Loading...
PC 02-09-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-350 Page 1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Chairman Adams Binneweg Blaine Claudy Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of September 10, 1980 were approved after the following corrections: Page 12, first sentence, delete "an element". Page 6, third paragraph, third sentence change to read "There were plans this year to intercoanect the signals on de Anza Boulevard from Homestead to Bollinger". SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams that the Minutes of September 10, 1980 be approved as corrected. Com. Blaine Passed 4-1 MOTION: - Com. Claudy abstaining, since he was not present at the Meeting. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 29, 1980 were approved after the following corrections: Page 5, fifth paragraph, "10/12 units" should read, 1110/20 units". Page 8, second paragraph, third line, "needed to" should read IIcould". Page 12, third paragraph, "Murray 01 Shea" should read "Maurice O'Shea". SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams that the llinutes of September 29, 1980 be approved as corrected. Com. Claudy Passed 4-1 MOTION: Com. Binneweg abstaining, since she was not present at the Meeting. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1981 were approved after thp following corrections: Page 4, second paragraph, third to last word was a typographical error, and should read II as a". Page 12, last paragraph was to be struck from the record. PC-350 Page 2 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy that the Minutes of January 12, 1981 be approved as corrected. Com. Blaine Passed 5-0 MOTION: POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS ITEM #6, Application 3l-U-80 of HELEN E. LOPEZ had been permanently with- drawn, at the applicant's request. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chr. Koenitzer welcomed the new member of the Commission, Nancy Binneweg. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1, Application 24-TM-80 of HMH, INCORPORATED: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately .7 of an acre into two parcels equaling approximately 10,800 square feet and 17,600 square feet. The subject property is located on the southwest side of Crescent Road (across from Amelia Court) approximately 500 feet northerly of Stevens Creek Bøulevard in a Rl-lO (Residential, Single- family, 10,000 square feet minimum lot size) zoning district. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 17, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki showed the exhibits relating to the application. There was an existing dwelling on the back parcel, parcel 2,and the application excluded a parcel known as Guthrie. There was a 20 ft. flag connection from parcel 2 out to Crescent Road, and access to the building on parcel 2 was gained over a 20 ft easement. The applicant had prepared illustrations showing how he wanted to eventually bring a driveway from this access into a garage to be built in front of the existing building. The present building was non-conforming due to a setback of only 3 ft. and height of 3 storeys, and was built under County jurisdiction. It was the opinion that the non-conformance would not pre-empt a garage, if detached. Staff suggested that access to the property continue to be off a 20 ft. driveway. Even though the applicant had proposed a driveway for parcel 2, emergency access would have to come off the back. Extensive retaining wall work would be required on the driveway. Staff was requesting that the lot line between parcels 1 and 2 be shifted to en- large the size of parcel 2, giving a more logical shape and ~ize for the parcel. Some slides on the property, existing buildings, garage structure, and Guthrie property were snown. COM. BLAINE asked wnat would happen to the specimen trees if the boundary line was shifte~. Associate specimen. asked. Planner Piasecki said that only Staff had asked that the trees several peppers might be considered be identified; the applicant might be COM. CLAUDY inquired if the existing building was constructed legally. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLM,NING COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 3 Associate Planner Piasecki answered that he presumed it was, but had to do some research witn the County. COM. CLADDY was sure the County had never had 3 ft. setbacks; he was presuming it was for the rear of the building. COM. BINNIWEG wondered how the City had handled the subdivision to the West when it had been approved in 1978/79, being so close. Associate Planner Piasecki said it had been accepted as an existing condition. CHR. KOENITZER wanted to know where the sidewalks would be constructed on Crescent Road, as it was the only access from Sunnyview Manor and westerl to Varian Park. Assistant City Engineer Whitten stated that because of an agreement made with the neighborhood prior to annexation of the area, sidwalks and street lighting would probably not be installed. CHR. KOENITZER strongly believed that sidewalk on one side was needed for safe access to the park, particularly on a curvey street such as this. COM. ADAMS: established that even though the building was within 3 ft. of the lot line and was an existing, non-conforming structure, if a detached garage was requested, there would be no recourse to have any changes made to the existing structure. Associate Planner Piasecki confirmed this and said applicant intended to remodel the structure, but would not add to the square footage, so changes would not have to be made. COM. ADAMS observed that he did not want to see it come back for a variance request because this one had passed tonighta COM. BLAINE said that one of the reasons Staff wanted to enlarge the smaller parcel was so tnere would be room for a detached garage. COM. CLAUDY noted another aspect, that there was now a presumably legal non-conforming building on a .7 acre lot The smaller parcel would still have a non-conforming building on