Loading...
PC 06-26-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC- 3 35 Page 1 (13) MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COM}lISSlON MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980. CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Koenitzer Absent: Commissioner Adams Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Engineer Whitten Planning Director Sisk IT~! #1, Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to co consider various amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan in- cluding, but not limited to (1) Land use changes for a number of indivis- ual properties located throughout the community; (2) An evaluation of alternative land use types and development intensities for property lo- cated along Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boule- vard; (3) A refinement of the City's Circulation Plan including a plan to provide long-term financing of major transportation improvements. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -- July 21, 1980. CHR. KOENITZER advised that the Commissioners, on June 23, 1980, had dis- cussed input ort Sections #2 and #3 of the above Item, and had made tenta- tive decisions to send to the Environmental Review Committee on Areas F and G. The present meeting continued the discussion of land use on additional sites, Areas H, I, J, & K. AREA H A letter from Mr. & Mrs. La Forge, owners of the property stating their concern and their desire for a possible mini-storage facility use on at least part of the parcel, such mini-storage to create a buffer against Freeway 280 traffic noise. (Copy of the letter was given to each Com- missioner and will become a part of the file of Item #1, PC-335). Assistant Planning Director Cowan exhibited a viewgraph of the area and advised that it was presently under a ten-year contract, which would have to be rescinded through the public hearing process. The existing units of a facility, on the south side of the freeway, were identified, and the potential for providing storage and residential housing development simultaneously was outlined, and it was explained that both could be worked out depending on how the site was utilized and how the access to the site was worked out. He said it was possible to put in a general policy with the contraints that that particular part of the site would have to be designed on a limited scale and in a manner to still enable the City to obtain housing on the property. PC-335 Page 2 (14) MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980 COM. JOHNSON asked how much of the property was being proposed for the storage. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it was not specific, but said the Forges were agreeable to keep the door open for review in conjunction with future development. COM. CLAUDY wished to know whether or not the City could Condition that it would require joint construction on the site -- going into the site by the same developer on the different type of use. COM. BLAINE suggested that in the General Plan there could be a use such as mini-storage -- possibly a kind of mix for the area of high density. CHR. KOENITZER inquired as to what acerage had been discussed in con- nection with mini-storage in the General Plan. What area was covered by mini-storage at the facility on the south side of the freeway, he asked. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he estimated it was about half the La Forge site or 3~ acres or so. He suggested about two rows of storage along the freeway with the residential in back of the storage and sandwiched against the business-occupied land to the rear. Chr. Koeniter noted that he felt the mini-storage would enhance the liveability or viability of the rest of the area as apartments or condominiums. COM. CLAUDY suggested the west end of the site would be where the apartments could be located, and he suggested control of the vacant land so that loading docks don't adjoin residential. CHR. KOENITZER pointed out, on that idea that the trouble was that any development south of Carl's, Jr. was a General Plan development and was the only place for them to put loading docks (on the south or west side). CIIR. KOENITZER noted that the letter from the Forge had not men- tioned the mini-storage at the north end of Mary Avenue. '1 Mr. John MacGowan, 2453 Altamine Circle, Santa Clara, said he had the authority to represent the La Forges in their absence because of house guests. He said it was the feeling that the site was to be buffered by two-story mini-storage along the freeway to buffer noise in a manner similar to approval to Blaney Avenue and 280 buffering the noise from the apartments to the south of that project. He said they would like to have a little flexibility in the actual zoning as far as the multi- or cluster zoning was concerned. He suggested one (1) acre of mini-storage and the balance in clustered housing or whatever the Planning Commission wished. Mrs. Rose