PC 04-13-81
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFO~~IA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
PC-3s4
Page 1
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL:
7:30 P.M.
Present: Commissioner Adams
Commissioner Binneweg
Commissioner Blaine
Commissioner Claudy
Chairman Koenitzer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 23, 1981 were approved, after
tne following correction:
P"age 6, eighth paragraph, IIplastic mulching" to read "plastic covering on
banks",
HOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine that the Minutes be approved as corrected.
Com. Adams
PASSED
5-0
Tl1e Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 13, 1980:
HOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy to approve the Minutes as submitted
Com. Blaine
PASSED
5-0
POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS
Item #3 and Item #5 nad been requested to be continued by the applicants.
HOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Adams to continue Item #3, 6-U-8l
School, and Item #5, 5-2-81 and 3-U-8l
to the first Regul~ Meeting in May.
Com. Blaine
PASSED
of West Valley Montessori
of Canada Development Co.
5-0
WRITTEN COM}illNICATIONS
A letter dated April 5 from Gerry ßauer concerning Applications 3-2-81
and 3-U-3l of Community Housing Developers, to be entered into the records
of that item, which had already been acted on*. Assistant Planning Director
Cowan said he would bring it to the attention of City Council before their
meeting on the subject.
" PC-3s2
PC-3s4
page 2
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ITEM #1, Applications 24-U-80 and l7-TM-80 of SHUTTS & SCHWIMMER: Public
Hearing to consider an arnendment(s) to use permit and tentative map to
provide alternative means of vehicular access to a previously approved
three-unit residential development. The modification may result in a
deletion of one lot and/or reconfiguration of the subdivision and use
permit site plan. ENVIRONÞŒNTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically
exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property 'is located
on the north side of Orogrande Place approximately 450 ft. westerly of
Stelling Road in á P (Planned Development with single-family intent)
zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing
date - April 20, 1981.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that this was a continuation of
discussions in March to delete a joint bikepath and emergency access road
serving one of toe lots in the 3-unit subdivision. The Commission had been
interested in exploring access from the adjoining s-unit development to
Stelling Road across the State right of way, and Mr. Scott, a partner in
the adjoining 5-unit development, had the responsibiility of gaining the
necessary permits. There had been verbal communications between the State
and Mr. Whaley, Hr. Scott's partner, and the State staff involved felt there
would not be a problem, but no written confirmation had been obtained,
though it had been diligently pursued. The question of creating a new
easement for Mr. Sargeant's property had been referred to the Attorney's
Office of the Legal Counsel for Caltrans, and could take a long time.
He went on to say that Staff had done additional research on the question
of the bike path on the 5-unit pevelopment, and that there had been some
confusion between himself and the Public Works Department, as the question
of a separate bike path adjacent to the 18 ft. driveway had been addressed
by the Planning Commission and the Council, and had been approved and gone
to the Architectural and Site Control Committee when it had become apparent
that the Santa Clara Valley Water District would not be interested in
maintaining .such a path, and he had thought the decision was made to
incorporate a bike trail along the driveway, which was not the case. There-
fore the subdivision had been recorded without a mechanism to allow a bike
path, but the property adjacent to the creek was publicly owned by the
Water District, leaving a future opportunity for a bike trail to be built.
In the interim, there could be public walk-in access, as a wrought iron
fence was to be built along the channel, minimizing liability.
Staff felt firstly. that a need for pedestrian access remained on Mr. Sargeant's
property, and secondly that the 12 ft. wide joint pedestrian and fire access
should be retained for emergency purposes. Plans had been worked out with
both developments for turnarounds that would use pavement area marked with
no parking signs, but the Fir~ District was of the opinion that these spaces
might be used by the property owners to store materials, and favored an
emergency access route.
He felt the Commission snould keep in mind that, as Regnart Creek was one
of the last natu~al creeks in the area, some degree of public access should
be retained, particularly since there was vacant land to the southwest, so
that there could be an open space concept for the area as it developed.
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Staff felt there should be pavement, though this was not critical, but
it would tend to create a psychological and physical boundary between
private and public areas, and otherwise it might be difficult for City
Council to maintain access.
PC-354
Page 3
COM. CLAUDY established that there was no legal access to one of the
lots in the 3-unit subdivision and that the easement presently only
applied to the 5-unit subdivision.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that Staff had expanded the
legal notice to allow the Commission to grant a corridor, conceivably
to Orogrande, but that the applicant had elected not to proceed with it.
COM. ADAMS wanted to know the status of the property to the east.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported that the three units fronting
onto Orogrande were under construction, but that before construction of
the other two, assurances had to be received from the State that th~ road
could be paved, and encroachment permits were expected within a couple of
weeks.
~IT. Phil Schwimmer, the architect on the project, thought the key
was the concept that public access should be allowed along the creek,
and vehicular access was a big question, together with the other aspect of
general access to the property. He quoted the letter from the Fire
Marshall to the City as saying that a turnaround with_in lsOft.of one house
with emergency access for the other house would be appropriate and within
the standards, and said that when the property was one unit ~hís had been
the concept. He did not see any need now to talk about emergency access
across the backyard of the existing structure, and it was not necessary
to provide public vehicular access. It would be paved 6 ft. wide, and
fenced, and this would define the public area and keep people out of the
private area, and the owner would have the right to keep people to the pat
The issue of access, he'felt, was the same for all the lots; they still
had to go across the State-owned property, there was still the question of
how to get it paved and get an easement. Mr: Scott's negotiations with
the State seemed successful, but he had not yet received a firm answer.
As Mr. Scott was willing to wait to get things straightened out, so were
they, he said. They were not asking for a building permit; they knew it
had to be resolved first.
The key issue, he thought, was the best way to provide public access and
yet allow the property owner privacy on the lot in question. It seemed
to him that maintaining the 6 ft. public access path was the best use
of the land in planning terms.
