Loading...
PC 05-28-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Harris, Chairman Roberts. Commissioner absent: Ma-honey Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Community Developroent Director; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Associate Planner; and Charles Kilian, City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Written communication fi-om the Chamber of Commerce was noted. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-ASA-95 EHUD Gordon Same 11703 Dorothy Anne Way Architectural review to construct a new residence in a Planned Development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to remove Application 10-ASA-95 from the agenda to be resubmitted at a later date. Com. Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 There was a brief discussion about the length of the agenda and the possibil!ty of postponing other items to a later agenda date. Chairman Roberts questioned if there was anyone ia thc audience who was present to speak on Item 7 or 9. There was no one present who wished to address the Planning Commission on Items 7 or 9. Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 28, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Item 9 to a later date and defer a decision on Item 7 until later in the meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-ASA-96 Jiffy Lube Sears Roebuck 10101 Wolfe Road Architectural review for an exterior building sign and a sign exception to locate more than one wall sign on the side of a building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Harris Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-ASA-96 Cupertino Waterfall Homeowners Association Cupertino Waterfall Homeowners Association 10272 Danube Drive ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to modify the existing landscaping plan at the Cupertino Waterfall townhousc development, which included the removal of 106 trees, lawn, shrubs and irrigation system which were originally installed in 1986. The members of the Homeowners Association felt that the poorly installed imgafion system and poor soil preparation caused the declining state of the landscaping, and that many of the trees were too close to walks, buildings and the pool deck and therefore pose a high property damage risk. The Association feels that the new landscaping will be easier to maintain, improve the appearance of the development and reduce water usage. The new plan calls for replacement of trees as summarized in the attached staff report. Staffhas reviewed the plan and recommends approval of the application. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated the location of the apartments, single family dwellings and Chateau Cupertino development. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 28, 1996 Referring to the Landscape Demolition Plan, Ms. Wordell explained the extensive changes proposed for the site for the reasons outlined in the staff report and video presentation. She pointed out that staff has not attempted to address ail the landscaping choices made by applicant. Issues of concern relate to how the community would perceive or be affected by the proposed changes. Ms. WordeH discussed the issue of tree removai, specifying the trees to be removed and the trees that staff recommended remain Staff also recommends that additional trees be planted for screening. In response to a question from Com. Doyle about the reduction of the turf area, Ms. Wordell explained that a significant amount of the turf in the front of the development was being cut back to ground cover and turf to improve the irrigation system as far as water efficiency, and aiso to cover some of the root exposure with ground cover, to eliminate the need to mow aiong the roots. Mr. Ron Henna~ landscape architect, referred to thc overhead of thc Landscape Demolition Plan, and explained that due to the extensive repair work on the buildings, the landscape around the immediate buildings was tom up, and it was planned to add and fill in landscape. He said that applicant was agreeable to staff's recommendations. He suggested some changes relative to the poplar trees and requested the removai of one poplar tree closest to the building because of root problems. In response to Chairman Roberts' question about root guards and watering tubes, Mr. Herman said that the new trees planted would be tap rooted and would not be invasive. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wished to speak on the issue. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the staff recommendation, changing Condition 2, tree retention to say "first 8 listed trees and the 13 westerly most poplar trees and Item 51 shall be retained,' and ailowing them to remove the one that they requested and 51 except for the most easterly tree. Corns. Doyle, Austin and Chairman Roberts concurred with Com. Harris. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 6-ASA-96, modification of the existing landscaping plan. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Parking Ordinance Amendments and I-EA-96 City of Cupertino Citywide Zoning Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipai Code regarding parking standards. Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 2g, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 17, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 Staff ~: Ms. Vera Gil, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. She reported that the issue was discussed at the April 22 Planning Commission meeting, at which time the Planning Commission requested more information on the following 4 items in order to assess whether or not the proposed amendments were necessary: compact parking spaces; parking standards for Valley Fair and downtown Los Gates; landscape standards; and R1 (C) parking requirements. A summary of the data relative to the four items is contained in the attached staff report. Ms. Gil explained the reasons staff recommended amendment of the ordinance. She stated that the RI(C) or single family residential cluster is too restrictive. Several exceptions have been made by the Planning Commission in the past and staff felt that rather than making exceptions for single family cluster, the parking requirement would be made less restrictive and adhered to. The parking survey indicated that commercial parking lots were generally under-parked in Cupertino. Parking surveys for fast food restaurants indicated that several were over-parked and a requirement was needed. Staffalso felt that the harshness of asphalt lots could be softened by landscape standards. Chairman Roberts summarized that the letter from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce commented on various aspects of the staff recommendations