Loading...
PC 11-14-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 14, 1994 Chr. Mahoney called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Harris Com. Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development ciddy Wordell, city Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 11, October 24, October 26 Com. Harris amended the minutes of October 24, 1994 as follows: Page 3, the motion should include that the sign is approved as presented by the applicant. Com. Roberts amended the minutes of October 26, 1994 as follows: Page 7, 6th paragraph, change the word "fairly" to "generously". Page 9, lOth paragraph, stated he did concur with Com. Doyle, but he would like "wildlife habitat impacts such as the red legged frog" added. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: MOTION: SECOND: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of October 11, 1994, as presented. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of October 24, 1994, as amended. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Doyle Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of October 26, 1994, as amended. Com. Roberts ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 2 VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR Item 5: Application 9-TM-94 - Emily Chen, 20800 McClellan Road - Request continuance to the Planning commission Meeting of November 28, 1994. Item 2: Application 7-TM-94- William P. Klein - Request continuance to the meeting of December 12, 1994. Item 3: Application 8-EXC-93 - Larry Miller - Request continuance to the meeting of December 12, 1994. SECOND: VOTE: Com Doyle moved to continue of December 12, 1994 and November 28, 1994. Com. Austin Passed item 2 and 3 to the meeting item 5 to the meeting of MOTION: 5-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None -~ CONSENT CALENDAR - None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l5-ASA-94 Diversified Arts Corp. Westfield Inc. 10330 No. Wolfe Road ASA application to modify 6-U-73 to change paint colors and add exposed neon to the exterior of a restaurant. staff Presentation: ci ty Planner Wordell presented the staff report noting the building has been painted. She noted staff was concerned about the colors being too "busy", but did not feel it was significant enough to recommend denial. She stated the second request is for exposed neon treatment along the roof line. She noted staff believes that the proposed neon is not needed on this building, given the brightness and variety of paint colors. Applicant Presentation: Mr. John otto, El Torito, stated they were unaware of the requirements for painting the building. He reviewed the colors used on the building noting they are not much different than what was there before. He noted the neon band is a corporate image and a way to identify the Mexican motif. He noted the single neon band will follow the roof line and believes it will not be detrimental. In response to commissioners questions, Mr. otto PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 3 stated that all lighting is on after dusk. He also noted the neon band is not visible from I-280. Com. Harris stated businesses within the city should know the rules and regulations of the city and maybe some publicity needs to be done with regards to this. She noted since the building was already painted she would recommend approval, but should not be a precedence. She stated she is ambivalent about the neon, but if only turned on at night, she would consider approval. Com. Roberts stated the colors are bright, but he would approve it. He noted he concurs with Com. Harris regarding publicity. He stated he is not opposed to neon, but believes it is not necessary for this restaurant. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the colors, but would approve it. He noted he is opposed to the neon and would not support it. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Harris that the building has been painted so she would approve it at this time. She stated she has no objections to the neon. ~ Chr. Mahoney stated he is willing to approve the colors. He added that this is the third application for neon and is concerned about this. He noted he does not believe that the neon will help the identification of this restaurant. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve l5-ASA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and denying the neon Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: PUBLIC HEARING 4. Applicant No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-EXC-94 TW International Investment Corp. Mao-Hsin Liu 21680 Rainbow Court EXCEPTION to construct a new residence on slopes greater than 30% and on a prominent ridgeline in accordance with section 19.40.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report dated November 14, 1994, noting that at the last meeting the planning commission had concerns regarding several issues. The applicant made several changes as addressed in the staff report which include changing the colors, lowering the height of the entrance features, reducing the size of the house and reconfiguring PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 4 the rear yard. Planner Robillard presented a site plan outlining the location of the pool. Regarding the elevation, Planner Robillard stated the only third story appearance is at the garage, the second level is setback IO ft. from the garage and the third level is setback 27 ft. He stated staff believes that the third story will not be visible from the downhill neighbors because of the setback. He stated staff is recommending approval. Com. Harris questioned the height