COM. BINNEWEG wanted to establish that Mr. Schwimmer was willing to wait
for access across the State property rather than having a driveway granted.
Mr. Schwimmer confirmed this and said that if it did not go through they
eould revert, though it would be difficult to work with. They were askin
for an addendum, but if they did not get their access they could revert,
that was the key thing, he explained.
PC-354
Page 4
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~lliISSION MEETING
COM. BLAINE noted that the fire turnaround had been changed.
Mr. Schwimmer explained that the two owners had decided to share the fire
turnaround, as it was a better situation for them.
CHR. KOENITZER thought that a Tentative Map could not be approved, as the
third loOt did not have legal access to a public street, and in not putting
in a private driveway along the creek to Orogrande place a landlocked parcel
would be created,
Mr. Schwimmer pointed out that they already had an approved Tentative Map
and were now asking for an amendment only.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan enlarged that there were approved Tentative
Maps on the two separate developments which were originally one Planned Unit
Development, and that the 3-unit Tentative Map had a Condition of Approval
applied which indicated that should there be a bad timing problem, the
other development going first, then the applicant could utilize the emergency
access road for a private driveway. It had been meant to be temporary,until
an overall solution was worked out, but this particular project could
therefore be recorded, the Tentative Map having been approved, contingent
upon using the joint pedestrian/fire access as a temporary driveway.
COM. CLAUDY questioned whether the Tentative Map, l7-TM-80, that had been
approved had a fire access from Orogrande along the creek.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan confirmed that it had.
COM. BLAINE felt that if access was removed along the creek it would be going
against the Tentative Map, as the one lot would be left with no access.'
COM. CLAUDY thought that in the absence óf a confirmed easement the Tentative
Map could not be changed.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested that it could be approved contin-
gent upon access being gained prior to recordation.
COM. ADAMS recommended that because of all the changes the Commission should
ask legal counsel whether i~was null and void because of the splitting of
the development.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan clarified that though the zoning was a
joint application, there were individual Use Permits and Tentative Maps, so
that the developments were independent, though there were some Conditions
of Approval tying them together.
Mr. Schwimmer said that they were merely asking for a contingency that they
could revert to a 6 ft. path if the other problems were solved, that was all.
They were trying to agree on a plan of attack, so that both parties and
the State could get what they wanted. He brought up another factor, that if
a path to take fire trucks was put in the whole creek would have to be riprapped,
which would destroy the natural appearance and would also cost $15,000 approximatel
APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-3s4
page 5
COM. CLAUDY stated that there were two issues, the first being access- for
the driveway to the property, and if that were solved, the second was the
question of whether a full 12 ft. emergency access was required across the
3-unit development, or would a 6 ft. pedestrial path be satisfactory. He
felt the issues could be addressed as a contingency, but that if there was
no access over the 85 corridor the conditions could not be eliminated.
COM. ADAMS and COM. CLAUDY asked City Attorney Killian whether the Tenta-
tive Map could be modified on a contingency basis, so that if an easement
to the 3-unit parcel was obtained prior to recordation of the Final Map
the 12 ft. access could be deleted and replaced with a 6 ft. access.
City Attorney Killian said this could be done if an access agreeable to th
City Attorney was obtained, which condition could be deleted at the time
of recordation of the Final Map.
CHR. KOENITZER suggested a contingency that access to Stelling be provided,
and that otherwise a 12 ft. path had to be constructed, if it was decided
thë=!t the 1.2 ft. emergency access was not requi,red.
Barry Scot::, g,"n"r..l pa'· tner of the adjoining s-unit parcel, said he could
get an encroachment permit and put the paving in; it would take about a
ueek. But due to. the $10,000 cost and the fact it would be temporary, he
did not want to do it. He wanted a reading from the City on the status
of Festival Drive, whicil the City had to negotiate, as there was a coopera
tive agreement between the City and Caltrans. He had been led to believe
by Caltrans that there would be no problem, and he thought everyone would
rather put in Festival Drive. He was not in a position to start to build
until it was in, as he did not want to draw permits and have to come up
with a bond to put Festival Drive in at an unspecified time.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten suggested that Mr. Scott get in touch with
Public Works Director Viskovitch, as the matter would be handled through
his office.
~
CHR. KOENITZER wanted to know if the City had applied to the State.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said there had been an application almost
two years ago and the State was not responsive. As far as he knew there ha
been no formal letter since, ~ut he would check into the matter. He remarke
that if it was possible to do, he would be in favor, as that was the origin 1
intent, and that both the Planning Director and the Public Works Director
aad contacted tne State in the past in that regard.
Mr.. Scotttead a letter from the State to the City detailing the State's
requirments, and remarked that the only thing questioned in the letter was
it being a frontage road to an unconstructed freeway. However, he felt
that as it had been on the books for ten years and was marked on County map
a City contingency to Mr. Sargeant would solve the problem. He himself
would be coming in for a permit soon involving Festival Drive, and he urged
that it be resolved.
COM. BLAINE wondered if Mr. Scott had talked to Mr. Viskovitch on the matte
recently.
~IT. Scott replied he had not done so
meeting on the issue.
since the last Planning Commission
PC-3s4
Page 6
!INUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. CLAUDY thought that Mr. Scott should press the City in this regard.
OTION:
SECOND:
OTE:
Com. Claudy, to close the Public Hearings.
Com. Blaine
PASSED
5-0
COM. CLAUDY stated that the question was whether to retain the 12 ft. access
for fire and emergency or accept the turnaround.
OM. BLAINE felt that the Fire Department functioned with such turnarounds
allover the City, and she would prefer not to see the creek riprapped. If
the Tentative Map could be conditioned to have some type of access to the
lot in question, she did not have any problem.
