Loading...
PC 05-27-80 ,- CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-333 Page 1 MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Director of Public Works Viscovich Planning Director Sisk (arrived later) POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter was received from Teranomics Development Corporation about the trip-count restrictions on their shopping center; and, two letters were received from Staff with input for the General Plan. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Because Mr. Vi'skovich, Director of Public Works, was making a presentation before the City Council and was not available immediately for ITEM #1, it was agreed tha~-Pnfinished Business would be concluded first on the Agenda. ' UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM #3, Application 10-TM-77 of ROBERT NELLIS: quest for modificatin of building site location Lot 12 of the 23-lot Nellis subdivision. L^NDS OF RANDALL - Re- and grading concept of Assistan~ Planning Director Cowan pointed out on the exhibited plans the areas for cut and fill, the pads for house and tennis court, and the contour map of the area indicating the house would not be visible from the valley floor. He said the tennis court area would be sufficiently planted that it would not be unduly visible from the Open Space Preserve over which it was to be built. The changes in location for the house, and for the driveway, although provided for by approval of the Planning Director, as indicated in the original 1977 approval of the subdivision, he said, were sufficiently different as to require a brief review by th Commissioners. Mr. Richard Randall, 3714 Lynx Court, San Jose, CA 95136, explained the changes in great detail. He advised Com. Johnson that the approximate size of fill would be in the neighborhood of 3,000 sq. yards. Noting that the elevation of the house in the new plan was at 873, he said the neighbor's home (elevation 900 ft.) would have an unobstructed view. He stated that the new plan represented a superior utilization of land and terrain. PC-333 Page 2 . ~ \ ¡.\ .~ MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. BLAINE said that· since they were not in a public hearing, but only reviewing a previously approved plan, she'd make a motion for consideration. MOTION: Com. Blaine, recommend of changes as outlined Com. Adams PASSED Approval 10-TM-77 with the Conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: VOTE: 4-0 Since Mr. Viskovich still was not available for his presentation before the Planning Commission, Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the letter received from Teranomics, which copy had been in the packets for the commissioners. TERANOMICS, in a letter to the Planning Commission, requested con- sideration for leasing facilities to Bascom & Robbins, 3l-Flavors, for an ice cream store. Mr. Cowan said the City had a traffic re- straint -- a traffic standard that fixed high generating uses. The Staff felt that the General Plan standard that applied had to be adhered to; however, he stated that the request would initiate a means of deleting the process and agreement from the General Plan. Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that the letter from Teranomics be filed for future action at a time when conclusions as to traffic standards were reached. The General Plan policy had to be decided on this and other similarly considered property as to retention or modification, or possible deletion of tripend restraints. Location at Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. ITEM #1, Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO:~'PUBLIC HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan in- cluding, but not limited to (1) Land use changes for a number of in- dividual properties located throughout the community; (2) An evaluation of alternative land use types and development intensities for property located along· Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boulevard; (3) A refinement of the City's Circulation Plan including a plan to provide long-term financing of major transportation improve- ments. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - June l6, ,1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that the Transit District planned increase in their bus fleet to 700 buses. And, in the dis- tribution of trips from businesses in the area, he reported that a number of business were in the van pooling and further involvement was expected as the program was expanded. Although the Staff had wished to start with the overall plan and in- formation for the area of Cupertino, Assistant Planning Director Cowan agreed to start the procedure with reminding the Commission that the issue of neighborhood compatibility and assessment of optional land uses, in terms of impact, had been covered; and, immediately, he said he wished to discuss the definition of density and its generation of traffic. Posting a Table on the board, he said tòat the common denom- inator was the acre unit. Showing density levels of 1-5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, and 20-35, he pointed out the