of the turret, and staff's concerns. Planner Robillard stated staff had concerns about the turret, but the applicant contends that the turret will not be visible from the valley floor. Staff recommends that the turret be left as is, but it could be lowered if the planning commission still has concerns. Regarding a fence around the pool, Planner Robillard stated the fence should be 5 ft. high and they can add a condition that the fence be wrought iron and painted black. Com. Harris asked if this proposal would set a precedence by violating the current laws regarding building on slopes 30% or more? Planner Robillard stated it is either building on slopes greater than 30% or not building on the prominent ridge. He stated this is part of the subdivision on Rainbow and the building pad location was identified at the subdivision. He stated it will not set a precedence because the four lots in this subdivision have been developed. Regarding stepping into the hillside, staff believes the proposed home has been set into the hillside quite extensively. Planner Robillard reviewed the elevations and presented the landscape plans. Com. Austin addressed the spirit and intent of the ordinance and asked if staff believe this proposal maintains balance between the residential development and preservation of the natural hillside setting? Planner Robillard stated given the constraints of the site, and the pre-existing road the only flat area is on top of the ridge. He stated staff believes it would be more detrimental to build the home on the steep hill. He believes the architect has addressed the visible impacts. ADDlicant Presentation: Chr. Mahoney called on the applicant, but he was not present. Mr. Cowan stated if the planning commission want to make changes to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 5 the plan the applicant should be present. In response to Com. Doyle's question Planner Robillard pointed out the elevation which would be visible from the valley floor. Com. Austin stated the applicant has addressed the concerns of staff and the commission, but does not believe there should be development on slopes greater than 30%. She expressed concern about the size of the home and the turret. She stated they either have to change the policy or deny buildings on ridgelines. Com. Doyle stated the architect has addressed the concerns and put effort into keeping the structure low. He expressed concern about the visibility from the valley floor noting it is too prominent. He stated the square footage proposed is not a concern. Mr. Tony wong, designer of project, arrived at this time to represent the applicant and presented pictures to the commission showing the different views from surrounding areas of the site. He added where visible the home will only appear as a one story building. Mr. Wong stated existing landscaping also helps screen the site. Mr. Wong presented a model of the proposed home noting he has made the changes requested of staff and the commission. He believes the home will not look massive because part of the home is submerged into the hill. He noted from the valley floor the homes is only visible from Rainbow Drive. Com. Roberts asked if the turret could be lowered? Mr. Wong stated the turret is part of the design of the horne, but could be reduced. He noted the round turret breaks up the roof line. The commission discussed the visual impact from the valley floor. Mr. wong stated that the house is surrounded by existing residents and only the pool side will be seen. Com. Austin stated her comments are as previously addressed. Com. Doyle stated the elevation would be obscured from other residents as described by the applicant. He believes his objection to the vertical height was addressed by the architect. He noted the house is designed well to address visual concerns and would support it at this time. Planner Robillard stated the home will be visible from Rainbow Drive. He presented an aerial photo of the site and the existing homes in this area. Com. Roberts stated the changes requested have been addressed. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 6 believes it was a regret that the subdivision was approved in such away as to permit building on the ridgeline. Mr. Cowan stated geology was subdi vision. He stated the locations because of slope particular area the only safe a major factor in the design of the road had to be located in several instability. He added in this place to build is on the ridgeline. Com. Roberts stated that given houses on this ridgeline and would support the application. roof on the turret. the fact that there are already four there is no other building pad he He spoke in favor of reducing the Com. Doyle stated he does not believe the turret would be visible so he would not support Com. Robert's suggestion. Com. Harris stated she is willing to support the exception, specifically because there are four other houses built the same way and the proposed home is not the highest on the ridge. She stated she does not want to set a precedence, but noted this is addressed in the staff report. Com. Harris requested that the fence around the pool be treated so it is not visible. Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of the project as proposed, and would approve the turret as is. SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Doyle moved to approve ]-EXC-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the condition that the fence around the pool area shall be non-reflective, painted black and be an open fence. Com. Harris Passed 4-1 Com. Austin MOTION: 6. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 8l,16l and 19-EA-94 city of Cupertino citywide Amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance, Credit section of the Cupertino Municipal Code, section 18-1602.l0 Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting the issue is whether the open space on large developments is adequate to meet 50% of the park needs and is the space always available for recreational needs? He noted this was reviewed by the parks and recreation commission who concluded that the park dedication ordinance should not change in terms of the 50% credit and there should be additional verbiage added to the ordinance that requires recordation of covenants to ensure that the open space remains active. He noted the parks and recreation PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 7 commission also suggested deleting "landscaped quiet areas" and replace it with "recreational community gardens" as outlined in the staff report. Com. Harris spoke in support of strolling landscaped pathways with benches. She stated this would be space actively used and if landscape, park like quiet areas are eliminated these pathways may not be developed. She suggested if this is removed, that the strolling landscaped pathways with benches be added. Mr. Cowan stated the commission needs to be careful and noted the open space must be functional and meet the active needs. The commission briefly discussed the optional elements. Chr. Mahoney stated for credit the developer must provide active open space. Com. Austin stated she would support the recommendation from the parks and recreation commission but would suggest landscaped park areas. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Farokh Deboo, 10257 Nile Dr., stated the general plan does discuss pocket parks and eliminating landscape park like areas would have a negative impact on the pocket parks. Mr. Debao addressed "public interest" as written in the ordinance and asked what does this mean? Mr. Cowan stated the intent of the ordinance is to provide open space for the active use of the residents within the development and is not meant to be a public park. Mr. Deboo stated this statement is not very clear and believes it should be clarified. He noted it was his understanding that the credit is up to 50% and not just 50%. Mr. Cowan stated the state law allows the city to write an ordinance that requires up to 50%. He stated the city of Cupertino's ordinance indicates 50% credit. Mr. Debao asked that this be reconsidered to allow up to 50%. The public hearing was closed. Com. Harris stated that landscaped paths will probably be included in development plans as addressed by Mr. Cowan so she would be willing to eliminate this. Com. Austin concurred. Com. Doyle spoke in support of the changes as written. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 8 Com. Roberts noted the parks and recreation commission gave this careful consideration and agree with the idea that the optional element should be active areas. Com. Harris concurred. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a negative declaration Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 81,161 as proposed by the parks and recreation commission Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 7. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Il-lJ-94 Frank Ettefagh/A. Mirzadegan Frank Ettefagh Northeast corner of Olive Ave. and Orange Ave. USE PERMIT to construct a single family residence in a Planned Development Residential Zoning District Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report and reacquainted the commission with the policies of the Manta vista area. He noted that this property is owned by the owner to the east who will be most directly affected. Mr. Cowan reviewed the proposed setbacks. He also reviewed the location of the two oak trees on the site. Mr. Cowan reviewed the architecture noting it is compatible with the Manta vista area. He added it is staff's belief that the proposed home will add value to the neighborhood. Mr. Cowan noted that the canopy on one of the oak trees will have to be cut back and may not survive the development. He also noted that a driveway will separate this homes from the adjoining home. Mr. Cowan presented a color board to the commission. The commission discussed the approval of this project in 1990. Mr. Cowan stated there were disputes regarding the width of the street and further dedication was required. Applicant Presentation: The applicant was not present. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Com. Austin noted this is an unusual piece of property. She stated this is a creative design and would be in favor of approving as proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINU1'ES November 14, 1994 Page 9 Com. Doyle spoke in support of the architecture, but expressed concern about parking. Mr. Cowan stated typically there are two garage spaces and two apron spaces, plus parking on the street. Com. Doyle stated he would not like 3ft setback to set a precedence. Com. Roberts spoke in support of the architecture, but expressed concern about parking. Com. Harris spoke in support of approving this project and believes this is good use of the property. She questioned the roadway dedication of 10 ft? Mr. Cowan briefly reviewed this and outlined the 10 ft. dedication on the map. He noted if there are any public improvements they will be located in this dedication area. He stated this is addressed by Public Works. Com. Harris addressed the tree condition and suggested a bond to be held for two years from final construction. She stated five years is too long and noted parking is not a concern. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application ll-lJ-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and amending condition 3 that the tree bond shall be held for two years from building construction final. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 8. Report to city Council: Application NO(S): Applicant: Location: 81,156 and 9-EA-94 City of cupertino citywide Amending various sections of Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including regulations for flat yard area, second story off-sets and house size. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 1-Z-94 and 23-EA-94 city of Cupertino West Foothills of Cupertino REZONING various hillside properties encompassing l85 net acres in the Regnart Canyon Area Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting the two remaining issues are house size and the number of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page lO large animals allowed. He noted staff met with residents from Regnart Canyon who support less control over the keeping of horses and other animals, particularly animals involved in 4H projects. Planner Robillard reviewed the number of large animals allowed on property in other cities. He noted staff contacted several agencies regarding riparian environments as requested by the commission and noted no agency could direct staff to established standards that would be used to determine an appropriate animal density standard. He addressed a publication by the lJSDA entitled "Horse Paddocks: Controlling soil Erosion on Small Pastures", as included in the staff report. He stated the representative from the department of agriculture indicated that the main issue of keeping of horses is management. He added staff suggest that the planning commission address the management issues in a revision to the horse ordinance and, at this time, choose a figure that would be appropriate for Cupertino. He noted staff suggest keeping the current RHS ordinance standards. Planner Robillard addressed 4H projects and noted staff suggest that each property owner be allowed one extra large animal that would be used for 4H projects. Staff also recommends that the number of dogs and cats be limited and the number of duck, geese, and chickens not be regulated on properties over one acre. Mr. Cowan noted exhibit G in the staff report outlines the changes. The commission discussed the one additional large animal for 4H projects. Mr. Robillard stated property owners would only be allowed one extra animal. Com. Harris stated this needs to be reviewed because each child in the family may be involved in 4H projects therefore more than one large animal would be requested. Com. Austin addressed the 4H projects at McClellan Ranch and noted they are sold at the Santa Clara fair each year and new animals are brought in. Com. Roberts questioned the elimination of 19.40.040 in Exhibit G, Mr. Cowan stated staff talked to the residents who requested more flexibility in terms of selling produce. He noted the change clarifies the allowed uses. Mr. Dick Randall, 22348 Regnart Rd., stated the current RHS zoning allows one horse for 40,000 sq. ft. and one horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. He believes the importance of this whole issue is the management of the animals as opposed to animal density. He noted the health and safety regulations in the animal ordinance addresses poor management practices. He stated horses are social animals and need to be taken care off. Mr. Randall addressed poor management of horses and noted this can be a disaster and regulating the number of animals is not the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November l4, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Randall stated the neighbors suggest two horses for the first 40,000 sq. ft. and one horse for every additional 20,000 sq. ft. He stated the issue of land management and erosion control can be handled in the health and safety section of the horse ordinance. Mr. Tom Winegar, 11741 Regnart canyon Drive, addressed the votes taken by neighbors regarding this issue, as included in the staff report. He stated management is the issue as opposed to the number of animals. He addressed the general plan and noted the goal is to maintain the rural character and this is in keeping with the request from the residents of Regnart Canyon. He noted the neighbors are before the planning commission because they would like to continue the heritage of this area. He stated there has not been much concern about this issue. He noted he did meet with Com. Roberts. He stated they do not want regulation on the number of large animals. He added, according to a survey, there will be no increase in the number of animals by enacting a law. Chr. Mahoney closed the public hearing. Com. Austin spoke in favor of two horses for the first ft. and one horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. Exhibi t G is acceptable with the change from one to animals for the first 40,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. She noted two large Com. Doyle concurred with Com. Austin and noted management practices is the issue. Com. Roberts stated he supports the idea of maintaining the agricul tural and rural environment in this area, but expressed concern about the number of large animals allowed. In response to Com. Roberts questions, Mr. Cowan stated the intent is to talk about the intensity of use in the RHS ordinance and then regulate the health related aspects in a future provision to the horse ordinance. Com. Roberts agrees that management is the issue, but how the city can enforce horse management practices. would prefer one horse for the first 40,000 