COM. CLAUDY concurred, and added that if the Tentative Map was conditioned
in the way suggested by City Attorney Killian, the owner could not file a
Final Map until he had legal access, so that he could not subdivide until
that time.
ssistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that there was a possibility
of a two lot subdivision being recorded, though this would be a different
entative Map, but the matter had been advertised in such a way that it
could be done tonight, if required.
COM. CLAUDY felt the contingency could be recorded.
OTION: Com. Claudy, to approve the Application to modify l7-TM-80
and 24-U-80 to delete the requirements for a joint emergency
fire access and bike path, contingent upon, prior to recording
of the Final Map, a legal access acceptable to the City Attorney
being established for access to parcel 3 of the subdivision.
However, the requirement for a 6 ft. bike/pedestrian path along
the creek shall remain as shown on the original Tentative Map
Application, and an emergency fire turnaround shall be provided
to the satisfaction of the Central Fire District.
SECOND: Com. Adams
City Attorney Killian advised that there should be a Title
Insurance Policy to. insure the easement once it was grantêd by
the State.
VOTE:
PASSED
5-0
ITEM #2, Application 5-U-8l of UNITED CABLE TELEVISION OF CUPERTINO, INC.:
USE PERMIT to construct a cable television facility including an 80 ft. high
television tower (antenna), several receiving dishes equaling approximately
24 ft. high, and a small building to house electronic equipment. ENVIRON-
~ŒNTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting
of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is generally located on the
De Anza College Campus in the southeast quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and the Highway 85 right of way. More specifically, the cable television
facility is proposed to be located southwest of the Flint Center building
and adjacent to the Highway 85 right of way. First Hearing.
HINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLA,'JNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-3s4
Page 7
Assistant Planning Director Cowan indicated the rough location of the
antenna dishes and equipment and the studio which would be located in
the existing facility of De Anza College on the west side of the campus.
He stated that an agreement had been reached between the City, United
Cable and the College District and that the role of the Planning Commissio
here was to approve the Use Permit phase of the Application. Staff felt
this site to be a good solution to the previous one.
COM. BLAINE questioned the height of the tower.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it was to be 100 ft., and had been
increased front 80 ft. because of the hills.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten added that the agreement with De Anza
allowed for 100 ft.
There was concern amongst the Commissioners whether the i-tern had been
advertised property.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan did not feel it to be a substantial
variance in terms of Public Hearings.
CHR. KOENITZER thotignt is was significant enough to ask the City Attorney'
advice.
City Attorney Killian advised that as this was a final decision, there
should be proper notice to people within the noticed area.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan observed that the noticed area of 300 ft
barely touched some industrial complexes on Bubb Road, and that there
were no residences within 1/4 mile.
COM. CLAUDY's opinion was that a reasonable person, if upset, would be
upset with 100 ft. tower or an 80 ft. tower, 50 therefore would have come
to the Meeting.
City Attorney Killian thought it was a technical notice problem, for which
there were provisions in the government planning code,and that the Commiss'on
should go ahead and decide the Use Permit.
Mr. John Cribb, General Manager of United Cable in Cupertino, reminded the
Commission that he had bee~ before them for a similar Application at a
different site. United Cable was hoping that an 80 ft. height would still
be satisfactory, but there could be problems with the hills due to moving
south, and was basícally asking for the tower, 3 satellite dishes and
an unmanned structure, fenced in, to house electronic equipment. They
were willing to do any scr.eening necessary or required. He confirmed that
tney were negotiating with De Anza and the City and had the consent of
De Anza, though an agreement had not yet been signed, partially contingent
upon the decision tonight. He introduced Executive Dean Clements of
De Anza tò answer questions.
PC-3s4
Page 8
MINUTES ABRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Tom. Clements, Executive Dean at De Anza College, assured the Commission
that they had gone through a long negotiation process and were now in the
final stages. They were very excited at the prospect of having the operation
on campus, he said. The studios would be situated in a small box theater in
the Flint Center and the tower and dishes would be screened by existing
60 ft, trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard portion of the campus.
COM. ADAMS wondered whether it was intended to increase the television-type
class activity at the college.
Mr. Clements confirmed this and said they were hoping for four channels
of public access and two educational channels, eventually, with a Sunnyvale
interconnect , and in the future it was hoped to have interconnects serving
a wide area, including parts of Saratoga and Santa Clara, thereby expanding
educational opportunities.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Adams that Public Hearings be closed.
Com. Claudy
PASSED
5-0
MOTION:
Com. Blaine to approve Application s-U-8l with Standard Conditions
1-14, 15 and 16, with findings and subconclusions às in the
S taf f Report.
Com. Adams
PASSED 5-0
SECOND:
VOTE:
ITEM #3, Application 6-U-8l of WEST VALLEY ~IDNTESSORI SCHOOL, INC.
CONTINUED for one month, until May 11, 1981.
ITEI1 1/4, Applications 4-Z-8l and 7-U-8l of LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY N.C., INC.:
ZONING approximately 8 gross acres from P (Planned Development) to P (Planned
Development with commercial office, and residential, maximum 30 dwelling units
per gross acre intent) zone or wnatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the
Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct an office building equaling
approximately 50,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental
Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The
subject property is located on the north side of Rodrigues Avenue from De Anza
Boulevard to a point approximately 400 ft. westerly of Torre Avenue. First
Hearing. Tentative City Coùncil Hearing date: May 4, 1981.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commission that some time ago
they had reviewed a similar application from the owner to develop a much larger
amount of building space on both sides of Torre, and it had been decided that
it would be inconsistent with the General Plan because of traffic constraints
and also that it would not be justifiable to allocate a disproportionate amount
of commercial square footage to one property owner to the detriment of another.
Therefore, the applicant had returned with a new plan to build a 50,000 sq. ft.,
approximately, building on the northeast corner of Torre and Rodrigues.