Mary Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Avenue, Cupertino, said that the Commissioners had never really stated how dense the area was to be. She said she figured it to be, at 20-35 units/acre, about 200 homes on 7 acres with families next to the freeway. CHR. KOENITZER reminded Mrs. Callahan that the suggestion for the mini- storage was for the purpose of buffering away some of the noise from the freeway. COM. BLAINE said she had some concern about the traffic at Homestead and De Anza, and she asked how the density would effect the traffic -- at what level of density would the City be able to handle the traffic. MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 RRG\.!LÄR PLANNING COMMISSION HEETING CONTINUED FROH JUNE 23, 1980 pc- 335 Page 3 Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that in terms of the finalized (15) report on traffic, in terms of 1990, on projects of comparable size, it was felt the traffic could be handled, A detailed study of the area should be done prior to approval of a project, he said, and added that i was felt a density of a combined three sites could be handled. COM. CLAUDY felt Area H was one of two sites in the City capable of a high density from the point of view of not having tremendous impact on neighbors -- 20-35 range. It also was one of the best sites available f r mini-storage, if one is going to have it. And, he said, there was a de- mand for it. He asked that the mini-storage be restricted to 1/3 of the site and leaving about 5 acres for residential development, and he recom mended a 20-35 units/acre density. Simultaneous development for the storage and the residential would be required. The problems of the various density ranges were discussed taking into consJderation the area being next to the freeway and noise (20-35 being considered too broad a range of density and noise being attenuated by th buffering). CONSENSUS: Density of 20-35 units/acre with the possibility of up to one third of the site in mini-storage facility. The mini- storage facility to be constructed at the same time as the residential part of the site. AREA I The area was described as being in agricultural use and under the '-'nl iamson Act contract. Sunnyvale duplexes bordered one side and some apartments. The current General Plan designation was Agricultural with underlying use of residential at a density of 10-20 units/acre. Staff recommended no change in the General Plan designation. The Commissioners discussed the density and the recommendations of the Staff Report, and they were in agreement with the recommendations. Sewage disposal problems were discussed at the higher and the lower limits of density for the development of the area. CHR. KOENITZER felt he would like to assign 15-20 units/acre density on the site. CONSENSUS: 15-20 units/acre RESIDENTIAL. Commissioners Blaine, Claudy Johnson and Koenitzer in favor. Absent: Commissioner Adams AREA J This site map was posted on the board and identified as the Hariani Frui Packing Plant property. The current General Plan designation was es- tablished at 20-35 units/acre and Staff recommended no change. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the proposed guidelines for development, as was discussed, would be required for any development on the site. On the north some commercial, a club and multi-family unit were located. On the east side townhouses of Northpoint at 10 units/ acre. On the west side De Anza Boulevard, a lumber yard, Payless, gas stations, and Goodyear Tire. On the south was the freeway off ramp. PC-335 Page 4 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980 (16) Assistant Planning Director Cowan announced that representatives of Northpoint were going to meet and then appear at the meeting. He said Staff had reviewed some plans prepared by the Mariani family -- plans not quite at the high ends of the range. It was felt built-in amenities such as a recreation complex and the traffic factor could support a project in the mid twenties range. Mr. Tom Randazzo, 11129 Hiested Avenue, San Jose, representing the ~!ariani family, said the 20-35 units/acre density designated by the General Plan was acceptable. However, he said he would like to have the Commission consider allowing language in the General Plan to permit a challenging and innovative concept to be developed on the property. A mixed office and residential concept was suggested as being a total community and ideally suited for the large site. The combination would serve to alleviate traffic factors and place housing close to business. He asked for the opinions of the Commissioners. CO~¡. BLAINE said she was not too thrilled with the idea of office. One reason was the protection of the plans for the Town Center. That had to be protected as a focal point and economic element of the Center of the City. Economic consultants felt Town Center must be protected if they wished to have it. COM. CLAUDY's opinion, he