varied expectations of numbers of trips calculated to originate from each level. MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-333 Page 3 CHR. KOENITZER asked Mr. Cowan if the Planning Commission had not recom- mended a 10-20 units/acre density to the City Council on the Portal Plaz development. Assistant Planning Director Cowan outlined the last action as having been the pulling out of parcel E for assessment. Many things had been taking place in terms of the General Plan, he said. During the last wee he said he and Mr. Piasecki had met with residents in Northpoint, and had observed a meeting at which Mr. Chartier met with residents living adjacent to the Portal Plaza parcel. Continuing the review of the Agenda Item HI, Assistant Planning Director outlined the effect of density on the elementary school population. A letter was expected to outline the school district position on school impaction, which had changed from the 10-15 year past predictions. The density of an area could determine when school would be closed. The community shopping center had its own demographics in traffic congestion. An acre of drive-in restaurants, at peak hour, would generate an astro- nomical number of trips at peak hour (drive-in installations had been discouraged in Cupertino). Industrial installation generation of trips was dependent upon whether the work done could be compared to ware- housing activity, or production-intense activities. The shopping centers such as Crossroads, as an example, drop off from 800 trips/hour/day to 100 trips at the peak hour as compared with all traffic associated with various forms of residential development. Restaurants generated par- ticularly high levels of traffic at peak hours; and, he remarked that few of them had been built during the last few years. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he hoped he had helped in the un- derstanding that when they talked about density they~ere also talking about many underlying considerations. In talking abotlt the requirements of the General Plan, he said, it was necessary to talk about activities in the City and in the various neighborhoods. Although the chart being used was incomplete, at the present time, he promised that it would be completed as information was accumulated, and he said the results would be available to those who wished to request them. Assistant Planning Director Cowan admonished members of the community to remember that even though their particular issue was not being discussed it was important that they hear and evaluate all information for its interrelativity to the City in general, and its relativity to their area of interests. COM. ADAMS asked if he understood correctly that the big difference be- tween commercial and residential (15 dwelling units) is about 3 to 3~ times the traffic for the whole day -- 2,000 cars versus 600 cars per day. COM. BLAINE clarified that when they were talking about specialty stores they were not talking about food stores -- a neighborhood center being one dominated by a supermarket. (Specialty centers were mentioned.) COM. JOHNSON In warehousing I find it hard to believe, he said, that a warehouse would generate 42 trips. He asked if the numbers could be substantiated. PC-333 Page 4 MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the numbers were obtained from a traffic engineer. The numbers were used for an area on Homestead Road since the property was zoned industrial. Further checking of sources was possible in the file, and he volunteered to supply the information if Com. Johnson felt it was required. Public Works Director Viskovich arrived and Mr. Cowan asked that he make his presentation on Staff Report, GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, dated May 22, 1980, submitted to the Planning Commission by Mr. Viskovich as part of the PC-333 packet, copies of which were made available for the public. Mr. Viskovich advised that he was using reports from MTC*, and ABAG*, as outlined in his Staff Report. and outlined in Santa Clara County document, "Transportation/Land Use Planning Outlook within the Present General Plan Structure." (County Model) Traffic zones were identified surrounding Cupertino, which was Traffic Zone #10, on map Figure A. A Table of calculations of trips, originating for various purposes, was exhibited and explained. Mr. Viskovich stated that the input was far from complete and results of information already available would be fit into future accumulation of pertinent facts. One conclusion available from present reliable statistics, he said, indicated that the major percentage of traffic on Cupertino streets originated from residential areas within the City. Surprising as this was to them, and no doubt, surprising as it would be to those listening to the report and reading the report, he said, information was still being generated and analyzed, and if there was any change in the con- clusion the information would be passed along. Since the figures indicated most of the peak hour congestion was created within Cupertino, he said it then became necessary ~. determine what areas and types of