He 'suggested that a decision be reached by a three-step process~ step I being
the question of whether the property should be planned independently of the
50 acres in Town Center, and on this question, Staff felt it could be possible
to break off another 7 acres, as long as there were reciprocal access agreements.
Step 2 was, if such development was to occur on the 7 acres, where
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-3s4
Page 9
should it begin? Staff had been supportive of the idea of office for
Rodrigues Avenue, and it was compatible with the office development on
the south side of Rodrigues; also the assumption was that the General Plan
would be changed to allow more density. If, however, the General Plan was
modified to decrease the density in Town Center because traffic would
not work, there mignt be limited office use on Rodrigues, De Anza Boulevar
and Stevens Creek frontages, with a large component of residential in the
center of tne site, which was something to be discussed. If it was
decided to increase the density, there could be a greater amount of comm-
ercial and office space. Step 3 was the site plan itself, and Staff
considered it acceptable and complimentary to City Hall.
He brought up a problem of too much square footage for the amount of parki g,
and said that Mr. Boone had at first, when asked by Staff, offered to
decrease the building space, and the Conditions of Approval were that the
building be limited to 41,000 sq. ft. However, later, when Mr. Boone had
gone over plans with his architect and staff, it had been decided to
proceed as planned and build some off-site parking, which could certainly
ùecrease design options on the property, though his suggestion was that
temporary parking could perhaps be allowed, giving latitude for the corner
property, where Staff would like to see a building.
Summarizing, he said the Staff Report recommended approval of the develop-
ment as submitted and he felt the parking could be resolved and bulks
and setbacks were compatible with the Town Center concept. He thought
discussions should be centered on where development should initially occur,
'and how it locked in decisions involving the balance of the property.
Com. Blaine wondered if there had been any interaction between Mr. Boone
and Mr. Chartier, who was developing the residential property adjacent to
it, and also if there had been Staff discussions on the subject.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that Mr. Chartier had received
zoning approval but no Use Permit and though he was aware of this parti-
cular development proposal, he had not cad any formal contact with Staff
during the review process. He himself thought that it could be ensured
that there was no pedestrian movement between the two properties.
COM. CLAUDY
development
around í t.
and set the
observed that,M~yco
was approved, Mayea
He did not like the
tone.
having zoning but no Use Permit, if this
and t~e other owners would have to work
idea, he s-aid, but someone had to be firs
Assistant Planning Director Cowan felt that if a number of the Commission
era were concerned about the interface between office and residnetial, th y
should advise Mr. Boone that development be on the other side.
COM. ADAMS thought the development area would be the perfect place for a
new Post Office.
CHR. KOENITZER inquired whether the proposed 50,000 sq. ft. used the enti e
7 acre share of the office space that the present General Plan allowed.
PC-3s4
Page 10
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Assistant Planning Director Cowan observed that it was a little less than
the 18% apportionment on the entire 7 acres, but there was one point that
had not been brought out in prior discussions, that in the 18% apportionment
amongst the owners, no attemp.t had been made to apportion the office and
commercial components, so that, in this case, 7 acres would get half the
office.
CHR. KOENITZER commented that with the possibility of increased residential
use, he did not want to repeat the mistake made on North De Anza Boulevard,
where industrial development had been allowed on the west side of Bandley,
thereby not getting enough residential development in the area, so he would
not favor office development on the east side of Torre at this time.
Mr. Burch Boone of Lincoln Property Co. said he had had problems with reducing
the size of the building because of the already low coverage allowed.
e said that the ~illiams Keubelbeck studies done in 1978 were erroneous
in terms of the projection for the amount of office space to be constructeed
in tiÚ, County, and that figures were between 260% and 350% higher than the
studies, which if updated, would give a density of between 16,000 and 20,000
sq. ft. per acre. This was approaching the 40% density which would be
economically feasible.
He felt that to get the owners motivated to develop a site plan for the
entire property, as Commission and Staff wished, the artificial restrictions
had to be lifted. He pointed out that Lincoln Property Co. was paying 2
points over prime to carry the property, which was adding to the eventual
cost, and they could not go too long before getting beyond the market and
having to apply some other use to the site. The process of reviewing the
eheral Plan was taking more time than was thought, he observed, and they had
to decide whether they could work within the existing guidelines and trust
that in future more office development would be approved for the site,
particularly for the west side of Torre, as they felt it was the best use.
At the last Meeting he had attended, the 80,000 sq. ft. building on the west
side of Torre had been withdrawn and the plans here dropped coverage to
48/49,000 sq. ft. of office, which was consistent with allocations between
their property and Calis'.
He stated that he had run into problems with economies of scale, so that
rather than decreasing the density, they had kept the building at an
allowable size, putting parking on the adjacent property consistent with the
parking layout which it was hoped would be approved in the future, which
would reduce the projected 80,000 sq. ft. building in size.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan confirmed that the Williams Keubelbeck
Report was out of date, but explained that- the real constraint was traffic
and not the economic feasibility, and toough the traffic analysis was also
out of date, it had to be used until the General Plan was changed.
CHR. KOENITZER wanted to know if a schedule had been set for the General
Plan Hearings.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that there would be a status
report to the City Council at the next Meeting, and also that he would
discuss it at the end of tonight's Agenda.
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLffi~NING CO~lliISSION MEETING
PC-3s4
Page 11
Mr. Tom. 0lDonnell, representing the Calis, said that the revised plan
was more agreeable to them because the size had been cut down, and while
they were sympathetic to Lincoln Property Co. I s problems they questioned
whether 50% of the office use put on 2 1/2 acres would be beneficial
ultimately. He felt that if the mix was to be changed on the entire
acreage it would be fine, but he could not assume that. There was also
a question of over-allocation Ðf office use on one property, and he hoped
there would be more office use allocated to the Cali property. He also
raised the question of whether the Commission wanted the office use put on
the east or west side of Torre. He urged that the General Plan be complete
shortly, as the present plan left a number of questions unanswered.