said, was that it would be fine if it worked, but he had doubts that people were coming to a tendency to live close to work. People living there would not be likely to live there. His second comment was to agree with Com. Blaine that they were trying to protect Town Center. The third point was that he did not see office space as being viable for that side of Route 280. Fourthly, he said that on the other side of 280, along De Anza and Bandley, there were a number of office complexes planned and they were all equally convenient to the freeway. CHR. KOENITZER and COM. JOHNSON leaned toward all residential in the area. Mr. Peter Peterson, Hawley & Peterson, Palo Alto, CA, explained that they were there on short notice and were not aware that Area J was to be decided upon. They had not had a change to get into detail on their proposal. The concept was prompted by proximity to Highway 280 noise and the necessity of buffering the area (by the use of office structures). The planning was in an early stage and they were looking for flexibility in having this as a possible consideration. He said the statement he was making had not been reviewed with the family. In response to Com. Johnson, Mr. Peterson estimated about 50% of the project would be planned in office space and 50% residential space. CHR. KOENITZER reviewed the square footage equivalent in office space on the 9 acres (at 50%) and estimated it to be about 360,000 sq. ft. At that level it would exceed the estimates for the Town Center and would be directly competitive. CONSENSUS: Agreed with Staff recommendation of 20-35 units as presently designated in the General Plan to protect Town Center as the center of the City. MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING CO}illISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980 PC-335 Page 5 Mr. Peterson asked if another analysis of the situation might not be in order because of the period of time since the last consultant's report. (17) CRR. KOENITZER asked that a member of Staff provide a copy of the con- sultant's report to Mr. Peterson. CO}!. CLAUDY told Mr. Peterson that since the General Plan Amendments wnr an on-going process, the designation placed on the property could pos- sibly be reconsidered. CRR. KOENITZER added that the General Plan was the guideline and it was not set in concrete. CRR. KOENITZER asked a question on Par. IA if the proposed density for Town Center had been increased over the 200,000 sq. ft. (maximum of 250,000 sq. ft.). Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that concept was defeated in 4B 0 the last page of the summary. If the Planning Commission was in agree- ment with the overall concept, of keeping the density of Town Center, the Cali and Koll properties would fare equally, and there was the pos- sibility of adding commercial square footage on areas that would normal 1 be built out. It could be done easily, he said, by recognizing the fact that parking has shifted with what was said in lA and 4B imply that the overcrossing buys additional capacity. It would have to be tested and if it was tested, he asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to increase intensity of development in Town Center. COM. BLAINE remarked that one of the interesting things about the traffi report was that the City could control its own traffic. She wòndered if the service levels proposed or projected by 1990. with the undercrossing would also consider additional commercial. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the numbers changed. The report reflected the 250,000 sq. ft. for Town Center commercial -- a mixture of commercial and office. COM. BLAINE brought up her concern that centered around what Town Center should be, and she said she guessed the major concern was that a dense development would lose the community aspect. She did not wish Town Center to become regional in character. Associate Planner Piasecki explained the allocation of space in Town Center and explained that it would have to be shown that the space was marketable for additional allocation. COM. BLAINE asked if the Staff was going to put aside other things in order to do the study. She said the possibility of 200,000 plus sq. ft. was getting dimmer, and the possibility of some additional residential on the west side of Torre could take up the slack to pick up more than 10 acres of office and commercial. PC-335 Page 6 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNIKG COÞ~IISSION ÞIEETING CONTINUED FROÞI JUNE 23, 1980 (19) Associate Planner Piasecki said he wished to determine that the Com- missioners were still saying that the existing on residential, west of Torre, was still valid. Point 2, he said was that the property owners had asked to be allowed to proceed independently with ratios that spread out over L acerage. He said that they had allowed commercial and office and were forced to wait for the Cali portion. He asked if that was their wish or did they wish to