development produced the traffic. . The various sources of information were outlined, and efforts for future sources of information were outlined. The Cupertino Scene was utilized to ask residents to respond on the Sound Off form, with their address, the address of their work place. Three hundred (300) responses had been received. The information was superimposed with the County traffic model. The percentages showed to be consistent with the amount of traffic directed into different zip zones from Area #10, or directed into Job Zones from Area #10. The housing and jobs verified and we then checked the traffic models of County boundaries of Area Zone #10. COM. ADAMS asked if the county model relied on license 'surveys for their traffic count. Mr. Viskovich said they used economic and land-use factors to develop where the traffic would be going to from the housing. COM. KOENITZER asked if there was knowledge of how much of the traffic was on Route 280. Mr. Viskovich said that that was to be part of the next step in the verification and development of information. COM. ADAMS asked for clarification of the last paragraph. Mr. Viskovicþ exhibited Figure D, and said that if one com- * MTC -- Metropolitan Transportation Commission ABAG -- Association of Bay Area Governments MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-333 Page 5 pareu Zone 84 and Zone 89, the model was the figure on top and the city was on the bottom.. He said therè was quite a variation; however, by combining Zone #9 and Zone #4, the total in Zone #10 was almost the sum of the two. The Cupertino Scene sample was still coming in and would b worked into the figures. Mr. Viskovich said that having arrived at this point, it was necessary to become more sophisticated in computing traffic flow into and out of the area within the boundaries established. COR, KOENITZER said that it seemed to him that with the summary of what the traffic situation was in the city to-date, it might be possible that the members of the Planning Commission might be willing to recommend a 10-20 units/acre zoning on Portal Avenue. Public Works Director Viscovich said he did not see that the traffic model or any traffic projections developed so far, the variations being so small, would seem not to help in making that decision. The members of the Planning Commission discussed the figures, and they noted that the figures did not take into account generation of traffic in Town Center. The figures mentioned were: 2.000 eastbound, 1,000 westbound. At De Anza the figures were: 1,700, southbound and 650 northbound (5:00 p.m. peak hour used on Stevens Creek). They concluded they had problems with the people who wouldn't understand what was said complaints about traffic is great, but the impact of Parcel E would not be that great when it was viewed in terms of true traffic count and traffic on a city-wide basis. Ì"... CRR. KOENITZER summed up that the real question was how much of whatever traffic, whether commercial or residential, would be using Portal Avenue and Price. Stevens Creek would be congested anyway, he said. He sug- gested that the members of the audience who wished to speak to the repor be allowed to do so before the Commissioners discussed the matter. Mr. Larry Matheny, 20202 Rodriquez, Cupertino, asked that the time ele- ment (how much time is taken for going from Point A to Point B, etc.). He stated that numbers didn't mean a lot. He said that he'd moved out of SunnyÎTa1e and he found the congestion in Cupertino "terrible." He said it was "absolutely terrible." He recalled that Mr. Viscovich ha stated that the situation was not as bad as had been thought. He said he'd like to know what was anticipated before the traffic study was be- gun. Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, Cupertino, said it had been a long time since he'd worked with statistics, but he did know that statistics can say whatever one wishes them to say. He asked for a definition of peak hour. Mr. Viskovich said they had been taking the peak hour as between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., with the highest count being between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.. Mr. Bierman said he didn't understand that. COM. BLAINE said part of the explanation for shopping on the way home from work. none -- women working in greater numbers weekly. could be found in women stoppin She said it was a new phenome- and shopping daily rather than PC-333 Page 6 MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mrs. Bixby, Wheaton Drive, Cupertino said she could attest to the fact that Wheaton Drive was the Gran Prix of Cupertino every day as drivers cut down the street to miss traffic lights at major intersections. Mrs. Rosemar Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, wished to clarify a point about the agenda. Referring to Point (3) of the Agenda, she said that certainly that meant Areas F & G on Stevens Creek Boule- vard. Members of the community had been sent notices to attend the meeting. Now, she said, they found that Areas F & G were not to be determined. She asked that the Areas be discussed. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the Staff particularly ished to discuss Area E because it was in limbo before the City Council in terms of zoning. He said he understood the irritation of those coming to the meeting not hearing what they thought was going to be presented; however, he again reminded them that all information generated was pertinent to the General Plan. The Commissioners were reminded that there was a possibility of Areas F & G going commercial. He said the Staff felt that the 1979 General Plan should be reaffirmed for residential use. ublic Works Director Viskovich,~gt if the property went commercial, then they were going to attract' from a circle all around -- as from a arket the traffic radiates. With residential development there was ore of a ,directional flow of activity in a network. CHR. KOENITZER felt that one of the things they were going to have to decide and look at was the impact of developing commercial in the Town Center and other parcels scheduled for commercial or industrial. He said that if their road system would not support developments that were talked about, they would certainly have to change dftections. In his opinion, he felt he could not talk about Parcel E without an overall approach to the City again. Parcels F & G were not going to have the impact on the surrounding areas in terms of traffic because they exited on Stevens Creek Boulevard. rs. Pauline'R. Lee, 20104 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino related that her property was directly behind F or G (she was not certain which), and she had been visited by a builder with plans that she had thought were going to pe presented at the meeting. She said that was why she had come to the meeting. r. Bill Clark, 20054 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino commented on Mrs. Callahan having been attending meetings since October. He said it seemed to him to be a foregone conclusion that the property at Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek would go residential rather than commercial. CHR. KOENITZER commented that from past votes of the Planning Commission and City Council, it was still up for discussion. r. Maurice O'Shea, 20367 Clay Avenue, Cupertino, said that they seemed to be going in a circle -- one of the things in the reports and actions being a "hidden script." He said that in order to engaRe traffic as an issue, they had to decide whether decisions would be made by the piece or by the whole -- to look at each property and make decision, or to look at the entire town and goals. As for densities, he said he couldn't imagine going above "8." He said the items mentioned for consideration ad irritated him and others in the room. He said the people just seem MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-333 Page 7 to be left out of considerations by the Planning Commission and Planning Department of the town, and by the priorities necessary to get an issue resolved. He said that night after night the citizens attend the meetings and leave disgusted -- the town was being turned off. Let's get rid of the hidden scripts; let's deal with that, he said. Mr. Bill Clark, 20054 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, said he had been up here before. He said he noticed that they had all the impact studies on traffic, associating things like school and children. He said they had not considered the increase in crime/density. The higher the density, the higher the crime rate, he said. Donna Aboot (phonetic) 10156 Caralee Drive, Cupertino, said she was against high density. She said the other options for the available land should be ¡ooked into. Cupertino needed more open space and parks. The people are staying home more because of the energy crisis and needed the parks. Available parks were overcrowded, and she asked that some of the space be dedicated to parks. Mr. John Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, said that the traffic report convinced him there was no way additional traffic could be added onto Stevens Creek. He said he had been in touch with the Environmental Impact Resóurces Board,Sacramento, and they had advised him that they would not approve additional developing of the Stevens Creek area for cluster housing. He reported that if there were any complaints or con- cerns, the Sacramento Commission would require a full hearing and study of the public concerns. He reminded the Commissioners that they had re- ceived a 300-signature petition against higher density. ~lønnin~ Oirector Sisk eXDlained that decisions had been delayed until the information on the traffic situation was available. Now that the traffic report was in progress, along with accessin~Pther information pertinent to the areas involved, he felt they were moving closer to a decision on the General Plan Amendment; Areas F & G. CHR. KOENITZER asked if the Staff thought it was possible to conclude Areas F & G at the June 23rd Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that if that was the direction of the Commisioners, then, the Staff would be prepared. RECESS; 10:00 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. ITEM #1, continued. CHR. KOENITZER called the meeting to order and advised that the item for consideration was the Portal Avenue, Stevens Creek. Staff guidelines were available for densities abutting each othe within the City. COM. BLAINE asked if it was possible for the Commissioners to answer the question Mr. O'Shea had raised: Whether the properties would be con- sidered separate, as entities, or would they wait for the larger overall goals of the city -- setting up a Goals Committee. COM. ADAMS asked if the City Council had not given direction that the Planning Commission review the site, Area E. COM. JOHNSON said that it appeared that, with or without sufficient in- formation, they were going to consider the Areas ßS separate entities. PC-333 Page 8 MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the Staff had tended to put down some of the guidelines that would enable the Commissioners to decide whether or not they ~ere comfortable with such uses on Stevens Creek. (Staff Report, May 23, 1980 - May 27, 1geO PC-333, page 3 (Objectives -- Residential Design Use Standards». The ob- jectives and design use standards that were questioned by the Commissoners ere explained by Mr. Cowan. Point #4 showed the 20 degree plane at a igher density, working from the setback or property line, graduating the height of the structures toward the center and reducing them a~ain to one-story at the 20 degree line, the ratio to be determined. The Commissioners questioned whether it was 20 degrees or 20%; and, it was said to be 20%, by Mr. Cowan, who promised to check out the reference and report back to the Commissioners. Design objectives ere more and more in vogue, rather than restrictive zoning shall's and shall not's. CHR. KOENITZER asked the public if they wished to comment on the Land se for the parcel at Portal and Stevens Creek. ITHOUT EXCEPTION, THE FOLLOWING SPEAKERS OBJECTED TO HIGH DENSITY IN THE AREA UNDER QUESTION. On other issues, they made the following comments. r. Bill Irvine, 10560 Castine Avenue, Cupertino, asked when the issue ou1d go to City Council, assuming a decision would be made soon. ssistant Planning Director Cowan said that the Commissioners might ish to delay consideration of plans until after th~General Plan discussions had been completed. COM. ADAMS stated that the only reason they were looking at the General Plan was to update areas of density that had been looked at in the past. With the General Plan showing a density level at the present time, it would be obligatory (somewhat) for them to vote on the application; and, CHR. KOENITZER felt that he could not go to the meeting of the 23rd of June if they had arrived at a decision on specific property prior to the meeting. Three of the Commissioners concluded that it was up to the applicant to make the decision to present plans. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that Mr. Irvine's Item was on the Agenda, and he said that if the Commissioners wished, the Item could be moved to the head of the Agenda. Mr. Jim Jo , 19811 Price Avenue, Cupertino, asked if the outline of Residential Density and Architectural and Site Design Standards was open to discussion. Since it was, he called attention to Item #4 and suggested it be reworded to say that "Perimeter vehicle parking and circulation areas, (when incorporated into the design -- added clause), etc. Item #5: he asked that before it was decided upon that a report of incidence of crime in underground parking be reported upon. He continued that he had understood that there would not be further discussion on Areas F & G. Yet, he said, in coming back from the break he found that they were discussitllstandards that would be pertinent to the F & G property MINUTES MAY 27, ]980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-333 Page 9 A search of the record showed that Mr. Cowan, Assistant P1annint Directo , had mentioned the fact prior to recess. COM. BLAINE said they were sorr for the misunderstanding. Mr. Joy insisted that the three-page Staff Report should have been calle to the attention of the public. The guidelines contained in the Staff Report did concern-- the Portal Avenue property. COM. BLAINE said she felt the public had been told a decision would not be forthcoming from the meeting. Mr. Joy asked that the format of the meetings be changed t provide instruction from the Staff directly to the public in the use of the materials and reports generated by the Staff. Mr. John Carlson, 10203 Portal Avenue, Cupertino, was interested in Parcel E, and then on all of the properties on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said he wished to remind the Commissioners and the Staff of the scarcity of residential projects on Stevens Creek - two or three houses remaining from earlier days. He reminded the Commissioners that in December of 1978, they had recommended commercial for the property. The City Council had returned the matter to the Planning Commission with the direction that high density residential be considered instead. At this point he said he failed to see why the property had to be considered ex- clusively