Mr. Boone, in clarification, said that their entire 7 acres, and not 2 1/2
acres, was what the allowable office space was based on, and they had
agreed to leave the balance for residential if need be. He explained that
going to 49,000 sq. ft. meant they were able to meet setbacks, height
limitations, landscaping requirements, etc. for the site, and said there
was no intention of going beyond the 2.8 acre site in this mode unless
the General Plan was modified.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy, to close the Public Hearings.
Com. Binneweg
PASSED
5-0
COM. ADAMS inquired of Staff how the development would link up with the
potential improvement of the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek intersection,
and whether it had been considered.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that since Staff had no indication
whetner the City Councilor the Planning Commission wanted to see an
undercrossing at De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek, the Staff Report
was very broad, though the assumption was that the project was well within
the General Plan and would work from an overall point of view. However,
traffic impact had not been studied from the viewpoint of that particular
intersection.
COM. BLAINE observed that traffic was backed up on Rodrigues during the
day, and that, even without these office buildings, there were problems.
She did not believe the Commission would want residential to go on the
west of Torre if the Generar Plan was not changed and the rest of the
site was developed residentially, as Mr. Boone had indicated it would be.
If something had to be approved, she would prefer it to be approved on the
Wést part of the parcel, next to the bank, leaving room on the other side
of Torre for open space.
COM. CLAUDY was sympathetic, as Lincoln Property Co., for a number of
reasons, was the "standard-bearer" but he agreed with Com.. Blaine on the
location.
COM. BINNEWEG felt that Lincoln Property Co. was taking a chance on the
new General Plan, and she was willing to go along with Staff in the matte
Everything was coming ten years too late, and choices had not been
narrowed down enough for the developers, she felt.
.
PC-3s4
Page 12
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. ADAMS wondered if there was a possibility of the City buying the
site in the future, as it would be an asset to the City' and would facilitate expansion.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan could not answer that question, though the
City had already purchased Some property for City center expansion and had
not expressed an interest in this particular property.
COM. ADAMS remarked that an office arrangement around the perimeter of the
Town Center site would have a lot of merit considering the parking and coverage
restrictions.
CHR. KOENITZER regretted that it had not been possible to get the property
owners to work together, probably because the density was too low. He observed
that Mr. Boone's suggestion of 40% coverage on the 32 acre site came to 6/700,000
sq. ft., and he would have to be shown in great detail how the traffic could
be handled, as he did not even know if the traffic generated by 3/400 additional
residences could be handled on that corner; it was already congested. He liked
the building in que'stion, but felt it should be on the corner of Torre and
Rodrigues.
COM. CLAUDY wanted to know Mr. Boone's desires, assuming that the Application
was to be rejected. He advised Mr. Boone that he would have the option of
appealing to City Councilor continuing, and putting the building on the other
side, where it would probably be approved.
Mr. Boone said the would like to reserve the west side for the possible con-
struction of the 80,000 sq. ft. building, which would look consistent, tie in
'aesthetically and allow them to work with the existing grading. If they put
the smaller building on that land they would not have flexibility and would
have used up the land. They had put tremendous time and energy into these
Meetings to try and develop an economically viable plan, and they felt that
the basis on which the restrictions were made was obsolete, in fact, the
City's own traffic studies had shown that residential could generate as much
if not more traffic than office. He stated that the amount of traffic
generated in this project would add approximately 2% to an intersection carry-
ing 40,000 cars per day. He hoped they would not have to move ,the location,
because the more money they could put into the building the better the quality
of the project.
COM. BLAINE observed that M~. Boone had confirmed he was protecting himself,
and that was acceptable if the General Plan was changed, but this could not
be guaranteed, and from the City's point of view, if things did not get
drastically changed, then this would not be good planning. If office space
was to be built on the property now, it had to be on the west side, she felt.
MOTION: Com. Claudy to support the Negative Declaration of the Environmental
Review Committee
SECOND: Com. Blaine
DISCUSSION: There was some concern whether the traffic had been
taken into consideration in the Environmental Review
Committeefs assessment, though the intensity was
matching that originally proposed in the General Plan.
City Attorney Killian advised that the Negative
Declaration could be conditioned to address the concerns
of excesS tr¥ffic.
¡VOTE:
PASSED
5-0
MINUTES
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-3s4
Page 13
Com. Claudy to approve Application 4-Z-8l, rezoning
approximately 8 gross acres from P (Planned Development)
to P (Planned Development with commercial office, and
residential, maximum 30 dwelling units per gross acre intent)
zone, subject to Standard Conditions 1-14, Condition 15,
with Exhibit A modified to delete the specific building,
showing only reciprocal accesses' and other accesses to
Lincoln Property Co. 's property, and Condition 16. Findings
and subconclusions as in the Staff Report.
Com. Bil1.neweg
PASSED 5-0
Com. Claudy to recommend denial of Application 7-U-8l on the
grounds that within the constraints of the present General
Plan it was not in the best interests of the City to locate
the office space east of Torre, leaving the potential for the
residEntial yield of the site to be on the west side of Torre,
and that these should be reversed. Due to the limitations of
the current General Plan, any residential should be reserved
for the east side of Torre Avenue.
Com. Blaine
DENIED 4-1
(Com. Binneweg voting against the motion).
City Attorney Killian advised that if the applicant presented a new plan
at the City Council Meeting he would have to recommend that the Council
send it back to the Planning Commissior unless the wording was changed.
CHR. KOENITZER felt there would be enough planning issues to be resolved,
so that any new plan should come back.
ITEM #5, Applications s-Z-8l and 8-U-8l of CANADA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
CONTINUED one month, until May 11, 1981.