sq. ft. Com. Harris stated that RHS is residential hillside and any change will affect other areas other than Regnart Canyon. She stated she would then be concerned about the number of horses allowed overall. She spoke in support of exhibit G as written by staff. She stated "small" should be included before "farm animals" in Ib of exhibit G. does not see He stated he Com. Mahoney spoke in support of two horse for the first 40,000 sq. ft. and one horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 12 Corns. Mahoney, Doyle and Austin spoke in favor of two horses for the first 40,000 sq. ft. and one horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. Corns. Harris and Roberts spoke in favor of one horse for the first 40,000 sq. ft. and one horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. The commission went on to discuss the house size issue. Planner Robillard reviewed Exhibit c-o: Description of Floor Area Ratio Standards. He also reviewed the charts which outline the residential hillside allowable building floor area as outlined in the staff report. He noted alternative 3 is what the commission requested. He stated staff recommends Alternative 2 which has the 45% FAR with a cap at either 5,000 sq. ft. or 6500 sq. ft. whichever the commission choose. He stated that alternative 5 has a 5,000 sq. ft. cap at a half acre and 6500 sq. ft. cap at one acre. The commission discussed the slope density alternatives as outlined in the staff report. Planner Robillard stated that the charts for the floor area alternatives include slope adjustment alternative 3 (SAA3) . He stated the slope adjustment al ternati ves can be overlaid onto any floor area alternative. Mr. Cowan stated the slope density used today is to calculate how many houses per acre not the size of the home. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Bigler, 11230 Bubb Road, stated he has a five acre parcel and is concerned about the cap on house size and the limit on the number of horses. He stated technically he is not able to build on his property because there is no pad on less than 30% slope and will need an exception. Chr. Mahoney clarified that the commission do not review homes built on lots with slopes less than 30%, but anything on slopes 30% or greater just means the commission want to review this, it does not mean nothing can be built. city Planner Wordell stated there has been a misunderstanding and noted that the intent is for the planning commission to review development on slopes over 30%. Chr. Mahoney stated in the future the city will be less likely to subdivide if property owners have to build on slopes 30% or greater. r- Mr. Bigler stated prior to purchasing his property he talked to the neighbor about their proposed development who stated they will be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 13 opposed to this. He stated when the city forces people to come seek an exception they provide a forum for such individuals to come and voice objections. He stated if the commission continue to grant building on slopes greater than 30% and if there are concerns they should stipulate more regulations instead of having to seek an exception. Com. Harris stated that staff cannot approve homes which are over the cap set by the commission, but the property owner must come before the planning commission in a public forum. Mr. Bigler stated the 6500 sq. ft. cap may actually cause more development on a large site and believes it may be encouraging subdivision of large properties. Regarding horses, Mr. Bigler spoke in support of the two horses for the first 40,000 sq. ft. He stated there is no evidence of detrimental affect regarding the number of horses. Mr. Cowan asked if stables should be included in the house size? He suggested that this not be included in the allowable house size. He noted that second units up to 640 sq. ft. are allowed in all zoning districts. Mr. Jim Black, Regnart Canyon, addressed the cap on house size and stated it should be in writing that this is not the limit and an exception is required for anything larger. He stated the slope density will be difficult to administer and it should be as simple as possible. Again he stated that the caps are not absolute and this should be in writing. The following is a straw vote on the Floor Area Ratio Standards: Com. Harris - Alternative 3 Com. Roberts - Alternative 4 Com. Doyle - Alternative 5 Com. Austin - Alternative 3 Com. Mahoney - Alternative 5. After some discussion, Com. Roberts stated he could be persuaded to support Alternative 3. The planning commission's recommendation is alternative 3 by a 3-2 vote (Mahoney, Doyle No). Regarding slope adjustment, Planner Robillard recommended no slope adjustment, but if the planning commission wants a slope adjustment staff recommends Exhibit C-3 (SAA3). Com. Harris stated when the slope alternative 3 it is too restrictive. adjustment is applied to She spoke in favor of no PLANNING COffiUSSION MINUTES November l4, 1994 Page 14 slope adjustment formula with alternative 3. Com. Roberts stated he would be in favor of a slope adjustment formula as he is concerned about large massive homes. He stated he would prefer SAA2, but would accept SAA3. Com. Doyle stated he does not like slope adjustments. He noted the goal is to reduce visible mass. He added it is appropriate to limit the vertical height and visible mass, but not to restrict house size. Com. Austin stated SAA3 would address the mass and protect the hillsides. Com. Mahoney stated he would prefer no slope adjustment. Cams. Harris, Mahoney and Doyle spoke in support of no slope adjustment. Com Harris stated she supports the concept of