say the first on in gets to go with normal coverage ratios. COM. CLAUDY was against first come. made and recommended some consensus. Commissioners. CONSENSUS: 4-0-0-1, He felt a planning decision had been Support was forthcoming by the Com. Adams absent. MOTION: Com. Blaine to forward Committee for action. Com. Johnson Com. Adams the report to the Environmental Review SECOND: ABSENT: PASSED 4-0-0-1 IT~! #2, Applications 24-Z-80 and l2-U-80 of CLEARLAKE DEVELOPMENT COM- P~~: REZONING approximately 2.0 gross acres from R3 (Þ[ultip1e-family residential) and Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. mini- mum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with medium to high density residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission; USE PER}!IT to construct 42-unit residential building over a depressed parking structure and ENVIRON- mental review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 100 ft. easterly of Randy Lane. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. A~~ociate Planner Piasecki identified the area as Area G in the General Plan, which allocated 10-20 units/acre density and, he advised, the plan exhibited met all criteria (and was one of the best designed plans presented to the City or the South Bay Area that Staff had seen), and was in conformance with the General Plan. He asked that the Commissioners proceed with approval. Two alternatives were available. (1) the appli- cant could reconsider and redesign to a maximum of 10-15 range, which would get them up to 18 units with 20% bonus. With an 8-unit BMR con- tribution, the total units would number 34 for the project. (2) Go forward to the City Council for the applicant. Land use was the issue, and design could be considered later. COM. JOHNSON suggested that since the proposed project was at variance with the recommendation made earlier as a General Plan Amendment, that it might be wise to resolve that issue before spending a lot of time. pc- 3 3S Page 7 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COHMISSION MEETING CONTImrED FRmt JUNE 23, 1980 ,18) CRR. KOENITZER said that unless they agreed to go through the process each time and look at the data with the changes, he didn't see any real reason for changing without doing as much work on the changes as had been done on the original decision. COM. CLAUDY agreed that the property owners in the area have reason -- have agreed to the density and land use. If they feel it is not a viable thing, it would be up to them to corne in with use studies. He felt Staff should not have to go out and develop infor- mation. Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that wording be added in Policy #lA that would permit residential use to occur west of Torre Avenue Extension. He stated that there might have to be extensive offsite work. CHR. KOENITZER said that it was not usual to design land uses in a circulation plan. He asked that 4B be stricken entirely I CO}!. JOHNSON, going back to 4A said that the traffic report -- the two- part study had generated some findings that were very surprising and had not been expected. He asked if the findings should be verified by an outside source. He said there were startling connotations -- a totally different change very quickly. He referred to cross referencing or brjnging in an outside source to verify. Accepting the report and findings at face value seemed to bother somewhat. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that one thing to keep in mind was that the report was patterned after ABAG and the ~TC traffic model, which was further defined by the County and Transportation Agency. The assignments or key factors had been incorporated into the Cupertino report. The findings coincide, and he said, too, the study was very cautious. In response to COM. JOHNSON'S inquiry as to whether or not that was common methodology, Mr. Cowan said that they were very pleased with the findings, and because of the overcrossing and undercrossing con- sideration, which was a State Highway matter, they were going to have to do additional study. Cal-Trans was the responsible agency. They would comment on the methodology. Add sentence lA on page 4 to include residential Strike lA of memo to Commissioners, dated June 26, 1980. Pr,-335 Page 8 (20) MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING CO}~!ISSION }ŒETING CONTINUED FRO}! JUNE 23, 1980 COM. CLADDY reminded the Commissioners that they had voted on Þlonday evening for a reduction of the density on the site. He said he'd like to check with the City Attorney about the understanding that State law requires zoning properties in conformance with the General Plan. He felt a plan could be filed in the absence of any plan to develop anything. He felt obligated to vote a yes on the zoning even though a change of level had been recommended. The Use Permit was a different matter. The design met the criteria established and was very good - possibly not