ITEM #6, Application 27-U-79 of MARIUS E. NELSEN: USE PERMIT to operate
a. sandwich shop/delicatessen (with take-out business) occupying approxi-
mately 850 sq. ft. within the 7,700 sq. ft. Doty-Nelsen office building
presently under constructiort and ENV~RONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental
Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The
subject property is located on the northeast corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Mann Drive within the Manta Vista neighborhood. The proper
is zoned P (Planned Development with commercial and incidental industrial
and/or residential intent). First Hearing. Tentative City Council
hearing date: April 20, 1981.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the Use Permit was
required primarily because of the change in parking requirements, and
secondly because it had been initially felt by Staff that there was a
need for a Use Permit to approve the delicatessen, but they had been take
to task by another applicant (Item #11) and after reviewing felt there
was no need to control this type of operation in terms of a Use Permit.
However, there was a requirement that catering operations required Use
Permits, and since Mr. Nelsen was interested in having a side-line
catering operation, this Use Permit could be used to review that phase.
PC-3s4
Page 14
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ÞŒETING
Staff was not concerned about the parking situation, he said, because
Condition 17 gave the Planning Commission the opportunity to review
the operation if there were any complaints due to increased parking demand.
Mr. Marius Nelsen, the applicant, emphasized that the primary aspect of
the business was to be a noontime sandwich shop, and that a take-out or
catering operation was remote at this point.
COM. BLAINE inquired whether he was planning on trade from the building
itself or from the surrounding community.
r. Nelsen replied that both aspects were planned for.
COM. ADAMS wondered whether the gas tanks shown were still there, across from
the prpposed delicatessen.
r. Nelsen advised that in the construction phase the gas tanks had been found
to be badly rusted and had been taken out. There was now a gas tank on the
north side of the parking lot.
COM. ADAMS suggested the Application should be amended accordingly.
Ann Anger, Monta Vista resident, felt that recent applications for Monta
Vista had leaned too much towards office uses and that a delicatessen would
pave the way for other shops, so she was in favor.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, to close the· Public Hearing.
Com. Claudy
PASSED
5-0
COM. BLAINE observed that people would not have to drive to restaurants with
the deli~atessen there, and it would also provide another small area restaurant:
COM. BINNEWEG believed in a strong down-town Manta Vista, so was in favor.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
the Negative Declaration of the Environmental
Com. Blaine, to accept
Review Committee.
Com. Claudy
PASSED
5-0
.
Com. Blaine, to approve Application 27-U-79, revised, subject to
Standard Conditions 1-14, Condition 15 with Exhibit A revised to
show deletion of the indicated existing gas tanks, Condition 16,
17, 18, 19 and 20, with findings and subconclusions as in the
S taf f Report.
Com. C1a~dy
PASSED 5-0
ITEM #7, Application 2-TM-8l of MONTA VISTA PROPERTIES: TENTATIVE MAP to
subdivide .22 gross acres into two parcels equaling 3,600 sq. ft. each to
accommodate two attached single-family homes and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The
project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject
property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately
200 ft. easterly of Byrne Avenue in a P (Planned Development with residential
intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date:
April 20, 1981.
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLMiNING CO~~SSION MEETING
PC-3s4
Page 15
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that this was a follow-up of the
zoning and Use Permit approved last year, and that the Map was dividing
three lots into two.
COM. CLAUDY wanted to know how large the lots were compared with those
to the wes t.
Terry· Brown, applicant, said the lots to the west were slightly larger,
because tney were detached. He had nothing further to add.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy, to close the Bublic Hearing.
Com. Adams
PASSED
5-0
COM. CLAUDY observed that the process of building up new homes in the
Manta Vista area was continuing.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy, to approve Application 2-TM-8l, subject to
Standard Conditions 1-14,. and Condition 15, subject to
findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report.
Com. Adams
PASSED 5-0
ITEM #8, Application 9-U-8l of ARNOLD POPKY: USE PERMIT to construct a
greenhouse which encroaches into the minimum 10 ft. side yard setback and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no
action is required. Said property is located on the west side of Camino
Vista Drive approximately 350 ft. south of Stevens Creek Boulevard at
10145 Camino Vista Drive. The property is zoned Rl-lO (Residential,
Single-Family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone. First Hearing.
Senior Planning Technician\Scott reported that Mr. Popky was requesting
a Use Permit rather than a Variance, which was· more involved, because of
the City's provision in the Single-Family Ordinance for solar-related
additions to De processed in that way. However, there had been a late
develppm~nt, as it nad been found that Mr. Popky would be subject to the
conditions of the Unimproved Street Ordinance, but there was an exception
procedure built in, and she believed Mr. Popky would be requesting the
Commission to waive the street improvement requirements. Staff had no
problems with the request, and it was consistent with the intent of the
City to encourage this type of facility, it was felt.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten stated that street improvement costs would
amount ot approximately $5,000.
City Attorney Killian advised that the Unimproved Street Ordinance was
being redrafted.
Mr. Arnold Popky, the applicant, explained that plans had been put togethe
when ne was still in the County area. He requested an ~xception be made
on the street improvement issue, as it would not be consistent with the
neighborhood.
City Attorney Killian stated that the exception could be granted as
of the Use Permit, and that subsection D of the Ordinance decreed
that unless improvements came to 25% of the net value, the property
be exemp4 so an exception appeared to be unnecessary.
part
would
PC~3s4
Page 16
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. ADAMS requested more detail on the solar heating use of the greenhouse.
The applicant replied that it was to be located on the south wall, collecting
heat to be ducted to the remainder of the house, with shades to be dropped
at night, closing it off to the house. He advised that he was also building a
heating system.
COM. ADAMS wanted to know if an absorption mechanism was being used.
Mr. Popky said he had considered using water drums, but was concerned
about space and algae problems. However, the floor was to be tiled on top
of a concrete pad, giving an absorption mechanism.