it with very inadequate setbacks. He was concerned about putting the Commission's stamp of approval on the building as it existed now on an even smaller lot, and felt this aspect should be discussed after the applicant had been heard. COM. BINNIWEG felt that when annexing from the County there were many non conforming situations, and Cupertino must allow some lattitude in this case, as the property was already hemmed in on the back and the building could not be moved. Mr. Ned Parsons of HMH Engineering,representing the applicant, said generally they concurred with the recommendations, except that some clari- fication of the general conditions was needed. In their discussions with the Public Works Department, it was indicated that they might be faced PC-350 Page 4 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING with the improvement of the Guthrie property. They would be happy to participate in an improvement program,but wanted to go on record as opposing improvement of the Guthrie piece over which they had no control. With respect to condition 17, adjustment of the common lot line, he drew attention to the subdivision to the west and the rear southerly two lots which had been approved , fairly similar in type to the proposed lots. The configuration of the parcel was completely inherited, purchase with the panhandle as a part to serve as access to a garage. They concurred that the access along the cul-de-sac should remaln for fire protection but had no control over the non- conformance aspect of the proposal. Mr. Magranet intended to modify the roof line to make the structure architecturally more pleasing, and adjusting the lot line would allow the garage structure to remain during construction on parcell. It would ultimately be removed. CHR. KOENITZER called for comments from staff on the matter of Guthrie property improvements. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said it had merely been pointed out to the applicant that some improvements might be required on the Guthrie frontage, under the unimproved street ordinance. Improvement plans for the other frontage would have to be seen before it was known if they would be required. CHR. KOENITZER agreed with the applicant, that he wanted to know definitely, and questioned whether he should be asked to improve another property. Generally, the cases for off-site improvement had been where there was some material benefit to the applicant. There would be none in this case. Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that it was not an uncommon requirement, and the applicant could finalize the street improvement plans prior to going to City Council. Staff's concern was that if the area was graded back on parcell it might require some additional work on the Guthrie frontage. COM. CLAUDY inquired if the Guthrie property owners had signed an agreement. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said they had not, and it would mean asking them for a dedication. COM. CLAUDY suggested modifying the 14 standard conditions, as it was unfortunate that a developer was left with the question of what he had to do. MOTION: SECOND: ¡¡OTE: Com. Adams that the Public Hearing be closed Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 COM. CLAUDY was in favor of moving the lot line to give the frontage a reasonable setback. He did not think the garage on parcell would have to be removed immediately upon the filing of the map. CHR. KOEN~TZER suggested connecting the northwest point of the Guthrie property with the corner of toe easement by means of a straight line across. COM. ADAMS wanted a clarification of condition 17. Was the ground area under the building included in parcel 2 square footage? MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO!1MISSION MEETING lIC- 350 Page 5 Associate Planner Piasecki said it was, and Staff had only wanted to exclude the 20 ft. flag. COM. CLAUDY did not know that it was necessary to increase the useable ar a to 10,000 square feet, but the idea of drawing a line straight across the corner to Guthrie was a good one. COM. BLAINE asked where Staff was planning on drawing the line to get 10,000 square feet. Associate Planner Piasecki indicated this on the exhibit, and said the intent was only to get the functional part of the lot up to 10,000 square feet minimum. COM. CLAUDY wondered how many square feet were in the flag when construc- ting a flag lot in a 7,500 square feet zone. Was it not the total size of the lot, not the useable lot? He was trying to make a point. CHR: KOENITZER said it was. COM. BLAINE saw it that the question to be decided was how much more was necessary to have adequate setbacks. COM. BINNEWEG wondered what Staff felt would be acceptable. Associate Planner Piasecki said that 20 ft. would be preferable to give the minimum front yard setback normally applied. COM. BLAINE established that 20 would be approximately the diagonal from the Guthrie property to the point of the flag. CHR. KOENITZER said that it certainly seemed to meet the suggestions. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy that the Public Hearing be reopened to allow the applicant to comment. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MOTI ON : Mr. Parsons said he believed Mr. Magranet would have no objection to drawing the diagonal line, and that the line would increase the lot area by approximately 850 square feet. cml. ADA/IS suggested tllat if the application was to be approved, conditi n 17 be reworded to say "the use able area on parcel 2 to be increased by approximately 850 square feet by shifting the lot lines between parcels 1 and 2" and leave it up to Staff and the applicant to draw the line and fix the tentative map. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Carn. Claudy to close the Public Hearings Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 PC-350 Page 6 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. KOENITZER mentioned the matter of sidewalks again, saying that already two developments had been permitted on that side that did not have sidewalks. COM. BLAINE wanted to know if parking was permitted on Crescent. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said there was no prohibition, though the pavement was only 20/22 feet wide. However, there was shoulder on both sides. COM. BINNEWEG wondered what improvement would go in on the curb and shoulder. CUR. KOENITZER said it would be paved to the full wid th of the street with curb and gutter. MOTION: Com. Adams to approve 2l-TM-80, subject to conditions 1-16, condition 17 as modified in prior discussions, and condition 18. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM #2, Application 25 TM 80 of MICHAEL MAGRANET (HMH, INC.): TENTATIVE MAP to consolidate two parcels consisting of approximately .2 of an acre into one parcel and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the south side of Cupertino Road approximately 600 ft. easterly of Foothill Boulevard in a Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 17, 1981. Planning Director Sisk explained that this represented an elimination of an older lot line with tne intent of allowing remodelling permits to be issued. It was a relatively straightforward application, and the owner was proposing to meet all standard conditions. Ned Parsons, Hl1H on behalf of Mr. Magranet, said he had no comments unless there were any questions. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams that Public Hearings be closed. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy to recommend 1-15, as outlined in the Com. Blaine PASSED approval of 25 TM 80 subject to conditions Staff Rerport. MOTION: 5-0 ITEN 113, Applications 50-Z-80 and 33-U-80 of LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY N.C., INC.: REZONING approximately 4.5 acres from P (Planned Development) to P (Planned Development with commercial and office use intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct Rn office building equaling approximately 82,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Rodrigues Avenue and Torre Avenue across from Cupertino City Hall. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 2,1981. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGUlAR PLANNING COHMISSION HEETlNG PC-350 Page 7 Associate Planner Piasecki explained the location, building size, etc., using the exhibits. The Staff Report contained several concerns of Staff. He had passed out copies of the General Plan section pertaining to the Town Center, which stipulated that other things must happen in the area. There had to be an overall or "bubble" plan developed for the area, showing the inter-relationship of properties so that one could develop independently of the others, and under the present General Plan, the square footage of the conunercial and office uses \,¡ithin the entire Town Center property should not exceed 250,000 square feet. Applied to the 32 or so acres not designated for residential use, this was an· 18% building to land area ratio, which was a low coverage, allowing approximately 7,000 square feet per acre. This proposal had a ratio of 40/45% building to land area. Technically, it was not inconsistent with the stipulation in the General Plan, but Staff felt it to be inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan, which they presumed was to expand the allowable building area over the entire 32 acres, giving each property owner a similar building coverage. Imminent General Plan hearings regarding land uses in the Core might lead to intensification, but until those hearings were resolved, it was not known if the traffic system could handle that intensity of de- velopm~n t. CHR. KOENITZER said he recalled when the expansion of Northern California Savings and Loan was permitted a driveway on their northern boundary was to be integrated with the Town Center development at some future time. That was not indicated here. Associate Planner Piasecki said that Staff had not been involved in an in- depth evaluation of the site plan. If it was the Commission's wish to approve the proposal, Staff would suggest a continuance to allow time to prepare detailed conditions. Mr. Burch Boone, Lincoln Property Co., Foster City, said it was hard to know wheré to begin 'iY'ith a project of this size. He was here to see what the Commission and the Council would like on the site. He felt that 18% coverage on a site of this nature was uneconomical for the type of develop- ment, and was not consistent with most projects approved in Cupertino to date. In today's market, for a project to support itself and to be attrac- tive and aesthetically pleasing, 33/35% coverage was needed. The 250,000 square feet would be generous if 400 to 500 residential units could be added also, so that the constraint left a big unknown. It had been suggested that the property owners get together and agree on a shift in the useage of the property, somebody taking residential, commercial and office. However, the property was divided into three owners and the timing for those owners was unknown. Lincoln Properties had the highest carrying costs, so were anxious to get something approved and constructed as soon as possible. One of the things to look at in a project of this type was, from a sequenti 1 standpoint, when should it go and how should it be incorporated into the Master Plan. The City was going through a Master Plan review, and rather than not knowing what developers might present, Lincoln Properties wanted to give input on what they would be willing to do, could afford to do, what problems and solutions, to make this an acceptable development. PC 350 P-'!Ee 8 HINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMM~SSION MEETING He had been coming to Hearings centered around traffic for the past 6/8 months. Town Center being developed out was a major concern. This project dealt with about 80,000 square feet of office, which meant approximately 320 cars would park on the site, with about 1,000 trips in an out on a daily basis. The Stevens Creek/De Anza Boulevard