any action. She clarified that when the Historical Society position was mentioned during recent proceedings, it was not the voice of all board members, as business is not conducted in open social meetings. The board does the controlling according to the bylaws, not the members at their social gatherings. In response to Chairman Roberts' request for clarification, Ms. Bjurman referred to Page 2-31 which listed the General Plan historic sites and community landmarks. She noted that corrections were reflected in the May 5, 1993 letter, which appeared on Page 2-33 of the staff report. Also provided were additions to the lis~ which are on Pages 2-35 and 2-36 of the staffreport. Ms. Doris Hijman, 23311 Mora Glen Drive, Los Alms, member of the DeOro Club, and a member of the Historical Society, stated it was encouraging to learn that the private owners of historical properdes are being considered. She said that private owners should be encouraged to preserve and m~intain the few remaining historic buildings in Cupertino; updating and perhaps making additions, preferably following the National Preservation guidelines. She pointed out however, that they should also have the right to accept or refuse designation as set forth in the rules of the National Preservation Guidelines. Ms. Hijman que~oned if it was necessary for the City of Cupertino to impose arbitrary desi,gnation and zoning, and to, quoting fi.om the ordinance, "such further controls and standards as the City Council or the Planning Commission finds neeessa~j or desirable..." She said that the costs and hands-on labor involved in maintaining historic buildings are considerable. If the property owner is not to get full economic and use benefit, is the city prepared to provide funds for this purpose? She expressed concern about the major role that the Cupertino Historic Society seems to be designated to fulfill in this process, and questioned if some other organiTations, commissions or private owners should not be involved in the designatiun process? She said that it seemed the only role that a property owner could play is after a property has been designated and they can appeal the designation, is some other way of listing properties, designating properties without necessarily giving the major role to the Historical Society. Mr. Jeny Stevens, 10566 E. Estates Drive, said it appeared that the DeOro Club was on one side and the Historical Society on the other, and in the middle the formation of an ordinance covering what he thought was just a few structures, but perhaps many are being added. He recommended photos be provided for the discussions so that the audience and participants would know what was being discussed. He said the only picture he has seen is that of the DeOro House and that was a part of their discussion and not a part of the ordinance. He pointed out that in the listing, there was a foundation or remnants thereof, stating he was curious to see the ranking. He suggested that the Historical Society provide the photos as they had a stake in the process and could point Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 22, 1996 out what they were recommenffmg. considerably. lie said he felt it would help the process and him Ms. Stevens said that his second area of concern was already being documented clearly. He said he read the ordinance, and the County, the State, and the words "designated" and "listed" seem to be of importance. He pointed out that the federal standard and the state standard utilize these words and differentiate between them. He said he felt "designated" was the historical concept, but to list it is the fight of the property owner and how that is applied. Mr. Stevens suggested that if there is an ordinance that portion be included because both state and federal have included it. Mr. Charles Newman, representing the Cupertino Historical Society, stated that the board has designated a committee of three people to address the ordinance which is before the City. The committee wants to provide input on the current list of the designated sites felt to be womhy of special consideration, lie noted that the list included in the staffreport is about 2 years old. He said the commi~Ien has instn~ed the executive director to proceed with compiling a current list and to further provide information on each of the sites. Mr. Newman said it was their goal to have something as was stated by the previous speaker to be able to show photographs and other reference tools that would be helpful in the review process. Mr. Newman stated that the second concern of the committee in reading the ordinance is that the responsibility for reviewing the applications presented to the City in other communities is before a Heritage Preservation Commission. The first reading of the draft concluded that for Cupertino, it may be advisable to have either a special commission for that purpose or a committee. Mr. Newman questioned how the ordinance would be eppUed to the DeOro Club's application? He said that the Society has taken a position in opposition to the application of the Cupertino DeOro Club and the concern is that the application is more than insiLmificant in that it involves the demolition of 1/4 of the wall area and the cons~'action of a new 10 foot addition. He questioned if the proposed ordinance was specifically applied to the application of Cupertino DeOro Club, what would be the conclusion? If, as staff recommended to the Planning Commission at the last meeting, that the application go forward, then it may be that the ordinance should be modified to address specifically what is considered to be one of the most historically siEnifieant structures in our comm~mity. Mr. Newman said that the various types of approach have bean discussed and it may be alJiJ, opfiate in the instance oftbe DeOro Club to consider more preservation than a permit modification for practical use. Mr. Newman said in conclusion, the ranking system which was not addressed at the Society's committee, probably has significant merit in the sense you can clearly distinguish which of the few properties are left in the community that stand out and are worthy of special consideration. Chairman Roberts asked Mr. Newman, as representative of the Historical Society, how would he envision this interrelationship illusWated on the matrix where the staff confers with the Historical Society and collectively completes the value. Mr. Newman responded that the process has been ongoing for some time. The Historical Society is the historical society in the community and has had good dialog with the staff over the years. This community has not had a historical preservation ordinance as there was not a need, but now the need exists and it is timely. He said that the Board of Directors would make the policy decisions and staff could interact with the designee, not a membership of over 300 individuals. 