for residential. Mr. Jason Chartier, 21060 Homestead Road, Cupertino, partner in the development, said it was true that the property could take one of many forms. He said he'd gotten to the residential because of the need for such property within Cupertino. Having met with the homeowners (along with Mr. Cowan and Mr. Piasecki) during the previous week, considering the controls, he said they were talking about a property that would be a credit and would be more than adequately maintainèi. The value of the property and the surrounding property would not be reduced because of th higher density and design plan, both of which could enhance the area. On the BMR program,information had generated the feeling that the par- ticipants were second-class citizens; an opinion and feeling that was fa from true. - COM. ADAMS asked if Mr. Chartier would be handicapped if the 20 degree or 20% requirement was all the way around the perimeter of the proiect with street units to one-storJ units. är. Chartier responded that that would be a matter of design and parking He said that the setback was about 70 ft. before the building started and then one had greenery, and he predicted no visual impact on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He concluded that a good residential of medium density could be designed against single family residential. COM. BLAINE asked the outcome of the meeting with residents. Mr. Chartier was pleased. The concerns of privacy, traffic, were discussed, and the conceptual plan was presented and discussed with the residents. He felt the meeting was time well spent. COM. JOHNSON asked Assistant Planning Director Cowan for his impression of the meeting. Mr. Cowan said that he and Mr. Piasecki had attended as observers. PC-333 Page 10 MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was agreed that misunderstanding as to what was intended was a major ?roblem. It was felt that explanation of exhibits and plans was productive in allaying the fears of citizens on new projects. Mr. Larrv Mathpny, 20202 Rodriquez Avenue, Cupertino, asked if the issue was rezoning or density. It seemed to him, he said, that they had already decided what would be built on the property. COM. BLAINE explained that they were considering all of the options for the area; but, the immediate issue was to rezone from 20-35 to 10-20. Assistant ~lanning Director Cowan said the General Plan called for Residential at 20-35 units/acre but that the zoning was still commercial. Therefore, the General Plan designation prevailed and the Planning Commission was required to bring the zoning and the General Plan into agreement. Mr. Stan Scarborou h, 10571 Whitney Way, Cupertino, using information he had obtained through Assistant Planning Director Cowan of the Planning Department of Cupertino, sàid he did not feel that rezoning was fair to the residents of the area. He reviewed the projects that had been approved during the year, which had created a large need for housing units, and in places where housing had not been needed prior to the installation of the business. Slides were shown locating schools surrounded by 1-5 density; 5-10 west of Wilson school was pointed out; the· area on Price with six new townhouses, and the Biltmore with about 15.8 density was located. He said he did not think it was right to come into five acres, or two acres, and putting in high density. He said if industry was really responsible they'd be building down south where they could also construct housing. Areas suitable for high density were pointed out. For P1~ned Development, he said that plotting it out, he had discovered that the base density was 8 units/acre/6 acres. Then one could go to 10 on 13 acres (over on Mary); and, it seemed to him, he said, that Cupertino Village was the most satisfactory project he had ·looked at. What had impressed him was the low density applied to six acres and under. High density, although it was attractive from the outside of the property, actually appeared to be a parking lot as one walked through the area. On Area E, Mr. Scarborough felt 8 units/acre should be the limit. Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, Cupertino, said he was impressed with Mr. Scarborough's charts and work. He suggested the possibility of building multi-story high rises next to industry. Mr. Bierman said he was concerned because of the quality of some of the developments. He said he still liked automobiles and he'd not purchase a home without provision for locking up his car (s). Mr. Bierman said he did not see the higher density lowering the value of the single-family homes. A statistic that was strange was the one that indicated schools would be kept open if high density was allowed. He said he hoped there were still open minds for commercial. Mr. O'Shea said that what was peak AM and peak PM traffic flow. He stated that peonle on Clay experiencpd a daily dodge. through a residential that had impacted thE whole area. He said that perpetuated in Cupertino would be the same situation that the surrounding com- munities of New York had not done. In the communities around New York that