COHo BINNEWEG wondered if the reduced setback m~ght impede acess to the back
yard.
Mr. Popky felt
was open.
8 ft. 10 ins. was wide enougb, especially considering it
Mr. Art Musson, 10161 Camino Vista reported that the applicant did not take
care of his house and it was felt in the neighborhood that he would not take
care of the greenhouse, and therefore it would not be in the best interests
of the neighborhood to grant the Application. Being in a side yard, it
woùld be seen from the street and also would be extremely near to one neigh~
bar's backyard. He felt it should be situated in the rear yard, where there
was plenty of space.
Ms. Shirley Hendrickson, Dubon Avenue, said that she would not ordinarily
oppose such a system, but that in this case the greenhouse would he an
eyesore to the neighborhood, and" that the next-door neighbor's pool and
dining room would be affected. She also felt it should be situated in the
rear yard.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy, to close the Public Hearings.
Com. Binneweg
PASSED
5-0
COM. CLAUDY felt that the south side would be the optimum location of the
greenhouse if it was functiqping as a solar system.
COM. ADAMS agreed, but said that it could also be a flat design of a
certain square footage, allowing air to pass through, so he was presuming
it was a combination greenhouse/solar collector. This mode was a little
costly, he felt, but would work.
COM. BINNEWEG pointed out that there could be a heat loss if the house was
not sufficiently insulated.
COM. ADAMS asked the applicant if he had had engineering help on the project.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, to re-open the Public Hearings.
Com. Adams
PASSED
5-0
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-3s4
Page 17
The applicant stated that he had been in the heating and air conditioning
business, and that the greenhouse had auxiliary shading and venting systems
and was a standard Lord and Burnham greenhouse.
COM. ADAMS enquired if he had started before being annexed to the City.
Mr. Popky replied that he had, and had not got word of the
until December, by wnich time all the plans had been drawn
architect who had been 14 inches off in his measurements.
the greenhouse was also intended to be a room.
annexa t ion
up by the
He stated that
COM. BLAINE asked if the applicant was not really extending his house into
the side setback by 14 inches.
Mr. Popky replied that he was.
Ms. Hendrickson,.who håd owned the house in question at one time, pointed
out that the sun shone on the back of the family room as well as it did on
the side, and that she would disagree on the best location of the solar
unit. If it was a solar system, she thought, it could be situated on the
roof.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearings.
Com. Binneweg
PASSED
5-0
COM. ADAMS did not see anything technically wrong and felt the location
was the best.
COM. BLAINE acknowledged that the south side was best, but felt that if
solar heating was the object there were many other arrangements. She felt
it to be a misuse of the Ordinance, as this ,was really a room addition to
the house.
CHR. KOEN1TZER questioned whether it was a genuine solar heating attempt,
or one to qualjfy for benefits under solar energy rules.
COM. CLAUDY felt the applicant had hurt his case by not having technical
details to hand.
.
City Attorney Killian advised that the applicant could appeal, come back
with a variance request or reduce his plans by 14 inches and build with
a permit only.
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Adams, for denial of Application 9-U-8l, on the basis it was
predominantly a usage of a large room addition to the existing
structure, and the applicant had not shown the solar utilization
advantages sufficiently.
Com. Blaine
DENIED 5-0
MOTION:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PC-3s4
Page 18
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
clEW BUSINESS:
ITEM #9, D. Christensen - Request for modification of the front yard setback
area definition specified in Section 5.21 of the Rl Ordinance. The proposed
modification would apply to a parcel of land located on the west side of Mt.
Crest Drive, approximately 100 ft. southerly of Linda Vista Drive,' in an
Rl-22 zoning district. .
Senior Planning Technician Scott explained that the applicant wanted a
different definition of wnere the setbacks should be on his property than
was in the City Ordinance. She described the location and established that
there was to be a joint driveway with the existing home to the east.
She oriented the Commission to the topography of the area, as it had a
bearing on the Application, in that a steep slope rose up to the property, further
rising to the west and dropping steeply to the north with the easterly
section being level terrain.
She stated that the Single Family Ordinance definition required that the
front yard area be parallel to a public street, which in his case meant
that the eastern property line, parallel to Mt. Crest Drive, would define
the front setback area. However, Mr. Christensen was requesting that
the northern portion of the property be defined as the front yard area,
to enable him to have greater coverage on the level eastern portion of the
site, thereby avoiding grading. She pointed out that the Single Family
Ordinance allowed for such a change, providing that it did not impaïr the
rights of adjoining property owners and also enhanced them, and Staff had
determined that though the request would not have much effect on the northerly
and easterly property owners, it would help the property owner to the south
by providing a greater second floor setback.
There was some discussion on how to define the front of a flag lot, as
an updated copy of the Ordinance was not to hand.
Senior Planning Technician Scott said that over the years Staff had disre-
garded the setbacks along the flag portion, and that the main portion of the
site only should be examined in defining the front yard area.
COM. BLAINE thought there should be an exception in a case like this,as the
front of the house was facing the driveway and turnaround, so that the front
yard should be in that loca~ion.
Dan Christensen, the applicant, had nothing to add, but that the most harmonious
use of the land and view would be attained, and that otherwise extensive and
expensive grading would be required.
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy, to adopt the
in memorandum of April 8,
Com. Blaine
PASSED
Model Resolution as set forth by Staff
1981.
MOTION:
5-0
ITEM #10, James Liu - Request for an interpretation of the definition of take-
out restaurant uses.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan alluded to the prior Nelsen Application*
in which there had been confusion on the concept of a take-out food establish-
* See page 13
,-
MINUTES APRIL 13" 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC=354
Page 19
ment. He explained that in the past Staff had required Use Permits and re-
view for operations considered to be take-out, but had not been consistent,
and wanted to utilize this request to adopt a Resolution, defining which
types of food preparation establishments required a Use Permit, and which
did not.