for the amendment to the ordinance. In response to a question from Com. Austin regarding uaisize parking stalls, Ms. Gil said that staff had not discussed the issue in detail, but that it was suggested by several of the property owners in Cupertino because of problems encountered in distribution of compact car stalls throughout the parking lot. A brief discussion ensued regarding the size of parking stalls in shopping centers. She said that the unisize parking stall was not considered by staff. Referring to Page 4-3 of the staff report, Com. Harris questioned if staff was recommending Page 2 sliding scale listed. Ms. Gil said that staff preferred the sliding scale rather than the straight percentage because it was more logical, as it was based on a percentage of the lot size. She explained that if the sliding scale was not adopted, staff recommended a number of trees per space. Several Commissioners at the last meeting had said they were not necessarily fled to trees, but they wanted to look at overall green space. Chairman Roberts clarified that the proposal was to break up large expanses of parking lot, which would justify the sliding scale. Com. Harris questioned if the recommendation addressed the issue of parking ratios for a complex of one bedroom units as opposed to a complex with two bedroom units. Ms. Gil said that the recommendation addressed the issue, but the difference vmuld be because they are recommending only a quarter of a space for each additional bedroom, therefore the difference would not be as great. She indicated that the requirement for the bedroom could be changed to make the parking standard for one bedroom much less than a 3 bedroom townhonse. Com. Harris referred to Page 4-8, Item N - Landscape Requirements, "that a minimum surface parking lot shall be planted with shade trees at a ratio of 1 tree per every 5 to 10 parking stalls". Com. Harris stated that in the Heart of the City, the consultant stated that one tree for 5 stalls was Ptanning Commission Minutes 5 May 28, 1996 a relatively sparsely treed lot. Following a brief discussion, Com. Harris pointed out that that it should be taken in the whole context as opposed to fragments. Referring to Page 4-5, Ms. Gil stated that the wording had not changed; staffhas not updated the contexts; but merely conducted research, made suggestions. If the Planning Commission chooses to make changes, staff will adopt the changes in the ordinance. In response to a question from Doyle regarding Page 4-6, 19.000.040, Item B, Aisle Dimensions: Ms. Gil explained that she was taking the current standards out of the Public Works standard and trying to adapt them to a table that would be easier to read and easier for the general public to understand. She said she would forward a copy of the parking standards. Ms. Gil indicated that on Page 4-7, No. Fl, "all" applied. Referring to Page 4-8, No. N, Landscape Requirements, Ms. Gil clarified that a period of 12 months could pass and still have a 24% increase in FAR and it would not have to be implemented. Mr. Cowan that it was uniform in the City's unapproved street ordinance and has been in existence for many years. Referring to the Table on Page 4-11, Ms. Gil answered Commissioners' questions about changes and omissions. Ms. Gil stated that in the industrial category the number of compact spaces was 50% and staffwas not recommending any changes. Com. Hams stated that staff should address the concerns outlined in the Chamber of Commerce letter. She asked staff to comment on the issue regarding quasi-restaurants not having the same requirements as sit-down restaurants. Ms. Gil stated that staffhad not updated or made changes to Page 4-5. She explained that staff had not changed their recommendations; merely conducted research and submitted suggestions, ff the Planning Commission chooses to make changes, staff will adopt the changes in the ordinance. Chairman Roberts addressed the bicycle parking issue. Mr. Bill Chow, Property Manager of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center, commented on the parking issue, stating that as a general rule of thumb the landscaper has an asset of amenity flit is an office building or a professional eampns, but for retail shopping centers those could be a because of distortions of landscape by ongoing traffic and also distortions for the storefronts. He said that from a standpoint of retail, it was considered as a haT, rd issue and felt one tree per 5 to 10 parking stalls should be the case. He said that the diamond shape tree well was acceptable because it only utilizes a small comer of a parking space so one complete parking space is not lost. Secondly, the juice bar issue is something that is new. He said it is part ofa 90s trend and should not be identified as part of the restaurant or fast food because making purchases is quick and easy; unlike the long lines for fast food, and the customer gets the product and generally leaves with it in a short period of time. He said he approved of the shared parking concept because different businesses have different operating hours and it would be beneficial to businesses as well as the property owners. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Hams said she felt parking was an important issue to deal with. She reiterated that the Chamber of Commerce's concerns should be addressed and responded to. Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 28, 1996 Chairman Roberts requested feedback on the issue of percentage of compact spaces. He said it was tied into the question of whether to consider a unisize parking stall. Com. Austin said she felt that a unisize parking stall was overall more appealing and preferable to the percentages of 50/50 for compact and mid size cars. Com. Doyle suggested leaving it status quo, as the distribution of small ears to large cars is chang'mg; and it may go back again if gas prices stay up. Com. Harris concurred with Com. Austin. She said that there were varied reasons people had difficalty getting in and out of cars. She said it was something used to help the business community and it might be better to change the general commercial to 250 feet which would allow them to have more spaces. She pointed out that the compromise proposed by the Chamber of Commerce is novel, it would make the spaces long enough for the vans and trucks and it would make all the spaces in the lot 8-1/2. She said she felt the ordinance that allows for 50% of the ears in manufacturing/office manufacturing lots to be compact is too high; More people have vans and tracks now. Chairman Robem said that he was in favor of the unisize parking stall, and said a problem with compact spaces is that they are poorly identified and people don't know which they