there, but he felt he would go for the denying of the use or for continuing the use. COM. BLAINE had problems with the zoning change to Planned Development, even though she realized that it was still not a formal recommendation. ~~atever the densities that came in, she said it would have to be Planned Development. COM. JOHNSON stated that he'd stay with the 10-15 density arrived at on Monday evening. Planning Director Sisk asked them to put a number of density (10-20) which would be consistent with the General Plan if the zoning was set. He said the Use Permit would be moot until after a ruling by the City Council. Mr. Bill Irvine, 10560 Castine Avenue, Cupertino, architect on the project, felt that it was difficult to ignore design in the discussion because the bottom line is where it was necessary to eliminate the underneath parking due to reduction in the number of units permitted. Reduction in number of units would lead to larger units, and also to garages with each unit and driveways. It would be necessary to build nearer to the property lines with units sharing a common driveway and common area. He felt they would get 11 units/acre at the 10-15 range. CHR. KOENITZER advised the applicant of the options open to him asking for a decision and going on to City Council, or asking for a con- tinuance for an opportunity to redesign the project. Mr. Medford Snyder, 1303 Lick Avenue, San Jose, felt the Commissioners had to analyze the property. If they wanted housing, he said they'd have to build the kind of housing not totally oriented to family life. That was higher density with smaller units. Lower density would require that they go to larger units for families. Mr. Snyder reminded the Commissioners that the property had been pur- chased under the General Plan. And, he said it was designed under the General Plan. He asked that they have 10-20 units or be allowed to go commercial at the square footage that the trip-end policy of the General Plan and ordinances permitted. He said they would go forward with the application because they needed an answer immediately. Mr. R. W. Dulleck, Jr., 19680 Junipero Way, Saratoga, introduced him- self as the real estate consultant that advised the purchase of the property. He again entered into the record a letter dated June 20, 1980, which he had read into the record on June 23, 1980. Copies of the letter were given to the Commissioners and a copy is available in the file. Mr. Du1leck said he had bid on the property in good faith that the zoning under the General Plan would prevail, and he felt that MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CO~~INUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980. an injustice was being done to one who had invested a large sum of money and who was trying to provide housing for Cupertino. He said that they were going to be creating Town Center; then every job in Town Center that did not have matching housing was going to represent a commuter. Mr. Dulleck said that he felt the people of the County were undergoing a crisis in confidence in government. Government has not been consistent. Government too often bends under the pressure of a small pressure group, and it fails to stand up for what is good for the majority of citizens. He concluded by statmg that if the application was turned down it would be an injustice to Cupertino citizens, but also it would be an injustice to Mr. Snyder. Ms. Rose Mary Callahan said she was delighted to hear that they were a pressure group. They had gotten the impression Monday evening that ther was not enough pressure for what they wanted to do. She said if they put in something other than 10-15 density on the area she estimated it would not be back until October or November. She said she was intereste to hear the project was not oriented for families, because, she pointed out that on page 3 of the recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee, one of the justifications for something like that number of dwellings (850), in the Stevens Creek Areas, says "...will have a possible benefit in terms of increasing the population." The developers say it is not geared to families with children. She said it was inter- esting to note that decisions made were consensus decisions going to Environmental Review, which didn't happen the previous 2 or 3 months. She asked who was the Environmental Review Committee. Planning Director Sisk said the committee was made up of members of City Council, Planning Commissions, City management, the Public Works Directo , and the Planning Director. He said that they made a recommendation. COM. BLAINE added that the meetings' were public and she, Mrs. Callahan, was welcome to attend. COM. CLAUDY pointed out that when the General Plan was adopted an Envir- onmental Impact Report Study was made to address the entire changes and the entire General Plan impact of any particular project, within the limits that were considered and approved by the report. If