intersection had about a 40,000 per day trip count average, so the project would be contributing 2/2.1/2% to this. To wait for all solutions would be very time-consuming and costly for them to carry, and they were trying to get a reading from the Commission on the timing, when the General Plan would be completed, and were also looking for alternatives. Should they apply for something smaller now, hoping to get it approved, or wait and work with the City to come up with a solution that was acceptable and econmmically viable. They wanted to work with the City, with a commitment that it would not be a long time coming to a con- clusion, especially not a negative conclusion. The Commissioners felt that it would be at least six months until the General Plan changes were approved. C8R. KOENITZER called upon Mr. Alf Modine of the Goals Committee to give his comments on the p~oposal. Mr. Madine established that he was at the Meeting as an individual, and not to represent the Goals Committee. It was his feeling that high density resiðpntial at this particular location was not favored by citizens, and he felt residents did not want to look at multi-story residential buildings, but if offices were placed near the present residential, graduating to residential the other way, it would probably be more acceptab'le. It looked very impressive at this stage and he would speak in favor of it as an individual. COM. ADAÞ!S asked Mr. Boone if he had been in contact with the other owners, and whether he could divulge any information on the subject. Mr. Boone said he had met with Jason Chardier and Mr. Ed Cali before the property had been purchased. He had a basic plan showing the residential units of May Co. and how their office building would relate to those. He had talked in general terms with Mr. Cali, and he knew Mr. Cali had been approached by a number of developers, but with the densities presently allo- cated, they fnund it difficult to justify any market value to the land. COM. ADAMS asked Mr. Boone whether he saw what he had presented as fulfilling the General Plan requirements for sharing the overall possible development of commercial, and how it would all be integrated. Mr. Boone presented three exhibits showing several approaches and different uses for various locations. He said this was basically to show how their building might relate to landscaped areas, pedestrian walkways, how traffic might flow, and things of that nature. COM. CLAUDY said he was beginning to believe that the 18% coverage factor was not economically viable, and asked if Lincoln Properties were hoping for the densities to be, perhaps, doubled. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 9 Mr. Boone replied that to be viable, this was correct. The question would be, could some residential go in, in addition to the 250,000 square feet of commercial. COM. CLAUDY said that permitting residential on the west side of Torre had been discussed, but the intention had not been, for instance, to let 20 acres of it go residential and put 250,000 square feet of office space in the remaining 12 acres. It was a problem that the ownership on the west of Torre was divided between Lincoln Properties and a number of different combinations of Cali family owners. lie did not know what questions to ask; obviously this was not even near a decision point. He felt that Mr. Boone did not really expect a decision now. Mr. Boone agreed on this point. As to the economics, if it was all to go to office, the use would have to be pretty intense for the project to be developed. A quality development was required, and as the density was cut down, the developer had to cut somewhere, and would have to cut on the quality of the project. With the exception of not meeting the density requirements they had met all others. The one thing this project did not meet was the City's requirement that 250,000 square feet be divided up among the property owners. CHR. KOENITZER observed that many things expected to happen ten years ago had not happened. It was thought at that time that landowners might join forces for bigger parcels to produce better developments, but that had not happened in cases like Town Center. Changes might be made to accommodate the fact, but they would take at least six months. COM. CLAUDY asked Mr. Boone if he could share any market survey type information he had developed with the Commission. Mr. Boone said that one of the people most active in that market today was Brad Lyman of Cornish and Carey. He was at the Meeting and CQuld give a brief run-do~1 of what was happening in the Cupertino area, marketwise, to give the Commission an idea of why this was felt to be an economically viable project. COM. BLAINE felt that the time to have this type of input would be at the General Plan discussions. Her inclination was to advise Mr. Boone to take a continuance until the General Plan had been dealt with, helping the Commission by bringing his input to those discussions which she could not promise would be finished in less than six months. The Commission needed all the help it could get in this matter. The idea of having the property developed piecemeal was not comfortable to her. It had to be planned together and integrated. Mr. Boone mentioned that they had already gone past their deadline because ~ tremendous amount of time had been allocated to the traffic hearings. With interest rates at 20/25% they were very concerned. He felt maybe they should go right now with anything they could get, hoping to make it work economically. He did not think, however, that this was in anyone's best interest. COM. CLAUDY ventured that what would help Lincoln Properties most was(l) to come up with good market data to justify the demand for the density, pc- 350 Page 10 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING and (2) to get together ""ith the Cali family owners and plan an integrated whole, even if that was only a bubble plan. Mr. Boone observed that, with the constraints, there was little incentive for the Calis to