are heading into. He said he would like to have a compromise in size that would eliminate that issue. He summarized that 3 of the 4 Commissioners present were in favor of following up on the unisize stall issue. Staff was directed to explore the unisize stall. Ms. Gil commented that relative to the unisize stalls, Los Gates does not allow compact spaces; and have gone to the unisize stall. There were no comments on the parking statistics for Valley Fair shopping center or downtown Los Gates. There was a discussion about the standards for overall green space and whether or not a sliding scale was feasible. Com. Harris said the ratio outlined on Page 4-2 was appropriate, but that it needed the caveat attached to it, which is the minimum landscape requirement recommended by staffthat a minimum number of trees is required with a sliding scale. She said that except in the ~ of the City where 5 to 10 trees is reasonable, it was more appropriate to require one tree for six, including some of the s~reet trees such as utilized in Paio Alto. Com. Doyle said he felt that the sliding scale was appropriate and agreed with the approach. He asked for clarification on the acmai minimum, would there have to be one tree for every six stalls and 5% of the lot be greeaspace or is it some other formula. Com. Austin said that she felt a uniform one to five, and the sliding scale of 14,999 would be less compared to the larger lots, so that there would be more coverage in the larger lots and less in the smaller lots, therefore she was in favor of staWs recommendation of one tree for every five to ten parking stalls. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 28, 1996 Chairman Roberts said he felt visual impression was important, and whether or not there were trees with big canopies or little trees on the dividing line between shrubs and trees. He offered guidance stating if the trees were larger there could be fewer of them, if the trees were smaller, there should be more. He said it was important to retain the flexibility and if there was consensus on that principle, to include some guidance of that type. He said he approved of the interior landscaping requirement and he felt the parking facilities were reasonable. Com. Doyle commented that the Oaks Shopping Center did not have a large number of trees, but that the huge oak tree has a big impact; whereas the Target Shopping Center had more trees, yet appeared to be sparse. He said it might be helpful if there was a way of specifying that the coverage or foliage or drop line of the tree covers part oftbe landscaping plan. Chairman Roberts said that a provision for exceptions could be m~le for specimen trees of especially large canopy size. There was consensus that it was the direction to go. Trees that are big and spreading, are big enough to provide good visibility and would he worth many trees. All concurred with the Chamber's suggestion that the canopy start high so ns not to obscure the stores. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the issue of tying the residential standard for aparmaents and townhouses/condominiums to anit size. Staffproposes 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, plus .25 space for each additional bedroom aRer first bedroom, if there is a sliding scale. A discussion ensued regarding the past and present practices relative to the parking requirements, wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. It was agreed that a separate section relating to townhouses was needed. Staff recommended that there be two car garages for the townhouses. There was consensus to support the 2.5 per unit plus .5 for each additional bedroom. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue the parking ordinance amendment for further staff review and recommendation to the June 24, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Chairman Roberts declared a recess at 8:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:00 p.m. the same Commissioners and staffwere present. 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, citing design and other related subjects to be determined by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 17, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 28, 1996 Staffuresentation: Mr. Colin lung, Associate Planner, explained that discussion of the item was the second meeting on the zoning ordinaace amendments to the television and radial aerials ordinance pertaining to the expansion, design and citing of wireless communication facilities. He said that the ordinance addressed all types of television, radio, personal communication services, cellular and business antennas. He summarized the attached staffrepon which included comments from the wireless communications industry representatives, ham radio operators, and the Planning Commission. Referring to the overhead of Sections 19.108.040 and 19.108.090, Mr. lung reviewed minor changes made to the ordinance following distribution of the agenda packets. He noted that the changes were made for purposes of clarification. Mr. lung referred to the attached Communication Aerial Regulation Survey for Santa Clara County, stating flint most cities in the county do not have a comprehensive set of aerial regulations, and use the current system of development regulations: zoning, design review, use permitting procedure. He noted that some cities are in the process of dra~ing guidelines. Staffis recommending a Negative Declaration for approval of the ordinance. In response to questions from Com. Harris, Mr. lung stated that the height is measured from the ground level, and the wording would be changed to reflect that. Referring to 19.108.080 (A) Mr. lung stated that the words "by a communications provider" would be inserted al~r the word "City". Referring to Page 5-14, 19.108.050, Mr. lung said that the heights were derived from the original antenna ordinance for the City. The previous antenna ordinance was written to ~gnlate television aerials and ham radio towers and the height limits were reasonable height limits for the television aerials and ham radio towers at that time. He explained that the 30 foot height wns chosen because most buildings in Cupertino do not exceed 28 feet in height. In response to a question from Com. Harris regarding residential setbacks, Mr. lung said that there was no setback for the antennas from residential, because staffis ammpting to address all types of aerials including residential aerials and it did not make sense to have a setback for a television antenna in a residential neighborhood. He said that the commercial, office and industrial antennas are prohibited from residential areas. There is no set standard for the non-residential properties interfacing with residential properties, but it is let~ to the design review process to minimize the visibility. Mr. lung sm. ted that he was not comfortable with using a zoning district to regulate the setback ns it opens it up with things such ns accessory structures, and there are a lot of planned development zoning districts that don't have setbacks for buildings. A brief discussion ensued relating to permitting, wherein Mr. lung answered questions. City Attorney Kilian suggested that-I 9.108.100 Severability Clause on Page 5-17 be deleted as the code would contain a severability clause for the whole clause which would eliminate putting it in each ordinance. There was a brief discossion about the attached article written by Mr. Don Witters, FDA physici~, regarding concerns with possible radio frequency interference with medical devices and EMI. Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 28, 1996 In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Jung said he felt it was not the intention of the federal government to prohibit local governments from doing environmental review. Local governments have the authority to do environmental review on antennas and antenna systems, and how the regulation should be interpreted is that the City or whatever jurisdiction is doing the environmental review, shall not use a standard that is more restrictive than what the federal government is using. Mr. Kilian said that it appeared to be broader than that; however, what is being reviewed are not only those things that are preempted by federal law; if that were the ease a Notice of Exemption would be completed. He said he felt it was appropriate to do a Negative Declaration because a finding is made that there is no environmental impact and that no EIR is required. The federal preemption regulations are not the only things being decided; it is appropriate to consider CEQA. Mr. Kilian stated he was not aware of what the Environmental Review Committee did, but if the Planning Commission found there should be further study on the environmental impact, a Negative Declaration shouldn't be granted. Mr. Jung clarified that the FCC is working with medical manufacturers to make certain that their medical devices are compatible with the vast array of electro magnetic devices out there that generate any type of electromagnetic field. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Derek Empey, GTE Mobilnet, reviewed that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, he and other representatives, highlighted trends in the industry and ways the ordinance could reflect how they could provide those services and meet the community's needs at the same time. He said he did not provide further input into the dra.edng of the ordinance. Mr. Empey explained that we are in the middle of a technological revolution and the use of some provisions in the ordinance which are very broad, apply to technologies and references of 30 or more years old, such as ham radio, TV, cellular facilities, all of which have unique technical constraints and a blanket type policy which could have significant problems where the providers will be able to comply with the ordinance in developing the infrastructure for these type of communications. In particular what we did was we got our copy of this today and looked at what type of facilities we could build that we are currently utilizing under the current language and found some significant constraints, including the inability to build any additional facilities should they be needed for capacity in the future with the kind of language proposed. As an example, Mr. Empey cited an instance where he said additional communication with the Commission and staff could help refine some of the provisions presented in order to be in compliance. He said there was not any recognition of the differences between cellular and PCS type providers and the differences in their needs. He noted that there was an upcoming ABAG workshop where the industry and local government officials would get together and discuss the needs of the cormmmities, the technical constraints in which the providers work, and how the two needs could be meshed. He said he felt what was before the Planning Commission was a good first effort at that, but there were a number of issues that the industry would like to raise with in more detailed format. GTE Mobihiet provides two local jurisdictions, both decision making level and workshops as well as staff who will come in and give a jurisdictional training program developed to provide a better understanding of the issues and exchange of information of how to meet those needs. Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 28, 1996 Mr. Empey suggested that rather than trying to identify and go through the ordinance in detail at the meeting where there are inconsistencies, the Planning Commission continue the item for 30 days and allow GTE to interface with staff in more detail. Chairman Roberts stated that he felt that was the reason for continuing the item the last time, the interaction was to have taken place in the interim. Mr. Empey responded that it was his understanding also, but that he had not had any communication with staff during that time period. At the last Planning Commission meeting he had communicated that he wanted further contact with staffto provide more comments, but he did not receive any further information on how to provide that input to staff. Chairman Roberts said that GTE should have taken the initiative to contact staff. Mr. Empey said that he understood, but they had raised some very broad issues at the meeting he thought would generate substantial change in the draft ordinance, and what was presented tonight is almost identical to what was prepared the first time. Chairman Roberts reiterated that GTE should have taken the initiative to comment based on the previous draft. Com. Harris pointed out to Mr. Empey the change to Item 4 which now indicates that unless an exception is granted, where it previously did not allow such an item in the next tea years, it may be permitted if an explanation was presented as to why it was appropriate. Mr. Empey said he was aware of it, that it required GTE to get a height exemption und a pole diameter dimension that is not clearly defined in thc current language; how the Commission would approve it and based on what criteria. He said it remained very onerous for them to try to forecast if they were to have to develop another facility could they do it under the current provisions, of which one is the provision of an exemption by the Commission. He said there was no guarantee it would be granted; it is a discretionary motion. He explained that if some of the areas could be pinpointed better, they would have a better picture