7 ApriI22,1996 Planning Commission Minutes Chairman Roberts dosed the public input portion of the meeting. A discussion ensued wherein the Planning Commissioners reviewed the discussion points outlined on Page 2-3 of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the designation process: (1) Begin with the expansion of the General Plan list and the separate Historical list; (2) Prepare the ranking; (3) Begin a public hearing to in fact designate it and compare it to the criteria created; and (4) Rezone the property. Ms. Bjurman said that the Planning Commission would be responsible for the final designation tkrough consultation with the historical society and star[ etc. through public input. The Historical Society through staff would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the planning Commission would be the decision maker. In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Ms. Bjurman said there was nothing contained in the ordinance that would alter or change the decision already reached on the DeOro Club. She said that the only thing remaining was the ranking system and staff did not know the outcome of it or if additional information from the historian would be require& She pointed out that the ranking system is only used as a guide. Addressing the question raised by Mr. Stevens about the difference between "designated" and "listed", Chairman Roberts asked City Attorney Kilian if the tenus were being used, and if there was a difference in meaning? Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, explained that "designation" has a specific legal meaning; meaning all the roles you are adopting would apply to this particular property if it was designated. "Listing" refers to something that has already been done or is done concerning the federal or state government. He said that designation is the legal impact. Com. Austin suggested the formation of a committee to help develop the ranking system and do the groundwork. She said she felt that there should be a Historical Commission, at least temporarily until the job is complete. She said she felt the Planning Commission were not experts and the committee could make their presentation to the ?lanning Commission. Mr. Cowan asked the Planning Commission if they would consider a special subcommittee of the Planning Commission to do the initial work. Com. Doyle answered yes, with a Plmming Commission representative on the subcommittee. Com. Maboney said it was a topic worthy of discussion. Com. Austin stated yes, with the two members perhaps being Plarmlng Commissioners. A lengthy discussion ensued wherein the Planning Commission discussed the following issues: 1) Whether or not to establish a Historic Preservation Committee, on a formal basis. Mr. Kilian pointed out that any Historical Preservation Committee would be subject to the Brown Act; would require an agenda; would have to provide much of the proceedings or hearing process that the Planning Commission would require; even if it were ad hoe it would be a formal committee and have to have an ordinance. He recommended that the committee be established by ordinance. Pla~ming Commission Minutes g April 22, 1996 Mr. Kilian pointed out that the Historical Society is not a public agency and would not need to meet with an agenda, although they do. He said that the only thing that would avoid agendas and compliance with the Brown Act would be a less than a quorum of a Planning Commission; they could meet as a committee without having an agend~ Com. Doyle said he felt a Historic Preservation Committee should be established and it should be public. Com. Mahoney said he was in favor of a Historic Preservation Committee, but felt that it need not be a permanent committee. Chairman Roberts said that pointed'back to the City Attorney's point that the group would begin as a working group, but would have to have an agenda. Com. Austin questioned if the Planning Commission should be involved or not. 2) Removal of the requirement for public review of interior modificatiorr Chairman Roberts explained that the survey indicated other dries had difficulty removing the requirement, lie added that it did not preclude Cupertino from considering interior modifications if they felt it was a major issue. All Commissioners agreed with staffrecommendation to remove the requirement. 3) Is there a benefit to becoming a Cert~ed Local Government? There was consensus from the Commissioners that it was not worthwhile to pursue becoming a Certified Local Government. All supported staff recommendation. Ms. Bjurman explained the process followed in Los Gatos, Los Altos, Palo Alto and Santa Clara, cities that became cert~ed. She stated that had extensive public information programs m the communities with publications available to the public. 4) Is the ranking system helpful? Chairman Roberts questioned if the City would like to have a ranking system of this kind; and if so, did it need major overhaul or can focus be on what is presented? Com. Austin stated she was in favor of the ranking system; she pointed out that it needed fine tuning and could be a part of what the ad hoc committee could address. Com. DOyle said he approved the ranking system, stating that it should be a part of the Planning Commission approval with public input as to how to create the final scoring. He said that the staff approval for modifications should not be a part of it from the start. There is agreement on the ranking system to be put in place, but not necessarily agreeing with staffhaving the ability to modify those traits without planning Commission approval. Ms. Bjurman clarified that there were many ways to formulate the ranking informaiion. She discussed the City of Monte Sereno's policy. Chairman Roberts said that as it stands, the ranking system is an integral part of the ordinance; therefore changing the ranking system would require revising the ordinance. Com. Mahoney pointed out that it is not a ranking system yet. A ranking system implies that you axe going to add up the numbers and have cutoffs; fight now it is merely a list of thctors. He suggested putting them in an appendix without changing the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 22, 1996 Ms. Bjurman questioned if the appendix could be modified without a public