do anything. How many developers would be willing to take the gamble. If the City could give some potential encouragement, that the restrictions could very well be lifted if some problems were solved, it would help. COM. CLAUDY said tha t if Hr. Boone could show how making these changes would lead to a good development, the City would probably go along. Mr. Albert Ruffo, Attorney. representing the Cali family, said they were not opposed to the development. The constraints expressed by Mr. Boone were the same as they had to contend with. They were not opposed to the proposed density, and just wanted to express that if the density was increased on the property before the Commission tonight it should be increased propor~ tionately on the Cali property. This would mean the land coverage would be approximately 40%, and if increased at the same rate, the Cali property would accommodate 473,781 square feet, the proposal this evening having 82,000 square feet. He had past experience in planning,building by building,and had found it very difficult, even when under one ownership. He had also had experience in taking land under several owners and trying to convince them that if all the property was put together maybe something could be done. This was an almost impossible task, he had found. In this particular case, the restriction imposed, being planned conceptually as a whole, was a big problem. It was theoretically very desirable, but from a practical standppint was very difficult. It was desirable that there be a discourse between the property owners, but it was difficult under the present constraints. He felt if there was some elasticity and direction, the property could be developed. COM. ADAMS commented that he would rather hold on any decision until the environmental impact report was completed and make an assessment at that time. Associate Planner Piasecki asked the applicant if he was in favor of a continuance, and how long would be agreeable. Mr. Boone felt that the most important things were to get some sort of time frame for the General Plan and a reaction to the plan as submitted. COM. BLAINE said she did not want to comment on any of the plans without some information on the viability of increased density, etc. The General Plan hearings would be the time to get that type of input. Mr. Boone thought he could at least prepare economically. From a planning side he wanted to know if it was inconsistent or not, did the Commission like it 0::: not, what should be changed. They did not want to wait until the General Plan had been changed to start work, and also did not want the Commission to work in a vacuum, perhaps coming up with a plan that was unworkable for them. So they needed the feedback to come up with something which reflected the Commissions suggestions and input. COM. BLAINE felt it was important that the project relate to the property to the north, as it should be an integrated whole. It was a large piece of property very important to the community and was a focal point. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9 1981 REGULAR PLANNONG COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 11 COM. ADAMS agreed with the integration aspect, and also felt it had to be sure that the right thing was being put in the center of the town. COM. BINNEWEG said that from her experience on the Architectural and Site Control Committee, she could not say there were very many people who considered this the center of town. A large piece of property like this had a lot of potential, but she had seen what the owners had been put through to get started. As far as integrating to the north, it would be better to integrate to the south, which was already developed. COM. CLAUDY said that arcnitecturally it needed to be integrated with buildings to the south, but to the north the physical integration of driveways, curb cuts, pedestrian passages, etc., was the type of integrati n that would be important, as was the land use itself, whether hotel, motel, residential or commercial. It was difficult to give feedback on planning, because the economics of th property and the traffic were going to be the biggest factors in deter- mining.what was to be done in Town Center. Nr. Boone wanted advice on what he could do in the meantime to expedite the matter. Processing consumed an inordinate amount of time. Maybe he could do economic studies, for instance. CHR. KOENITZER stated that the concern, basically, was the De Anza/ Stevens Creek corner. Everyone went through it, and the development aroun that corner had to be something special. Also, if the De Anza underpass was developed, the driveways would have to supply the entrances and exits for the entire development, which would mean complete integration. He could not see how the General Plan process could be completed in less than six months and probably nine, because it was hoped to get significant input from the citizens. With regard to coverage, did it have to he 40%7 What were the trade offs and options? These had to be considered, together with the results of the traffic studies being done, in public hearings before the question of land use and size of development could be answered. The buildings looked nice, but would still look nice if they were smaller, though it might not be economical. At this time, a decision could not be made, nor many guidelines supplied. COM. ADAMS felt that Mr. Boone had obviously surveyed the office and comm- ercial type needs and densities and this data, if available, would be useful to Staff and the Commission in the future. COM. BLAINE advised Hr. Boone to keep in contact with Staff to see what questions would be raised, so that he could prepare along the same lines. Discussions would center around whether the Town Center had been pre-empte in its intended uses by other areas of town, and also if there was need for those types of uses or not. She felt that the broad concept of what Town Center was might very well be changed. CHR. KOENITZER asked Mr. Boone if he would take a six