the changes are within the limits already decided upon in the ~Iaster Impact Report within the General Plan, no new report is done. If the change is above and beyond the limits called for in the report, then a new impact report study is done. On a site like Area G, since it is General Planned for the 10-20 density, the environmental review has already addressed the impact. Rezoning to match 10-20 means the impact has already been ad- dressed. If a chemical plant were recommended for installation, then a new report would have to be studied. Mrs. Callahan said she found it interestinp, that the City hired a con- sultant for Seven Springs' 400 homes, when they were going to be faced with 800 to 1000 homes in two blocks. She said she had not heard that special consultant was needed to oversee. CO~!. BLAINE explained that the difference was that Seven Springs was beyond any environmental report that had been done in the area. Since one had not been done, it must be done. PC-335 Page 9 (21) PC-335 Page 10 (22) HINUTES JUNE 26, 1930 REGULAR PLANNING COMHISSION ~1EETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980 CIIR. KOENITZER outlined the progress of the Environmental Impact Con- sultant from 1973 forward and explained that at that time an impact re- port had been generated for basically the entire core area. All of the areas were covered in that report and because of the report, the Environ- mental Review Committee had been returning recommendations of negative declaration on the areas since that time. (Assistant Planning Director Cowan confirmed that the work had been done in 1973 when the core area was adopted. 1974 was an additional report on the Hillside Plan. The Seven Springs study was done because of traffic impact information facing Cal-Trans's plan to extend Route 85 all the way through would be changed by the traffic from the Seven Springs area. The initial re- port included more commercial proposals ,.ith higher traffic generation. The switch to residential at 20 units was a trade off and eliminated the need for a new report. Because of need for housing, it was considered that residential could be considered through trade offs (commercial to residential). Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that his offer to go over the details of environmental reports was still open, and if Mrs. Callahan would call and make an appointment, he would provide all the information she requested. Associate Planner Piasecki said that one key point for response was that the concept discussed in the General Plan was intended to rein- force the existing commercial, which the Staff felt was extremely important to the character of the neighborhood of Cupertino -- both Town Center and the other areas. Mrs. Janet Hanlon, 19874 1'beaton Drive, Cupertino, said that since they were going to have to live with the development behind them, she felt it was extremely important their input be recorded. She said she couldn't imagine a 3~-story building of swinging single complex or apart- ment house or condominiums adjacent to her property and family homes. The character of the neighborhood was not going to be served by anything like the 3~-story height. The developer didn't seem to trink he would be able to come in with anything under 22 units; however, she said, on Area E they had done just that and they don't have underground parking. She suggested they should go back to the drawing board. She said she thought the Commissioners should take the density very seriously. She was not speaking for herself, she said, but she was speaking for about twenty families. It seemed to them that the smaller the lot the higher the density. Mr. Medford Snyder returned to the Fodium and said that for months they had been working with Staff, designed the project and incorporated what Staff wanted. If they didn't like something, it was changed. A lot of work and money was going down the drain. COM. BLAINE reminded that Mr. Snyder had asked that the Commission take a position. MINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLÞu~ING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 1980 PC-335 Page 11 CHR KOENITZER said that Mr. Snyder's request for zoning was for 10-20 density and for a Use Permit. He said he felt they were obligated to give him a decision at that level of density and not change the density at a whim. (23) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON ZONING: Com. Blaine. Second: PASSED ABSENT: Com. Adams Com. Claudy 4-0-0-1 MOTION: Com. Claudy, Approve 24-Z-80, resolution to read: "approval of rezoning approximately two acres from lLA-Rl-lO, ~ingle-family, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning to P (Planned Development with minimum to high density) residential intent, 10-15 units/acre zone; subject to Conditions #1 through #15 as outlined in the Staff Report of June 19, 1980. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Johnson PASSED: Commissioners Claudy, Koenitzer, Johnson AYE NO: Commissioner Blaine ABSENT: Commissioner Adams 3-1-0-1 CO~!. CLAUDY said that in light of the action just taken, he would vote against the Use Permit because it would not be in conformance with the zoning just adopted. Mr. Dulleck asked if Mr. Snyder appealed on zoning and if the Council reinstated the zoning if the Use Permit would have to come back to the Planning Commission, and what of approval of Use Permit if the Council changes the zoning back. Planning Director Sisk recommended that they also appeal the denial of the Use Permit to City Council, which would send it back to Planning Commissioners for attaching of Conditions. There was the chance that the Council would approve the project. Mr. Sisk felt that the City Attorney would have to go through the Use Permit and make note of any changes that were felt to be appropriate. PUBLIC HEARING on USE PEID1IT ONLY Mrs. Callahan returned to the podium to demonstrate how the height of the building impacted the privacy of the single-family homes in the neighborhood. Thirty-five foot trees were not available for landscaping CHR. KOENITZER told Mrs. Callahan that the Guidelines spoke to the homes directly facing the high building. He said they appreciated the problem and wished to point out that the buildings were designed to be set back 50 feet with landscaping. COM. CLAUDY said that had nothing to do with neighborhood character. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Johnson 4-0-0-1 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, Denial in keeping with the Com. Johnson YES: Com.'s Claudy, NO: Com. Blaine ABSENT: Com. Adams l2-U-80, for the reason that it is not zoning intensity recommended on the site. MOTION: Koenitzer, Johnson PASSEDl 4-1-0-1 PC-335 Page 12 HINUTES JUNE 26, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING Cmn1ISSION HEETING CONTINUED FROH JUNE 23, 1980 (24) IT~1 #3, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AJIENDHENT TO ORDINANCE No. 220(i): Regulating the Agricultural and Agricultural-Residential (Al) Zoning District to es- tablish a use permit procedure to vary from setback requirements and height limitations when said variations are necessary for the application of active or passive solar design and ENVIRONHENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 21, 1980. COHo BLAINE asked why they should be concerned about setbacks on an area that is not minimal. Planning Director Sisk said that what the application really involved was the oldest subdivision in Cupertino, just north of Stevens Creek, built to Rl setbacks. CIlR. KOENITZER, referring to the Staff report, said that he did not see any reference to height restrictions, higher than or less than, etc.. Planning Director Sisk pointed out that the height restrictions "as in regard to the Huntsman application involving height restriction. PUBLIC. HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0-0-1 ABSENT: Com. Adams HOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: HOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Blaine, Recommend Approval of granting a Negative Declaration Com. Johnson PASSED Com. Adams 4-0-0-1 Com. Blaine, Approval to Amend Ordinance No. 220(i). Com. Claudy PASSED Com. Adams 4-0-0-1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEH BUSINESS Associate Planner Piasecki related that under Application 22-Z-80 and 8-TH-80, Lots 19 through 24 had not been prezoned by the City. He exhibited a map of the area and said that the property o'<ners had re- quested prezoning. He asked that the Planning Commission direct the City Staff to initiate the prezoning of all of those properties. HOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Blaine, to Direct Initiation of procedure for pre zoning the above-identified area. (Agenda PC-334, ITEH ¡19, of June 11, 1980 Hinutes of the Planning Commission. ) Com. Claudy PASSED 4-0-0-1 Com. Adams REPORT OF TIlE PLANNING COHHISSION CHR. KOENITZER verified as to whether or not notification had been received on a court decision referred to by Hr. Dulleck's letter. A Santa Barbara ruling regarding unrelated people living together in residences. e said that the City Attorney was checking out the impact of the ruling. , 1 I I- I MINUTES JUNE 26, 1930 REGULAR PLANNING CmlHISSION NEETING CONTINUED FRON JUNE 9, 1980 PC-335 Page 1 'j REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR (25) Mr. Sisk announced that copies of information regarding confarences for people involved in planning were available if any of the Commissioners wished to attend. }!r. Sisk advised the Commissioners that the City Council had approved th application for the IS-lot subdivision by the Hoolworth Construction, and had also accepted Mr. Brown's offer to take the tank house to the other side of the road. An emergency access to the subdivision was not required. ADJOURNEHENT 10:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: ,,~d¿~ I2!rH~ Chairman