heating. Mr. Cowan responded that a separate minute order would be required. Discussion ensued wherein Mr. Kilien stated that it was the intent of City Council to have at least the ordinance up to the Council level in time for the May 6 hearing on the DeOro Club application. Com. Mahoney said he was in favor of it, and would not want to give it an element of tbrmality by including a new ordinance. He said he felt the ranking system was helpful, the factors were good. He said he did not want to see a formal structured weighting system with threshold plan because he had seen artificial ranking factors. Chairman Roberts said he concurred with Com. Mahoney; he was in favor of the idea of the framework, but was fearful that if it is formalized, it would place too much weight on it. For that reason he said he felt comfortable with it as an appendix to the ordinance, but if it were built into the ordinance in an integral way, it would just attract too much attention to it. Following a lengthy discussion about the ranking system, Mr. Cowan summarized that to bring closure to the issue, the Planning Commission could issue a statement that simply says it will develop an informal set of guidelines to assist in the designation process and then let there be a separate process for the subcommittee to develop. 5) Discuss whether preservationist or rehabilitation approach is appropriate. Com. Doyle said he preferred preservationist, but it is too restrictive on the owner and provides very little benefit for that owner or very few tradeoffs for that persom He said there needs to be a way to encourage the people to want to become preservationists, and without having may way of doing that should be much more down the path of the rehabilitationists. Chairman Roberts said it depends on how those words are defined; but out of the 4 alternatives given, rehabditation has been referred to as the middle of the road, but actually is the least protective. He said that as he looked at the definitions of restoration and reconstruction as they entail more than preservation; they entail recreating. Therefore, rehabilitation is the least to do and if the aim is not rehabilitation, there might not as well be an ordinance. He said he would prefer a version of rehabilitation that is as close to preservation as practical. Com. Doyle questioned what the other cities did for promotion of preservation vs. rehabilitation. Mr. Cowan explained that from his experience, it depended on the structure. If it was an important cormnercial structure downtown, the rules could be vex), strict, namely to literally preserve the building as it was built in the 1860s or whenever it was built. Other buildings not as significant, such as residential districts, the primary emphasis in those neighborhoods might be to maintain the architectural character; allowing adding significantly to the building although there are FARs. If part of the building is torn down, it has to be rebuilt; plastic materials cannot be used. Fie indicated that it was determined on a ease-by-case basis. He added that a great deal of discretion is given to the Historical Committee. Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 22, 1996 Mr. Cowan reported that a tax credit is oft~red as an incentive also. He said that there is a preservationist attitude in the community with a great deal of pride in the neighborhoods that are designated, and the neighbors like the idea that the neighborhood is being protected. Following a lengthy discussion, Corns. Austin, Doyle, and Mahoney stated that they were in favor of rehabilitation. Com. Doyle that that although he would prefer it to be preservafiouist he could not support it. He noted that the Planning Commission shouldn't be the ones responsible for inflicting pain upon the community with severe restrictions without having some means of tradeoff. Chairman Roberts recalled an earlier Planning Commission decision stating that there was a balance between preservation and rehabilitation, and the application was approved with the thought of sustafining the vitality of that organization who has shown that their willingness and ability to preserve the building in a manner that reflects well in the community. If they had wanted to rehabilitate the whole building, a different decision might have been rendered. Com. Mahoney questioned if the group was in agreement with the first set of words 'acknowledging the need to alter or add to". Com. Austin said that she would be in favor of it if the word "preserving" was used. Chairman Roberts said if it made a difference, he would prefer to substitute "preserving" for "retaining". Corns. Mahoney and Doyle concurred. 6) Consider the particular age of buildings to be protected and in so doing, refer to an aspect of the rating scale which is delineated with actual dates. Chairman Roberts questioned if the issue of age is more important than the other categories to highlight. Com. Austin said that age should not be the sole factor, it should have some architectural or historical significance. Com. Doyle concurred that age should not be the sole factur. Com. Mahoney indicated that it should be a factor to consider. Com. Doyle questioned if there would be support for modifying the ordinance to two levels -- a listing and a designation. Chairman Roberts said it was his understanding that the designation is the process and the list is the result.' Mx. Kilian concurred, but said that the trmis could be defined in any manner. He said he was not sure what the listing would accomplish it'it didn't carry uny legal significance. He said it was arbitrmy to have one list and have everything outside the list Ms. Bjurman summarized that there was consensus to create a temporary l-listodc Preservation Committee that would be used for the initial designation and creation of guidelines for staff to do the ranking system, and the guidelines would come back to the Planning Commission for final approval. The Historic Preservation Committee would be used to expand the Historical Society list and the General Plan list. They would also work with staff to develop and complete the value ' ranking system which would be used to designate properties and make recommendations. Com. Mahoney claritied that that the committee and the volunteer work would be utilized to nominate properties to be designated. Planning Commission Minutes 11 Apti122, 1996 Mr. Cowan suggested that staff return with a proposal for the committee, what it will consist of, and how it is going to be staffed. Chairman Roberts suggested that a two stage process be considered, beginning