slope adjustment, but feels the FAR is restrictive enough. Chr. Mahoney concurred. Com. Doyle stated the concern is trying to reduce visible mass and if the rules are too complex it is difficult for property owners to follow. He believes the intent is good, but the approach is flawed and this is his concern. He stated the goal is to address visual impacts from the valley floor and surrounding neighbors. After discussing both the FAR alternatives and the slope density formulae, the commission voted on the following: Com. Harris - Alternative 5 with SAA3 Com. Roberts - Alternative 3 with SAA3 Chr. Mahoney - Alternative 5 with SAA3 Com. Austin - Alternative 3 with SAA3 Com. Doyle - Alternative 5 with SAA3 noting he objects to the principle. Planner Robillard pointed out that currently all accessory structures are included in the FAR. In summary the commission (3-2 Roberts, Austin No) support alternative 5 with SAA3 if they include the slope adjustment. If no slope adjustment, the commission 3-2 support alternative 3. city Planner Wordell noted that Mr. Bigler handed in a letter to be entered into the record. Regarding the horse issue, Chr. Mahoney stated the commission 3-2 (Roberts, Harris No) recommend Exhibit G, allowing two horses for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 15 the first 40,000 sq. ft. and one horse for each additional 20,000 sq. ft. SECOND: VOTE: Corn. Austin moved to send a report to the city Council outlining their position as written above for both the house size and the large animals. COm. Roberts Passed 5-0 MOTION: NEW BUSINESS 9. Annual General Plan Review staff Presentation: ci ty Planner Wordell presented the staff report, noting that the purpose of the general plan review is to do an assessment of where they are in implementing the general plan and the status in the development process. She noted if there are subsequent issues, the city council would like to address these in March. Ms. Wordell stated the staff report indicates the residential and non-residential growth. It also points out the level of service comparison between the start of the general plan and were it is now. In sUmmary, Ms. Wordell stated they are on target with 99% of what was predicted has been done. Com. Harris stated the building height of building is to be reviewed by the council and commission should make a recommendation? the Tandem Jackpot asked if the planning Ms. Wordell stated the height will be reviewed if a building permit is proposed. Mr. Cowan stated this will be a topic the council may want to raise at the general plan review in the spring. COm. Harris addressed the development of ground water recharge sites for public recreational use. Ms. Wordell stated this would be park use and will be an on-going policy. Com. Harris addressed the level of service E at Stelling and HOmestead. Ms. Wordell stated the traffic department indicate that this is from changes to the road in Sunnyvale. Mr. Cowan stated that CMA indicates that an intersection cannot go to level of service F, and if it does reach an F, a deficiency plan is required. He noted the CMA is working on a sub-regional deficiency plan. The commission discussed the level of service E at Stelling and HOmestead and noted any development within the city of Cupertino in this area will have a further impact on this intersection. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the level of service E was caused by deliberate action by the city of Sunnyvale and they should reflect PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 1994 Page 16 this in the report to the council. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding housing, Ms. Wordell stated the Affordable Housing committee is working with an advocacy group. Regarding trails, Ms. Wordell stated a specific trail system will be developed after the general plan change. Com. Doyle questioned the Kaiser property, Ms. Wordell stated there have been meetings with public works regarding the Kaiser issue and the stevens Creek Quarry is a use permit that goes to the County and the City will have an opportunity to comment on. Chr. Mahoney opened the hearing for public input. Mr. Farokh Debao, 10257 Nile Dr., addressed several sections of the general plan. Neighborhood parks - priority placed on pockets parks needs to be revisited as part of the general plan process; In-lieu fees needs to be addressed. He stated he is disappointed in the 50% credit and it should be up to 50%. He also noted he hopes that neighborhood meetings will be encouraged for all development. Mr. Deboo addressed the issue of the road closure at Pacific Ave. and hopes this can be revisited. He asked what are the crime reduction techniques? Mr. Cowan stated the city staff communicates with the Sherr if's Department. He noted based on reports there is a correlation between crime and income and not crime and high density. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Com. Harris addressed the CDBG block program. Mr. Cowan stated cupertino's population is less than 50,000 so they have a joint program with the other small cities in Santa Clara County that the county administers. He stated the city will receive approximately $l08,000 per year and this money goes towards affordable housing programs. Com. Doyle stated this should be discussed with the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Cowan agreed. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT Having concluded business the Planning commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting, November 28, 1994, 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Co<~~"M- Rd~OJq Catherine M. Robillard, Minutes Clerk