held development down to 8 units/acre, delightful communities had evolved. MINUTES}\AY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-333 Pa¡>;e 11 Mr. John Johnson, 19831 Price Avenue. Cupertino, said that personally he would prefer business expansion. He said he recognized the concerns of those who wished for 8 units/acre restrictions. He sug¡>;ested that ex- amples of developments at various densities be exhibited. He felt that 20 units/acre would be completely out. Mr. Jason Chartier su¡>;¡>;ested residents visit surroundinR towns. Mr. John Foster, 20212 Rodriques Avenue, Cupertino said that he had move to Cupertino because he thought it was a nice community to live in, and he said he was willing to do his part to see that it was kept that way. He felt that 8 units/acre was high density. Mr. Foster said he had signed the "log" several times and had as yet not received any infor- mation from the city. Mr. Marty Hall, pointed out the suitability of housing to particular areas. Area E, he said, accommodated the plans of 14.9 or 15 units/acre. He said that in their many efforts to design for high density they had been educated in the various areas that must be considered within a com- munity. Higher density could be translated to less square foota¡>;e. A lower density translated into units with more square footage. Lower density and higher square foota¡>;e per unit translated into families and more cars. COM. ADAMS, speaking for the Commission, said they had heard a few pros and cons and the gook points and bad points of commercial, resi- dential, or even office space. He congratulated Staff on doing a good job in putting together a set of guidelines that he hoped would help in the making of a decision. He asked that future guidelines reinforce the buffer zone requirement between single family and higher density develop- ment. The 20 deg. angle, parking carports buffering noise, limitation of height next to one-story residential, had been looked at in turn as controls and protection for the insurance of privacy. ?:'~~ COM. BLAINE stated that as for privacy, in residential (1-4 density) it was possible to put two-story houses up against one-story residential, and under those circumstances the view looked right down into back yards Nevertheless, she recommended considering 10-15 density with a slight variation factor. The difference between 10 and 20 bein¡>; double, she felt it should be possible to pin it down a little better. COM. JOHNSON complimented the Staff on the design standards they had provided. Since he'd not felt comfortable with this particular parcel, he said he'd have problems going for 10-20. CHR. KOENITZER pointed out that commercial, business, or office space would pull people in from other areas (as Mr. Scarborough had pointed out in his presentation), and he said that with the City objectives, as stated in the General Plan, (attempting to increase the housing ), it was necessary to start some place (considering all undeveloped parcels in the city). The recommendation of Com. Blaine of 10-15 units/acre was his preference he said. PC-333 "al\e 12 MINUTES MAY 27, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: AYE: NO: ABSENT: Com. Blaine, Recommend to the City Council a designation of 10-lS units/acre density on Area E, General Plan, located at corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue, Com. Adams I-GPA-80. **** PASSED 3-1 Commissioners Adams, Blaine, Koenitzer Commissioner Johnson Com. Claudy ITEM #2, CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Comprehensive Noise Ordinance relative to the control of noise oril\inating within the City. First Hearinl\ continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. Planning Director Sisk introduced Mr. Stan Shelly, Consultant on the noise ordinance for Cupertino. Mr. Stan Shelly said that based on the previous meeting and the chanl\es recommended by the commissioners and the public, he was presentinl\ a completed Noise Control Ordinance to the Commission for consideration. The members of the commission agreed that having gone over the last draft by the pal\e and exhaustively, they had no commènts or sUl\gestions to offer for the present. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. PASSED MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: **** SECOND: VOTE: Second: Com Adams 4-0 Com. Blaine, recommenù Approval ûf the Noise Control Ordinance to City Council. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0 Com. Claudy MOTION: Com. Adams, Continue Area (Site) E, l-GPA-80, to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 9, 1980, depending on ErR action. Continue l-GPA-80 to the Regular Planninl\ Commission Meeting of June 23, 1980. Com. Blaine PASSED 4-0 EW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. KOENrTZER reported he had attended the meeting held by Supervisor Gerrv Steinbere. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ssistant Planning Director Cowan announced to the Planning Commission embers that the City had voted to forceably annex the Inspiration Heights area. APPROVED: ATTEST: 42- City Cl~ /£/ / ~t7.4h0 I c~,~