with a decision frmnework. Ms. Bjarman summarized that there was consensus to remove the interior modifications because it was too onerous. Certified Local Government is of no benefit at this time; it may be revisited in the future. For the ranking system, guidelines are preferred vs. an appendix or part of the ordinance bm we do want it to be a formal process or ranking; however, the details about the actual rating method should be further worked out by the Historic Preservation Committe~, focusing on the dates built in, and some question about importance of age. There was consensus to focus on rehabilitation, as the ordinance is currently drained and a preservation approach is not what is in the ordinance today. Ms. Bjurman clarified that the wording change discussed for Page 2-2 was not in the ordinance, and it is only a definition. She said that the only words that relate to preservationists and rehabilitation are generally that it says you may follow the standards provided by the Secretary of the InteaSor. She suggested working with an architect with historic background so that the wording is not included. Mr. Cowan suggested that the wording on Page 2-5 (19.82.010 Part)ese) be enhanced to incorporate that condition. Com. Maboney stressed the importance of having an ordinance that is not ambiguous and the people can understand. Staff confirmed that the lang, mge on Page 2-2 relating to rehabilitation will be incorporated into Section 19.82.010. Definition of "preservation" on top of Page 2-7 will also be clarified. Ms. Bjurman stated that when the ordinance is presented to City Council, Pages 2-8 through 2-10 will not contain any ranking; there will be reference to staff creating guidelines in the futare as part of this Commission and subcommittee. She reiterated that on Page 2-8, under Item (c) Mr. Cowan suggested wording earlier in the meeting. Mr. Cowan summarized that the Planning Commission will outline for the City Council the five actions taken, provide the ordinance smd follow through with a minute order. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Maboney moved to approve the negative declaration for 4-EA-96 Com. Austin Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Com. Austin moved to approve the draf~ preservation ordinance including modifications discossed Com. Maboney Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 22, 1996 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-U-96 W. G. Withelder (Peacock Lounge) Robert Pollack 19980 Homestead Road Use Permit modification of an existing drinking establishment to include food s~vice and to allow the expansion of the facility into an existing storefront containing approximately 1,150 square feet. The mating for the expanded facility vdll increase from approximately 41 to 65. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNrN. G CO_MMISSION DEC1SION F _INAL UN~I~SS APF!SALE_D Staff presentation: Thc video presentation reviewed the application to expand the Peacock Lounge 'into an adjacent tenant space and to allow the sale of light lunches and snacks to customers. Approval of the expansion will increase the lounge by 1,150 square feet for a total of 3,255 squ~e feet. Applicant Withelder plans to use the extra space for darts and shuffleboard, enlargement of the kitchen and addition of 24 mats. There are no plans to expand the bar area. The Sheriffs Department indicated no concerns with respect to the application. Staffrecommends approval of the application. Referring to an overhead, Mr. Cowan illustrated the Oakmont Shopping Center and the location of the present site and the proposed expansion. He stated that the issues involved comments from the Sheriffs Department and parking requirements. The shopping center presently has a 12 space parking deficit and the expansion will increase the deficit to 20 spaces, Referring to a chart, Mr. Cowan clarified the basis for defining parking deficiency. He noted that the general commercial ordinance would be discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Cowan pointed out that there has not been a parking problem in the shopping center and the reduction is not significatu. Corns. Doyle and Austin had no questions, In response to Com. Roberts' question. Ms. Bjurman explained that the building on the comer of Blaney and Homestead is an existing 5,000 square foot general commercial center with about 5 different ~ users. She said that it has its own parking area directly out front and it does meet code. There is not currently a parking agreement between the two property areas. Mr. Genoa Witheldcr, Co-owner of the Peacock Lounge, stated that most of the business was after happy hour (6:30 p.m,) through the course of the evening. He said that the shopping center is never impacted fully at one time. He explained that the food service plans would constitute lunches, light snacks in the evening and occasional holiday dinners, with no plans to be a restaurant serving dinners 5 nights a week. Mn', Withelder requested clarification on the entertainment limitation contained in the proposed resolution. He explained that the site had a jukebox, but that the operation did not include live entertainment, Mr. Cowan pointed out that the present establishment was in place before the use permit requirement for drinking establishments and is an unregulated establishment. The current application will provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to ensure that all the 1996 Plamng Commission MLuutes operational considerations are defined. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to amend the limitation to read: "No amplified or live entertainment" is approved. The Planning Commission confirmed that the entertainment restriction did not include the jukebox. Mr. Cowan noted that the indoor seating capacity should read 6l, not 65. Applicant stated he had no objection to the correction. Mr. John Staten, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber supported the application. He noted that there was no parking problem in the shopping center. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 3-U-96 with modifications of seating at 61, modification to the wording regarding the entertainment SECOND: Com. Austin ABSENT: Com. Harris VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan noted that the action was final unless appealed within 14 days. Chairman Roberts declared a recess at 9:00 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:15 p.m. the same Planning Commissioners and staff were present. 