of whether or not they could develop the infrastructure under these guidelines and smffcould better determine their compliance. Com. Harris questioned what other areas GTE objected to in the ordinance. Mr. Empey said that one of his primary comments was that they considered the ordinance to make it visually driven with respect to some of the provisions under site locations for example. He said that although ham radio type antennas of significant height up to 55 feet are permitted on a residentially designated property , immediately below it a similar facility would be precluded because it is a public utility facility. He said he felt the visual impacts are the same and did not understand the rationale of why one is acceptable and one is not. He cited Item B, Section 108.040 on the same section, preclusion from open space areas, there are creative options for them to use in open space areas. They can put antennas mounted almost flush to a ball pole; a ball light facility and not have to generate a new monopele configuration in an area; those have been done in a number of other facilities such as high schools, colleges, anywhere there are overhead lights with that type of height to it. With respect to height limitations mentioned under general development regulations, Section 108.050, in comparing that with the existing facilities in and around the area that is GTE network that is developed irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries, to cover the whole Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 28, 1996 area, those facilities need to mesh with those adjacent sites at an elevation that is consistent with adjacent sites. If everything is 60 to 80 feet in height, the development at 55 foot limitation does not function, and GTE would be back before the Commission with that site asking for additional exemptions. The two different providers need to be applied in the ordinance rather than a blanket statement that ham operator, cellular PCS, every type of communication facility functions at the same height. He said that No. 4 could present a serious problem because the facillti~s were not designed that way. He said he understood there had been some discussion in the City about power generators and their compliance with noise standards. He said there were a number of concerns in Section 108.060, Item B. Com. Harris reiterated that some of the comments discussed should have been relayed to staff in the last thirty days for rewriting the ordinance. Chairman Roberts said that from the tenor of the remarks from the industry people at the last presentation, he had no idea that there was this depth of concern and resistance to the ordinance. He said he thought it would have been brought to staff's attention prior to this evening. Mr. Empey said he was under the impression that staff would provide another updated dra~ to comment on and provide comments back to the community. Chairman Roberts said that in the future more explicit comments on the applicant's part will help to speed thing along. Mr. Empey said that he would be glad to give detailed comments in writing to staff and the Commission following the meeting. Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. lung said that his impression of the previous meeting was that the industry consultants were generally supportive of the ordinance with the exception of what they had commented on at the meeting. Some of the comments expressed by the speaker this evening were not expressed at the April meeting even though those particular pieces of the ordinanen were a part of the ordinance at that time. Mr. Cowan said that staffwas not opposed to continuing the matter to provide more time for input, but the sooner an ordinanco is adopted, the easier it is to respond to the individual applications. A brief disenssion followed about the upeomiag meetings and an appropriate date for rescheduling the item. Com. Hah-is suggested rescheduling the item for 6 weeks. Com. Doyle said it appeared that more information was needed to determine if the ordinance was based on visual aspects or health and safety issues; and if it is health and safety, is the ERC doing a sufficient review? Com. Austin referred to Page 5-27, wherein it states "no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate ...". She also referred to Page 5-33 regarding stationary aerials. She said she was in favor of continuing the item for 6 weeks to provide more time for input. Com. Doyle concurred with Com. Austin, stating that most of what is being addressed is visual. Staff might get more insight from ABAG, and working with the community and industry is a positive step. He said he was in favor of continuing the item for 6 weeks. Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 28, 1996 Mr. Jung clarified that he did not want to speak for the industry consultants, but it appeared that they were trying to develop an ordinance that is entirely visually driven. He said that what they are failing to say is that basically these types of aerials they are interested in putting up would be allowed anywhere in the city as long as they could design it so that it would meet with the satisfaction of the city itself. Staff has taken a different posture in that it is partially aesthetically driven, but staff also has clear prohibitions about allowing non residential aerials in residential areas. Com. Harris said that there needs to tm a setback fi.om residential; there is an area where there is commercial area or industrial area adjacent to a residential area, and both San Jose and Mountain View have established setbacks for that non residential antenna fi.om a residential area. She suggested a staff recommendation that gives setbacks to pr~'ent fi.om having 5 feet because then in reality tho residential has not been separated from the commercial. She said that if the industry consultants want to provide information to staff they should do that based on this document and not expect that staffwill prepare a document and send it out for their approval. The process is with the Planning Commission and there is a 30 days time period for the industry to respond and write up their specifics and allow staff to act. Staff will act and bring the information to the Planning Commission for aaotber public process where the industry can respond. An attempt is made to create a balance between the business and residential community. Chairman Roberts asked if there was agreement to leave the explicit health effects of radiation with federal authorities. Com. Harris responded that when she was on the ERC they didn't have information such as the WiRers letter, which implies that in 1992 a serious look was taken at measuring different things. What was discussed was minor