City Attorney Killian thought that, as it· was an interpretation of a zoning
ordinance, City Council should make the final decision, as the Ordinance
was being substantially enlarged, but that the Commission could pass a
Resolution with a Minute Order that it go to City Council in Ordinance form.
COM. ADAMS wondered whether Stàff's interpretation of "primarily for home
consumption and carry-out" was more than half of the business.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it was, and that a Permit was needed
in such cases because fast food operations tended to generate more traffic
and trash, but that this was an old stereotype of the industry.
CHR. KOENITZER observed that one reason for requiring a Use Permit was to
look at such problems which differed from operation to operation.
COM. BLAINE agreed, and thought smells might also be a problem.
COM. ADAMS asked City Attorney Killian, as a permit was not required in a
general commercial zone, would the City have any recourse?
City Attorney Killian replied that it would not, except in the case of a
public nuisance being created or other ordinances being violated.
COM. ADAMS wondered if the Resolution would save Staff a lot of time.
Assistant Planning Director confirmed that it would, but suggested that if
the Commission had qualms, Staff could initiate a Public Hearing to examine
some definitions. In the case of Mr. Liu, he felt a delicatessen was not
strictly a restaurant, as food was prepared to take home to eat, and a Use
Permit should not be required.
COM. CLAUDY pointed out that food could be taken outside and eaten, and
wondered whether Use Permits should be required for all restaurants.
.
It was established that the delicatessen was to be established in a Planned
Development area, and it was suggested that Staff check the allowances to
see whether it would fall within the category not requiring a Use Permit.
There was some discussion on whether a delicatessen was a restaurant or not.
CHR. KOENITZER thought the Commission ought to look at the entire spectrum
of food services to define categories and differences between fast food and take-out.
COM. ADA}ffi observed that City Attorney Killian should be involved, as it
could mean a change in interpretation of the Ordinance.
MOTION: Com. Blaine, to send a MINUTE ORDER to Staff to request them
to work on clarification of fast food and take-out food in
the City Ordinances relative to Use Permits.
SECOND: Com. Claudy
VOTE:
PASSED
5-0
PC-3s4 ~rrNUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 20
Senior Planning Technician Scott asked the Commission's advice on an
application that had been made in the past week to put a doughnut shop
with 40 seats in a shopping center, provided the parking requirements
could be met.
COM. CLADDY advised that this was a restaurant, because of the seating.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
COM. CLAUDY reported on the Hayor's lunch, the most significant point
being that the City was to study providing police and fire services.
The new City Manager of Saratoga was interested in a joint study, he
said, though a joint service agreement had not been defined. Mr. Quinlan,
Cupertino City Manager, had said that further consideration would only
be given if the study showed that the same level of service could be
obtained for less money or greater service for the same money.
COM. BLAINE brought up the subject of the Zoning Map not being changed
to reflect the General Plan, and wondered what process was needed to
achieve this, as it was very confusing for the layman.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked if it would be acceptable that the
zoning be within range of the General Plan, as every time the zoning was
~hanged everyone had to be notified, and there had to be a limit on noticing.
COM. BLAINE pointed out that everyone had to be noticed for the General Plan
and the zoning could be rioticea at the sàme time.
City Attorney Killian advised that it could not be done that way.
COM. BLAINE wondered if a Planning Meeting might have some room to start
applying the General Plan to the Zoning ~~p for specific areas.
The Commissioners agreed with this suggestion, particularly with regard to
undeveloped or under-developed sites.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested that a Map and a short Staff
Report could be prepared to describe all areas of the City inconsistent with
the General Plan, and that maybe which areas should and should not get PD
(Planned Development) zoning should be discussed.
City Attorney Killian brought up a related issue in that Cupertino had changed
its Zoning La'!,v so that areas annexed from San Jose could retain 'the same zoning
as San Jose, and that it had always been Staff's intention to rezone them. He
felt that this issue could be examined at the same time.
COM. BLAINE wondered if there was a way, when changing zonings on the General
Plan, to have the Hearings for the Zoning and the General Plan at the same
time, so that the Zoning Map could be changed,as there had been the proper
type of Hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that until a couple of months ago
this would not have been pessible, but that he would research the matter.
MINUTES APRIL 13, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION }\EETING
PC-354.
Page 21
CHR. KOENITZER announced that it was time for the election of Officers.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it would be put on the Agenda for
the next Meeting.
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported on the status of the General
Plan, and said that Staff ì1ad got beyond exploring circulation improve-
ments and costs involved with them, and were now testing improvements on
a higher and lower intensity Plan. Valco Park wanted to build approximat ly
2 million square feet of office and 300,000 square feet of commercial,
and high intensity d~velopment was beginning to shift down into northern
Santa Clara County; it was going to be a big issue, he felt.
COM. BLAINE expressed her approval of what Staff was doing.
COM. ADAMS observed that the Commission was being forced, because of
inflation and the cost and non-availability of land, to consider allowing
more intense development, and that he did not think it was the right way
to go.
COM. CLAUDY felt it would also contribute to inflation.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that Staff had interviewed
economic consultants on how 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in Valco
would affect the Crossroads, etc., and would give a written report to the
Planning Commission at the next Meeting~
He reported on an informal interview with the Department of HouBing and
Community Development on the City's Housing Element, that the element
had been favored from the point of view of content and intent, but that
some statistical information was lacking. He said that a formal letter
was to be received within the next week, and that Planning Director Sisk
would write a memorandum to ask that the Element be amended to be consis-
tent with the 1977 guidelines. He advised that the Element had to be
amended by October 1st so that Staff would be able to work under those
guidelines, and they would prefer to do this, rather than having to
meet the new guidelines.
MEETING ADJOURNED
11:45 P.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
~ 4:p-.
Cit Clerk