4. Application No.: Parking Ordinanc,~ Amendments and 1-EA-96 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Zoning amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking standards. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended IENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL ttEARING DATE: May 20, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Mlzt~ 1 tNG OF FEBRUARY 26, 1996. Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She noted that concern has been expressed by residential and commercial developers that the City's parking standards are too restrictive. Using the overhead, she reviewed the matrix of the proposed amendments to the parking ordinance (Exhibit D). Ms. Gil reviewed the current and proposed requirements for residential clustered RI, commercial, mullet-family (R.3), shared parking and landscaping standards. StatIrecommends approval of the amendments to Chapter 19.100, Off-Street parking Regulations as shown in Exhibit A. Ms. Gil stated flint the landscape standards were in the Stevens Creek Plan, and required surface parking lots to be planted with shade trees at a ratio of one tree for every 5 to 10 parking spaces. In response to a question from Com. Doyle, Ms. Gil stated that if a developer wanted to use less than required spaces, the developer would have to go to the Planning Commission to get an approval for a variance. Mr. Cowan explained that most of the commercial establishments In Cupertino are located in a Plmmed Development (PD) zone and the amended parking ordinance would serve as a guideline Planning Commission Minutes 14 April22, 1996 in the case of commercial districts, because the vast majority of commercial districts are PD, and the ability exists to deviate f~om the standards. Ms. Gil clarified questions about the requirements for fast food establishments end bicycle parking as outlined in the matrix presented. She stated that the ordinance would clarit~ the proposed requirement for bicycles. In response to Com. Austin's question about the 10% requirement for bicycle parking, Ms. Gil stated that 10% was not excessive, and noted that several agencies axe considering imposing as much as 20 to 30% restrictive requirements on multi-family units. Mr. Cowan explained that the parking ordinence was being amended to allow some additional flexibility for property owners to expend end still meet the parking standards, based on a reduced rate. He noted that the parking standards were based on the peak Christmas period. Parking spaces for compact cars was briefly discussed. Mr. Cowen indicated that the requirement for normal size cars could be increased. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. Com. Doyle stated that he did not agree with the fundamentals of the five changes end did not feel they should be changed. He explained that for residenfal clustered, the 2.5 spaces per unit were a threshold, and variences have been granted when appropriate. He noted that future development would necessitate the need for extra spaces. Com. Doyle said he felt the 1 space for every 200 square feet of commercial space was appropriate. He pointed out that secured covered areas would be ideal for the bicycle parking. He noted that further review of the shared parldng was needed for a better understanding. Com. Doyle said that the landscape standards of 1 tree for every 5 to 10 parking spaces was not appropriate and he felt there should be more greenery than parking spaces. He suggested that a more detailed review of the lendscape standards be conducted. He said he did not support the ordinance. Com. Austin said she felt the current parking standards were too restrictive and favored the proposed amendments to the parking ordinance. She said she felt that the landscape standards were apprOpriate. Com. Mahoney said the ordinance could be modified. He said he would like to trade off spaces for lendscaping and spaces for potentially less compact cars. He approved of commercial; agreed with Com. Doyle on multi-family for bicycles; covered storage was appropriate; shared parking appropriate; relative to the residential issue: he said he felt it would swing too much the other way to not take into account the size of the unit at all now. Chairman Roberts said the proposal had merit and would like further discussion, especially as the detailed requirements were submitted too late for a comprehensive study. I-Ie said he was reluctent to approve the go-ahead. In residential cluster it seems there are a lot of exceptions which suggests modifications are needed so that the ordinance reflects reality. He said he was adverse to waiving the dependence between the parking requirement and the size of the dwelling ~ri122, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes unit. He suggested that the one space per bedroom be mended to 1/2 space per bedroom so that a 3 bedroom unit would be 3-l/2 rather than 4-1/2. Chairman Roberts noted a disparily in the commercial category. He said he was under the impression in terms of land utilization that the City is holding back business by requiring excessive parking. He said he was willing to relax the requirement but would fie it together with some situation of the mix of size spaces and the mount of space devoted to landscaping. He approved of the bicycle requirements; relative to commercial and residential, he said the need exists to stipulate more than the number of spaces in order to make it useful. He said there was no point in devoting space to bicycle parking if it is not conducive to today's bicycles. Chairman Roberts said he approved of shared parking. He said he concurred with Com. Doyle's direction in devoting more attention to landscape requirement for commercial and residential properties, differentiating between the two according to the size of the parking area, etc. Com. Doyle said that he did not see merit in some of the positions taken. He said in reality the Planning Commission would continue to see the exceptions presented because in almost all cases that is the limiting situation, there are no FAR limitations. Chairman Robeas stated that the current General Plan allows higher levels of density than previously and when built om there may be more overlap with parking from one overflow area. Mr. Cowan pointed out that in some downtown areas, such as Palo Alto and Los Gatos, the parking ratio is extremely high. He noted that comparison data was being collected from suburban shopping centers, not the downtown areas. A brief discussion ensued wherein Mr. Cowan answered questions about parking ratios. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue the parking ordinance Item No. 1-EA-96 to the May 28, 1996 Plarming Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Hards Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Amendments to Chapter 19.108 - Television and Radio Aerials Ordinance Amendments and 6-EA-96 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.108, Television and Radio Aerials of the Cupertino Municipal Code, related to expansion of definition to include other wireless communication facilities, location, siting design and other related subjects to be determined by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: Negative Declaration Recommended ri~NTATIVE CITY COUNC1L HEARING DATE: May 20, 1996 Stall' presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, referred to photo images of various locations in Cupertino illustrating different types of aea-ials utilized in the area, including small and large satellite dishes, whip antennas, wireless modem connections, and towers. He referred m Exhibit A which illustrated the wide variety of cordless devices used. Pl~sming Commission Minutes Mr. Jung explained that the ordinance addresses the stationary aerials, which are not portable and often need building permits. He said that the purpose of the hearing was to begin the orientation to become more informed of what staff is attempting to do, and at the conclusion of the item are able to provide staff with additional input and questions to develop more inibrmation to help make a recommendation on the ordinance. Mr. Jung reviewed the features of the ordinance, including applicability of regulations, definitions, site locations, general site development regulations, specific site development regulations, design and siting review, application requirements, and permitting. Mr. Jung reviewed an updated aspect of the ordinance called the concentration of towers and detach mass (free-standing'munopolc, not attached to a building). Only one tower and detached mass greater than 30 feet high is permitted per lot at 20,000 square feet or less; two on a lot of 30,000 square feet or more, and if there are additional requests for towers or masses of these heights, they would need to get a use p~miit approval by the Plamming Commission. lie reviewed the setback regulations as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Jung explained that one new aspect of the ordinance not yet completed, was the concept of co-location, which is the placement of more than one set of antennas on a single mass or tower. What would be written into all the subsequent approvals for monopoles or towers would be some language that would say the City may require co-location of other wireless providers antennas on your facility. It is not mandated, but fxom a visual standpoint makes sense to co-locate the antennas on the same tower. This would preserve the City's flexibility in that area. In response to Com. Mahoney's question about exceptions to the ordinance, Mr. Jung stated that the exceptions would be for the height. Mr. Jtmg said that the importance of stating clearly what it is to be accomplished by the ordinance is that federal law in the telecommunications act says that you cannot discriminate against functionally equivalent providers, lie said he did not foresee a problem with illegal, non-conforming stmctores bemuse the ordinance is written in the way and methodology that the slxuetures have been approved to date. Chairman Roberts questioned if there were any implications for landscaping. Mr. Jung responded that there was no written law requiring a neighbor to ttim thek landscaping to allow the aerial to be more visible. Mr. Jung noted a correction to the Federal, State and Local Regulatory Framework seation of the staff report: The report indicated that it was a federal preemption and the City prohibits it. He pointed out that it is a federal presumption in favor of the wireless communication facilities and that the real testing ground is not so much that the federal government will come in and stop things. What will probably happen is, that there is a federal presumption in favor of these structures in that if a communications provider felt that he was given the nm around, that the City was not acting in good faith to help them find something that was feasible in the City, that they could take it to the courts for a ruling. It would be a legal remedy for the provider as opposed to a federal preemption. Chairman Roberts opened the hearing for public input. Ms. Judy Boyle, Cellular One, South San Francisco, said she would like to offer suggestions to help create an effective draft for the city and the carrier. She questioned Section 19.108.050 Subsection & the purpose of the different height limit for transmission and reception antennas. Planning Commission Minutes t? April 22, 1996 For cellular, it is a line of sight type requirement and Cellular One requires a line of sight both for mmsmission and receiving antennas and so the same height would be required for both sets of Ms. Boyle requested clarification on the following sections of the ordinance: Section 19.108.050, Subsection A, No. 4: What height would you measure the cross-section of the mass and towers over 30 feet, because monopolas typically taper as you go up; which means it might be two feet at the base, but 12 inches at the 30 foot level. Section 19.108.050, Subsection C: Cellular One requests clarification of the 30,000 square foot requirement regarding the number of aerials on the properly. Is it two additional at 30,000 square feet for a total of three, or is it a total of 2? Regarding co-location, Ms. Boyle said she was sensitive to the City's needs in requiring the carder to co-locate, and said it was an excellent idea to have them reviewed ou a case-by-case basis. She requested that the staff consider engineering feasibility; are the two carriers going to interfere with each other; does one carrier require more height than the one that is on the building? She reminded staffthat the landlord wants only one carder there at a time. Section 19.108.080: You mentioned requesting a master plan if more than one aerial is planned and would like clarification regarding wJthln what timeframe; Cellular One knows about a year ahead of lime when we will be looking for a target in a certain area. Mr. Derek Empey, GTE Mobilnel, sa/d that they think the ordinance is going in the fight direction with one fundamental theme in mind. That is that these type of policies should have two particular parts to them; one to discourage or prohibit what you do not believe is compatible with the community and the other is