compared to issues such as wheelchair brakes coming off, apnea machines not waking a person up in the middle of the night. She said the City should deal with the available information. She said she did not want Cupertino to end up housing all the antennas because other surrounding areas did not want them. She said she would like to have more information. Chairman Roberts said that although the health radiation information was by and large comforting; it was somewhat inconclusive, ff new evidence is forthcoming staff would have access to some remedy to correct the situation. Mr. Kilian clarified that if a project came in for approval that involved a wireless radio wave type of situation for which it met federal standards, the City might be preempted fi.om denying the approval based on environmental concerns; however, if it relates to other things that do emit radio waves that are not necessarily guvemed by the federal government or are not in compliance with the federal government standards, then the City would be flee to regulate or prohibit that sort of thing. He said all new information would impact the City's or federal government's view. Chairman Roberts said he would be prepared to make decisions based on aesthetics and public perception of safety, which would leave room for setback fi.om residential zones. He said that Mr. Jung raised the point that there is a presumption that this ordinance is written in such a way that commercial applications would be restricted to non residential zones. The industry is arguing that such transmitters and receivers should be allowed anywhere. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 28, 1996 Com. Austin said she wouldn't want it restricted. She said she would favor departure fi.om the draft and allow commercial transmitters Wit was aesthetic, and also included setbacks. Mr. Kilian pointed out that them were two issues: health and safety or aesthetic issues. He said the Planning Commission may want to direct staff to approach it simply from an ae~tbetic point of view or not; the federal government has a lot to say about health and safety issues which would constrict some areas. Mr. Jung said that there was a basic conflict in existence. He said he understood part of the Commission is interested in establishing a setback from residential areas that would typically preclude having any type of these antennas in a residential area. Mr. Cowan said that there may be some situations where an open space area might be suitable; for example, the approval of antennas on the 280 freeway. He said that caution should be exercised about restricting by zoning category alone. Com. Doyle stated that it should be restricted from residential areas for aesthetic reasons. Com. Harris concurred with Com. Doyle. He said that a typical place for that is not attached to a residence but rather to a church or school. He said that the spirit of the ordinance is to put these commercial uses in commercial zones where they belong. Chairman Roberts concurred. He said he would extend the aesthetic concept to consider that part of what people consider is threatening to them and so the perception of risk often is important. He said he recommended in general prohibiting commercial transmitters, receivers in residential zones and would favor some reasonable setbacks from residential zones. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Amendment to Chapter 19.108 * Television and l~ndio Aerials Ordinance Amendments and 6-EA-96 to the July 1 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Chairman Roberts moved thc agenda to item 7 and asked if there was anyone in thc audience who was present to address Item 7. As there was no one present, and because of the time and length of the meeting, there was consensus to continue the item for 2 weeks. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 2-GPA-96 and 9-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various On or near Stevens Creek Blvd. between Highway 85 and the eastern city limits GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to revise the text of the General Plan to redistribute the planned 500 dwelling units throughout the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 17, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 28, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No.(s) 2-GPA-96 and 9-EA-96 to the June 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Harris Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Application No.:(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: i-GPA-96 and 8-EA-96 City of Cupertino Various Properties along Ricardo Road, Mimmonte Road GENERAL PLAN AMENDIVIENT to change the land use map designation from Very Low Density Residential, foothill Modified slope density formula to Low Density Residential, 1-5 dwellings per gross acre or whatever designation the City deems appropriate. The amendment applies to 12 acres of mostly developed land along Ricardo Road and Miramonte Road. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 17, 1996 Staff t~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the request for general plan amendment to change the land use designation for properties bordering Rieardo Road and Miramonte Road to low density residential properties with I to 5 dwellings per gross acre. The properties have been temporarily excluded from a zoning change over to the City's new and more stringent RHS zoning designation because they appear to be relatively fiat land. This means these parcels may not need to be as strictly regulated as the properties around thom. The video illustrated a view of Miramonte Road which showed that the area was redeveloping with new single detached residences, in contrast with Ricardo Road which consists of mostly older homes and wc~t and semi-vacant lots. It was noted that it is believed that the Monta Vista fault line runs through the area. Staff recommends a General Plan aad land use amendment fi-om very Iow density residential foothill and modified slope density formula to low density residential. Staff cites that the area cannot be seen from the valley floor. He said that while there is some topography to the property itself, most of the sections of the property are really not developable; the steeper areas are precluded from development and the semi-vacant and vacant areas have little to no slope. To do so potentially increases the densities of these properties from a maximum density of 3.5 dwellings to 5 dwellings per acre. Based on what staff sees redeveloping in this area they think that if the areas are rezuned to their maximum density, it could result in 6 more dwelling units in the highlighted area in black. Staff recommends the Negative Declaration on the amendment