to encourage what you do believe is a good design and promote that through the type of flexibility that you build into the ordinance. There is an industry trend toward concealment of these type of facilities mad a lot of creative ideas are being developed, lie recommended in that light that the community in Cupertino address the potential for trying to make the policy visual driven so that the aesthetic issue is the bottom line. If good design can be created in such a fashion that you can locate sites and places never thought of before, the ordinance should not preclude those creative options. There are ways to include antennas inside of stmctures eliminating the need for new monopoles or tower stmctmes. Look critically at the standards that come before you for that type of flexibility so that you can encourage the indnstty to make good decisions and come up with creative alternatives to some of the older designs. He said that the technology is rapidly becoming available to us and GTE is committed to using it wherever it can. He cited a recent example wherein panel antennas were encased into foam columns in the bell tower of a San Jose Church which was not visible. GTE leased the property from the church and turned the revenue back to the local area~ We suggest that these unique opportunities including non-conforming structures of pole signs that are not part of some part of amortization schedule come down, there are ways to include the antennas inside the structures eliminating the need fur new monopoles or tower structures. Mr. Empey urged the Planning Commission to look critically at the standards that come before them for that type of flem'bility to encourage the industpg to make good decisions and to come up with creative alternatives. Last item of concern is the acknowledgment of the unique aspects of Planning Commission Minutes is April22,1996 fundamentally dift'erent networks, such a the PCS and existing cellular infrastructure. The cellular networks were developed over the last decade using a completely different elevation; they are creating an umbrella at one height above ground level throughout a given area. The density of sites is based on that; the overall coverage provided by each site is based on that and as the newer sites come in and the question was asked will the overall height of these sites come down. That is not necessarily something that will occur with existing infrastructure. If we have at a level plain here and we have a need to fill a particular hole, if you provide a facility that is substantially lower than the rest of the network, you do not have a good mesh with opposing sites. He encouraged people to look at these two different types of technology with somewhat different eyes as you look at the allowable heights. Existing cellular networks are doing infill and those facilities are going to be few in number. Responding to Com. Doyle's question about the process followed relative to the installation of the antenna on the church property, Mr. Empey explained that GTE approached the Catholic Church of San Jose and offered to lease the property fi:om them if they would allow the antenna to be located on the church property and mm the rent revenue over a 20 year period back to the local church. In response to Com. Doyle's concern about alerting the public about risks, Mr. Empey said that typically cellular and PCS facilities operate so far below the allowable standards that it is not an issue of concern. The Telecon Reform Bill made it clear that they felt at the federal level that it was not an issue as well. Mr. Ray Hashimoto, JM Consulting Group, representing GTE Mobilnet, concurred with Ms. Bush and Mr. Empey's comments relative to the erentivity mad looking at those site locations. He said he hoped that the Planning Commission and staff would consider looking at some residential and open space districts to provide a solution that is visually acceptable. He indicated he had some of the same concerns about height issues and talked to stuff earlier in the evening. He asked that the issues raised by Ms. Bush on the one vs. two additional towers be clarified. Hopefully it would be incumbent upon the can'iers and consultants as well as staff to provide some baseline if the carder is to provide some information about surrounding cell sites in the area of a proposed project, because GTE does not know what Cellular One or other PCS carders are doing. Mr. Hashimoto said he was hopeful that staff will work with the consultants and the carriers to help provide some mapping system and catalog in the sites within the city. He emphasized his support for the flexibility on the last page in terms of "with minimal visibility the Director can use some discretion in terms of what things have to go before the Commission and what things can be approved'at a stafflevel'. in response to Com. Doyle's question abut city ordinances in place, Mr. Hashimoto said that the ordinances vary from city to city. He said that the City of San Jose's policy is stringent and somewhat forces co-locations. He said that the method Cupertino is using to look at it and encourage co-locations is something that the can/ers and consultants want to work with the City of Cupertino on. It is the goal of the carder to have something that is not obtrusive, virtually invisible, and work with solutions within the communities. Mr. Don Conan, 22333 Balustrol Ct., said he was a ham operator and an active member of the Cupertino emergency radio service. He expressed concern about the confusing guidelines in die ordinance about masts. Referring to 19.108.50, Section C - he said in his area there are no lots in the area of 20,000 square feet but there are a lot of hams in the area and mostly on 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots. He said there are many antennas where the residents need to use wire 1996 Planning Commission Minutes antennas which need a support on each end of the wire antenna. He said he interpreted it to read that two masts are needed. He requested clarification so that the hum operators could use the wire antennas that they were accustomed to and be cognizant of the restrictions. Chairman Roberts requested staff clarification of Mr. C onan's issues. Mr. Jang used the overhead illustrations to explain the placement of antennas and clarify the restrictions. He said it was clear in the content that lots with less than 20,000 square feet can only have one mast. Following a discussion with staff and Mr. Conan, Chairman Roberts suggested that Mr. Conan discuss the issue with staff farther to reach a solution. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Doyle said he felt the document was a good document, with valuable public input. He said that some other communities have developed similar guidelines, therefore the document will not have to be recreated. Com. Austin concurred that the public input was valuable. She said that the whole criteria should be visually drive, a, and she approved of creative alternatives that could be utilized. She said she approved the general documents. Mr. Jung explained that the less obtrusive the antenna, the easier it is for the applicant to go through the development process; which is an incentive because of quicker approval; it is approved by the Director of Community Development as opposed to going before the Planning Commission and public hearings. He stated that most of the consultants are sensitive of the land use location issue and most of the potential locations are non-residential as they prefer to be close to the freeways, and major intersections. Mr. Jung pointed out that the issue of abandoned structures needed consideration. Technology is rapidly changing and what may be a veay actively useful site now may be a useless or irrelevant site in the future. He pointed out that staff needs to look closely at what happens when a carrier no longer wants to use a site and what needs to be done to get the model pole or tower removed if that is what is chosen in lieu of reserving it for another catTier's use. Mr. Juag reported that staff will look at that issue, develop some language and bring it back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. MOTION SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Maboney moved to continue Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, 19.108 to the May 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS - None Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 22, 1996 NEW B1JSINESS 6. Request fi.om Tandem Computers, Inc., for Interpretation of Housing Mitigation Manual. CON i'tNUED FROM PLA2,TNING COMMISSION M~t:IING OF APRIL 8, 1996. Staff presentation: Ms. Call reviewed the request fi.om Tandem Computers, Inc. for interpretation oftheHonsingMifigationManual. She explained that four years ago Tandem negofiated with the City to provide housing in order to meet the City's fair share numbers. The terms were that they could pay a minimum fee of $5.00 per square foot or provide 28 units per every 100,000 square feet of new development. Referring to the overheads, Ms. Gil illustrated the parcels to be developed. She explained that the proposal is for development of 300 units of housing and In return Tandem is looking to bank those units and have those units meet their housing mitigation requirement. She reviewed issues raised at the Affordable Housing Committee (AFC) level. Although the AHC approved the request, discussion centered around double counting and whether the developer could use those 31 units of resideatial mitigation to not only meet their residential components, but also meet the office/industrial component of the mitigation manual. Many of them voiced concern that it was double counting. However, at least three of the members felt there were other issues that outweighed the double counting, mainly that these two parcels are not zoned for housing. The two parcels of land could be sold for commercial development in which case they would not receive any housing units at all affordable or otherwise. Ms. Oil said that the AFC recommends that Tandem's proposal be accepted. She explained the prototype of the housing bank ledger contained In the staffreport. Mr. John Halley, Tandem Computers, Inc. explained that a developer had approached the company about a potential housing development. He stated that Tandem is faced with the dilemma that they cannot afford to lose the future mitigation potential that the site or any site that is developed into housing would allow them. He said that if at some point in the future Tandem is going to develop office space, it needs to be able to capture the mitigation credits that the site with housing would provide. He said he knew of no other way to cause to be created housing other than making an investment in the land and that has been done. The next thing would be to select an organization to sell that land to, that you know would create that type of project, mad to condition the sale for specific development type like housing. He said that Tandem could not afford to do that without getting the credits because it has been priced out and it is very expensive to sell the property for housing and not get those credits. He said it was a win-win situation; Tandem could sell the property to a housing developer, housing could be created sooner rather than later; the office project upon which we would use the credits could occur sometime later, but in the meantime people would be housed, housing would be created and the General Plan would be satisfied. Tandem would be the first depositor in the bank. The request is that the Planning Commission endorse staff recommendation to modify the housing mitigation procedure manuals se that it allowed for a company wishing to create credits to do that, first with housing, followed with office, rather than only office to housing. A discussion ensued regarding the double counting concept, bonus density credit, and s~T answered Commissioners' questions. Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 22, 1996 Com. Mahoney said he approved the recommendation. Corn. Doyle said that he supported the AFC recommendation also. Com. Austin said she felt it was a clear cut issue. After reading the rationale that Tandem could elect to sell the property to a commercial developer and the City of Cupertino wouldn't get any affordable units, she felt it was an important factor and there is a need for the affordable units today. She said she supported the Cuperino Affordable Housing Committee's recommendation. Chairman Roberts suggested clarification of the intent of the ordinance as far as the notion that the corporations themselves will do the developing. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to accept the Cupertino Affordable Housing Committee's recommendation and forward it to the City Council for a final decision. Com. Doyle Com. Harris Passed 4-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COM1VI1SS1ON: None REPORT OF TIlE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NI~WSPAPER CLiPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, May 13, 1996. Minutes Approved As Amended: May 13, 1996 Respectfully Submitted,