and approval. Mr. Jung reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. He referred to an assessor parcel map to illustrate the vacant lots, homes developed to the RI-10 standards, and older homes. He also illustrated photos of various properties on Rieardo Road and Mimmonte Road. Planning Commission Minutes 15 May 28, 1996 In response to a question fi.om Com. Harris, Mr..lung said the elevation would be lower than McClellan and Stelling Roads bceauke it is closer to the creek and the creek itseff is at a lower elevation than many of the surrounding properties in Cupertino. Com. Harris questioned if the older homes along Miramonte were to be removed or if two went together for a 20,000 square foot lot, would you see that it was developed into smaller parcels? Mr. Jung responded that it depended on whether or not the city approved a denser zoning for that area like and R14 or R1-7.5. Currently all the zoning is all RI-10. A lengthy discussion ensued wherein Mr..lung referred to the overhead maps and answered Commissioners' questions. In response to Chairman Roberts' questions, Mr. Cowan stated that there were four flag lots, and that they were probably flag lots fi.om 1917. He pointed out that several years ago the property owner got lot line adjustments to reorient the flag lots. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. John Michelle, resident, Lot 7, said that he was comfortable with the change of designation fi.om RHS back to RI-10, and that his main consideration being that the character of the sleepy country lane remain and not be subjected to looking at either Corsica homes across the street or in his back yard. He said that the area wns incorporated in 1917 and shows an area that is a mature, rural area, with no street lights, no curbs, and until recently did not have sewers. He said the area being designated as RI-10 and under the Iow density formula would be acceptable as long as the low density residential subzoning was RI-10 as opposed to 6.5 or 7.5. A 6.5 or 7.5 would cram a substantial number of houses into the undeveloped or partially developed areas thereby tending to mess up the character of the neighborhood. All of the lots are in the order of 13,000 square feet or larger. He said his main criteria was maintaining the character of the neighborhood. The people on Miramonte even though the neighborhood is smaller and newer, would agree that maintaining the charanter of their neighborhood is of paramount interest to them and they don't want to see 5 dwelling units per gross acre density. Nevertheless as far as it fitting in the hillside, some of the criteria pointed out, it is not really visible fi.om any area. He said there was plenty of vegetation to mask it quite sufficiently. In sununm~, the ehunge in the General Plan designation to low density residential 1 to 5 is acceptable, but the change fi.om wide rural to another street in another street in the subdivision in Cupertino would not be appreciated nor wanted by any of the residents and 10,000 sq f~ should be the minimum for any development. Mr. David Severin, 22570 San Juan Road, said he would like to see the area stay as is or less housing. He said that there is quite a density of slope on those first four plots that perhaps the city is not aware of. He said he did not know they were going to have six plots there. He said he has grown up in the area and would not like to see it change to un area like downtown near DeAnza College. Mr. John Vlahos, resident, Lot 21, referred to the overhead map and commended staff for the report. He said he was very enncemed when we saw that this was originally a foothill modified slope density area because it is not a sloping area. Referring to the overhead map he discussed the status of the various lots. He commended .~aff for the recommendation, and said it was a job well done. Planning Comn~ssion Minutes 16 May 28, 1996 Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chairman Robert summarized the issues as slope, visibility and the established pattern of development. Com. Harris said that Mr. Jung stated that Public Works was looking for 5 foot dedications on Ricardo on development, and the photo illustrated trees into the street, creating a country lane effect. She asked what Public Works would do with 5 foot increments. Mr. Jung said Ricardo was a very narrow road, with no street parking, and the street dedication primarily for street widening purposes. Public works has standard details for the improvement of property in Cupertino. When this area is redeveloped, flit is redeveloped, he said he assumed that the Public Works detail improvements would be put in effect unless the policy is changed regarding that. He said Public Works were concerned about access, safety, the provisions of sidewalks, and whatever improvement standards they are looking at on Rieardo Road are similar to what is on Miramonte. Mr. Cowan said that Public Works had a rural standard for the steeper hillside areas, but to the valley floor there is really no difference. In practicality, the Public Works deparnnent has not required improvements in areas where it is not likely to be other development occurring. It doesn't make sense to improve a 50 foot section of road if you don't get it in other areas. Mr. Cowan said it was an issue that the neighbors could discuss with Mr. Viscovich. Mr. Jung said that certain aspects of the improvements are warranted particularly along Stevens Canyon Road. He noted that there was no shoulder on that road. Chairman Roberts asked if there was a public safety concern about Ricardo Road not having a tomaround. Part of the R1 zoning is that it is an urban area with urban standards; at least an urban level of public safety. Mr. Jtmg said he assumed that there is a planned cul de sac at the end of Rieardo Road. Mr. Cowan said it would not come before the Planning Commission unless it was a subdivision; it is lot by lot at building permit level and Public Works Department would negotiate with the owners to get some degree of turnaround. An example would be a substantial addition to a house; which exceeds 25% of the value of the home. He said that is why areas above Monta Vista are unimproved a/~er many years because there is no cohesive development that oeenrs. Com. Harris commented that it was better to keep the country lane nspeet having RHS or RI-10. Mr. Cowan said it depended on the perspective; if viewed from a public safety and street sweeping, you would want improvements. She suggested contacting Public Works and City Council for a deviation from standard City policies. Discussion continued regarding RI-IS zoning vs. RI-10 zoning, wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 8-EA-96 Com. Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 17 May 28, 1996 Mr, Jung noted that the model resolution included both General Plan Amendments because there is a limit of 4 General Plan hearings per year by state law. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve model resolution for Application No. I-GPA-96 as stated in the staffreport. Com. Austin Com. Harris Com. Mahuney Passed 3-1-0 Com. Harris requested that the record show that her recommendation has to do with the fact that the community seems to want to maintain the rural character and that I am concerned that with RI- 10, it would be more difficult. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved that there be a Minute Order directing the Public Works Department to review this for possible imposition of different standards. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 3-1-0 OLD BUSINESS 8. Discussion of West Valley Hillside Joint Planning Review TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 3, 1996 Staff ~: Ms. Wordell provided a status report on the work program to discuss modifying the urban growth boundary line and clarify the next actions by city staff. She reviewed the urban growth boundary line and review of county hillside zoning policies as outlined in the attached staff report. She reviewed the list of identified uses that are allowed in the County's hillside area, which is outside Cupertino's urban service area. Ms. Wordell explained that the City supports tlie County's General Plan policies for the hillsides, but zoning allows some uses within the hillsides that the Planning Commission may not be comfortable with. The Planning Commission can direct staffto look into some of the uses to see if there might he some long term impacts fi.om these, since the County does allow some conditional uses. Some may have some impacts that the Planning Commission may not have considered as compatible with what was considered hillside uses in the County, therefore stuff seeks some direction. In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Wordell stated that a long term growth boundary is a 15 to 20 year growth boundary; the urban service area is 5 years. Com. Doyle questioned the'County's role. Ms. Wordell said that County put forth that if the cities want to retain the mr'al hillside character in the county, the city has to set some urban limit lines, or some long term growth lines. The County is looking at stricter design guidelines and perhaps looking at the topography. The County is also trying to improve their referral procedures so that the cities really do have more say about the common areas. Ms. Wordell stated that the vehicle for Planning Commission kfinutes May 28, 1996 agreement is still pending, the ultimate goal is to have some vehicle of agreement, whether a Memorandum of Understanding, and the General Plan talks about a Joint Powers Agreement, some sort of common agreement. Chairman Roberts questioned what would occur if a proposal came forward for a development within the urban service area boundary, to the city of Cupertino. ff someone want~t to subdivide within the sphere of influence line, would it come to the city of Cupertino? Ms. Wordell said that it is referred to the City for comment. Major use permits such as Stevens Creek Quarry are referred to the Planning Commission for comment, ff it were changed from hillside to non-hillside uses it would raise thc issue of annaxation. They are reviewing thc comment process to make it stronger so that the city would have a representative at the hearing. Mr. Cowan said that over the years the County has dramatically reduced densities in hillsides partly as a result oftbe interaction between the various cities and counties. The zoning policies are very restrictive, 20 acres per lot on a fiat slope up to 150; there has been a lot of dialog in the past with the cities and the county; we are talking about some nuances here. Discussion continued wherein staffanswered Commissioners' questions. If there are any issues listed that the Planning Commission has issue with, the staff will work with the County to see how they can be addressed in a joint agreement. Ms. Wordell explained that if there are use permits for a golf course in the County, it would get referred to the Planning Commission for comment; the question is do you want staffto investigate whether the uses should be allowed or whether they should be somehow minimized. Should the uses themselves be addressed with the County? Chairman Roberts stated that one criteria would be preservation or destruction of natural landscape. Discussion continued regarding whether staff should consider County hillside land uses and their cumulative impacts. Com. Harris suggested a mission statement and a goal statement for the document that deals with the fact that whatever jurisdictions urban service area boundary or long term boundary it is should be considered in a specific way; and it could be part of the agreement. Com. Doyle said that the approach was much better than trying to define what the Planning Commission is for or against. He concurred with Com. Harris' suggestion about the mission statement and goal statement and suggested setting up a process for review and input into the changes that are happening, and the County has input to the changes that are happening in our areas. Com. Austin said she concurred with Com. Harris' suggestion about the mission statement and goal statement. She said it was important to convey to the County that the Planning Commission wants to be actively involved, with interaction and discussion on a regular basis. Planning Commission Minutes 19 May 28, 1996 Chairman Roberts concurred with the idea of a mission and goal statement and what has been said p~:eviously. He said he was in favor of designating the urban service area aa the long terra growth boundary and discussing hillside uses and their cumulative impacts with emphasis on the mode of interaction between the City and County within our long term sphere of influence. In response to a question from Com. Doyle, Ms. Wordell explained that the urban service area encompassed the industrial site, not the undeveloped area. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve a Minute Order for the urban limit line and strive for a mission and goal statement that would set a framework Com. Hams Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Mr. Cowan said that the Council wants the Planning Commission to meet with the people affected by the historical ordinance. Following a brief discussion about possible meeting dates, the item will be agendized for the June 10th meeting for discussion. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on Monday, June 10, 1996. Minutes ApProved as 2Presented: June 24, 1996