month continuance on the application. PC-350 Page 12 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Boone stated that he would at least like to go tb the Council with the same presentation, mainly for informational purposes, to Fet feed- back and to bring to everyone's notice that they were there, to say this was what they wanted to see and why they wanted to see the property go to the use they were asking for. A discussion ensued on the best way to do this, and whether there were grounds for denial so that the applicant would have the right to go to Council. Assistant City Attorney Foley pointed out one option, to ask City Council to impose a moratorium on the 50-acre site, which might be very apprpriate under the circumstances. COM. BINNEWEG asked if there was any way to nullify the attitude of all for one and one for all regarding keeping the 50 acres together. In this day and age of economics, it seemed ridiculous to have millions of dollars tied up like this. Planning Director Sisk explained that one issue holding everything up was how the 250,000 square feet should be distributed. However, legally some- one might push for the use of one particular property. These kinds of things were going to be discussed in great depth in the coming months. I1r. Boone had a thought that they might withdraw the application tonight an come back with the smaller building only, which would fall within the 18% coverage ratio. Then they could wait to see what happened with the General Plan. COM. CLAUDY pointed out that Vallco Park had done the same thing at the last hearing. CHR. KOENITZER asked Mr. Boone if he could like to do this. The hearing could be continued for a month to give time for a corrected application for the 48,000 square feet. COM. BLAINE pointed out that Mr. Boone would still need to come in with the conceptual development plan for the entire property. Planning Director Sisk said it would probably get down to things such as accesst making provisions for joining driveways and parking lotst etc. COM. BLAINE said the commission would then be accepting the fact that the conceptual plan said the offices would be spread out equitably, which might not be wanted wì1en the General Plan hearings were completed. That was the problem. Mr. Boone thougl1t that the process of changing the master plan would go on as the property developed. In this day and age and this market it might very well change a year or two from now. He could not see the entire 50 acres bei~b developed at one timet or there would be a glut on the market and problems among the developers, so it made sense for him to do as he had suggested and withdraw the application to come in with the smaller building, and hope that someday icnreased intensity would be allowed on the adjacent site. COM. CLAUDY asked Planning Director Sisk if a new application would have to be filed. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING CO~!MISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 13 Planning Director Sisk said it would, and also another set of fee'S would be needed, as money had been spent to put the notice in the newspaper,etc. CHR. KOENITZER listed three possibilities for Mr. Boone (1) if he would like to get it to Council the Commission could take action now, and indications were it would be a denial, or (2) he could ask for a continuance to decide what to do, or (3) he could ask for a continuance for at least six months, in which time the General Plan Hearings might be finished. Mr. Boone decided he would withdraw the application for 82,000 square feet and come back with an application for the smaller building, as they were asking for a disproportionate allocation of the 250,000 square feet, and wanted to work together with Mr. Cali. A project of that size was still just viable. THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE APPLICATION. ITEM #4, Application 2l-U-76 (Revised) of UNITED CABLE TELEVISION OF CUPERTINO, INC.: USE PERMIT to construct a cable television facility including an 80 ft. television tower and several receiving "dishesll equal- ing approximately 24 ft. high and ENVIRON~ŒNTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recornnlends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of Mary Avenue just south of the intersection with Meteor Drive within the City's Corporation Yard, in a BA (Public Building) zoning district. First Hearing. Associate Planner Piasecki indicatèd that the location of the proposed facility was sketched in the upper northwest corner. It was 300 feet from Casa de Anza condomimiums and 500 feet plus from Nathanson Ranch area. An aerial photograph showed the proposed location. Cable Televisio wanted an 80 ft. high receiving tower with a 10 ft. dish on the top, and three separate dishes of 6/7 meters in diameter. He outlined the existing P.G. & E. tower of approximately 125 ft. which would exceed the height of the television tower. As viewed from Casa de Anza, the tower should get lost in the area, though it would be visible from some homes. He showed aerial slides on the relationship of the tower to the surrounding neigh- borhood and freeway, pointing out where the proposed landscaping would help in screening. CRR. KOENITZER called upon Assistant City Engineer Whitten to report on the landscaping for the City yard. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that originally there had been a conceptual plan done for the overall site development of the Corporation yard. Phase 1 had been completed two years ago with the administration building and the second phase would be out to contract prior to the end of June, including a storage building along the southern side next to the Casa de Anza condominiums, additional paving and landscaping of the southe ly fence. Access would be from the northerly side. COM. BLAINE inquired when the landscaping would go in, and what the setbac for the building was. PC-350 Page 14 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~NING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant City Engineer Whitten said or the landscaping would be damaged. the buildings would have to go in first, The setback was 25/30 feet. CHR. KOENITZER was concerned about the landscaping on the southerly boundary. COM. CLAUDY commented that it sounded very much like the City Staff was trying to get the applicant to put in the landscaping the City should already have put in. Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that Staff was only asking for a portion, and it was probably negotiable as far as cost between the City and United Cable. Planning Director Sisk supposed that if the City never built the buildings, but United Cable put the towers up, there should still be some screening of the towers, A discussion followed regarding how much landscaping the City was putting in and .where it would be. CHR. KOENITZER felt that for phase 2 of the Corporation yard the southerly boundary should be landscaped entirely. COM. CLAUDY was also concerned to see no plans for additional screening along the freeway to help shield the lower antennas from the freeway. COM. BLAINE felt Casa de Anza was the concern. John Cribb, Manager of United Cable ia Cupertino, th~ught the presentation gave a fair representation of the project after a few clarifications. The area indicated by the red line was larger than the area they would use, though the area as identified on the drawings was correct. They wished to go on record as opposing the requirement that United Cable place the row of trees on the southerly border, and felt it should be a requirement of the City. However, if that was a requirement of approval, they would comply. They had considered the shielding effect from the off-ramp on the western side, and on the suggestion of the Planning Department, they had contacted Caltrans regarding planting additional trees in the right-of-way. They were not too receptive, but had sent an application. There did not seem to be too much room remaining to plant additional trees inside the Corporation yard, but they would do it if it was felt it could be done. Many man-hours had gone into studying different locations for the head-in facility, and it was felt that this was the ideal location within Cupertino for the cable system. COM. CLAUDY questioned if all the three ground dishes were receiving antennas. Mr. Cribb explained that the transmitting element was involved with the building proposed to be constructed, and there was no over the air transmission. COM. CLAUDY questioned the requirement of an 80 ft tower. Mr. Cribb explained that there were two purposes involved with the 80 ft. tower. One was to hold antennas receiving regular off the air channels and the other was to provide Sacramento Channels when rules were relaxed later in the year. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~NING COÞIMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 15 CHR. KOENITZER asked which signals were to be picked up by the southerly facing dish, and would there be other antennas on the tower besides the 10 ft. dish. Mr. Cribb replied that some Sacramento stations would be picked up via microwave, and the dish would do that. It would be added to the tower only if permission for the Sacramento stations was given. There would be other antennas on the tower. COM. BLAINE asked what type of antennas these would be. Mr. Cribb replied they would be similar to the house-type antennas, only horizontal. COM. BINNEWEG asked how many stations it was planned to provide. Mr. Cribb thought at least thirty-six. The 80 ft. height was not totally required to pick them up, though a higher level gave higher quality. The main p~rpose of the 80 ft. was for the Sacramento channels. COM. ADAMS wondered how many potential dishes were anticipated. Mr. Cribb stated that the most that there could be were two. COM. BINNEWEG asked how many other rods, antennas and sue~ would be hanging off the tower. Mr. Bob Hinchard, General Manager of United Cables California Cable Syste s, answered that there probably was not a need for more than six antennas plus the receiving dish. COM. ADAMS wanted to know what kind of maintenance was anticipated for the tower and buildings. Mr. Cribb felt that on a regular basis this could be limited to normal operating hours with very limited monitoring on signals, and such. The only abnormal access would be in the case of some sort of an outage. It was an ·unmanned facility_ Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that Staff had executed a lease agreement with United Cable, and employees of United Cable would be able to get through security systems at the yard. COM. ADAMS recapitulated. The only things to be seen were three dishes along the road and the tower with some other antennas, maintenance would be very light on an unmanned station. The lease agreement had been signe , but the screening was not called for in the very southerly portion of the lease area along the southerly border of the Corporation yard. He saw nothing wrong with having a condition in this particular application for screening along the southerly border. CHR. KOENITZER felt it should be indicated how much, as the applicant should not be made to pay for it all. The City had definite responsibili ies. Maybe the applicant could pay for trees to be larger to get instant scree ning, but by no means all the cost. He wondered if the 80 ft. antenna could hit the P.G. & E. tower if it fell. PC-350 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION page 16 Mr. Cribb confirmed that he had filed a letter of clearance from P.G. & E. with the Planning Department, saying that United Cable was not in their easement. , COM. ADAMS wanted to know if streets would be torn up to put in the cable. Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that where the utilities were over- head the system woûld be installed overhead. In the subdivisions where all utilities were underground, the cable would have to go underground. Larry Dermody, 10500 Mary Avenue (the old Nathanson property) commented that someone had alluded to the fact that a lease was already signed. He presumed the City had committed to some type of activity, so that the whole thing seemed a farce. He had heard the applicant say it was an ideal place for a tower. He could think of a great many more suitable places, in the foothills where it might not be necessary to construct something 80 ft. high. It had been mentioned that there was an 125 ft. tower already, and that one more would not make much difference. He disputed this and was concerned that another eyesore was to be put on the landscape. P.G. & E. was an essential service, but cable television was not a necessity, and could be construed a8 a public and private nuisance, particularly when it was a commercial endeavor. He wanted the applicant to conunent on what benefits to the community as a whole would come about in placing this tower in that particular location. In statements from Staff, there was a conunent made that the structure would be isolated from single family dwellings in the neighborhood. He seriously doubted that an 80 ft. tower could be shielded from the area. In his own case, he would be looking at it out of his front window. He did not think it could he shielded by tree growth. The circle drawn around the Corporation yard in the Staff Report, if he interpreted it correctly, was to show who would be impacted by the structure. He felt that when an 80 ft. tower was constructed it would impact people in Sunnyvale and people on the west side of the freeway also,and would be an eyesore from the freeway. Planning Director Sisk said that when the lease had come before the City Conncil he had made it very clear that it was subject to the appropriate Public Hearings and determinations made at the Planning Commission level concerning the Use Permit. Assistant City Engineer Whitten pointed out that the City was interested in the United Cable system because of the educational access channel and public access channels. The lease arrangement made with them was at the standard lease rate for this type of property in Cupertino, and the operation was not being subsidized in any way. COM. CLAUDY had been thinking about the Kaizer site, but it was in the shadow of a mountain, so that San Francisco could not be picked up, and it would be useless. CHR. KOENITZER wondered about the Sunnyvale site, which was out at Regnart Canyon, he thought. Assistant City Enginner Whitten said that Sunnyvale's dishes were immediately across the 280 freeway to the site in question, next to the water tanks. Their tower was on Regnart Road, but United would have to address the elec- tronics problems of sending a signal and how to maintain it. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 17 COM. CLAUDY thought the real problem was the tower, not the dishes,. which were down low. COM. BLAINE wondered if there was anyplace the tower could be put where a residential area could not see it. If it was placed in the hills they would block the reception, and if placed on the top of a hill, the whole valley would see it. CHR. KOENITZER pointed out that the Sunnyvale installation was on utility type poles that had only to be 20/30 ft. in height. There were several on Regnart Road on the ridge line. Mr. Dermody questioned if there ware health hazards. COM. CLAUDY said he had asked the question of whether the dishes were receivers or transmitters because of this, and had established that they were strictly receivers. All concerns he had ever heard expressed were over transmission. Mr. Alf Modine mentioned that a neighbor of his had an approximate 10 ft. dish for satellite television reception in his backyard, and aLso that he himself had a legal 50 ft. tower for his ham antenna on his property. Owen Tassicker, resident of Casa de Anza, said he had been stunned to find an envelope in his letterbox that had the appearance of a great deal of behind the scenes work going on before citizens were able to parti- cipate in the planning process. The residents of Casa de Anza had zero confidence in the way the City Council had handled the so-called phased development of the City yard. They had made noises about parks and gardens, green-belt and a double layer of well-developed trees and land- scaping. He suggested that the City put in a green-belt 30 ft. from the fence extending to the western side before anything else was done, and that the belt should be put in by the City and not some independent contractor. He questioned why the City was hosting a profit-making company on its premises. He felt United Cable should evaluate 5/10 other sites, as any engineering construction must do, and give a presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of a number of sites. He felt there were other sites technically available, and recommended that United Cable be directed to present a few. CUR. KOENITZER advised Mr. Tassicker that he would have to take up with the City Council the mechanics of the cable television award, and why the City yard was picked and agreement reached on it. He explained that the applicant was the one who essentially selected the site and brought it to the City, especially to the Planning Commission to request approval of that use on that site. There was no requirement in law for them to bring in a study of a whole series of sites. Mr. Tassicker thanked Chr. Koenitzer for clarifying the procedures, but stated they were still asking for alternatives to be presented. Joe Hauser, 21461 Milford Drive said his was the piece of property adjacent to the·Qéoposedsite on the east side of Mary. From his viewpoin he was certainly going to see more than the antennas, and landscaping the southern portion of the yard would not help. He had a two-storey house looking down on the area. It was bad enough he had to see the yard in the condition it was, that he had to see the other tower, etc., and he felt the City Council and Planning Commission could have taken a great deal more time and effort to see what other areas could be used. He believed the antennas would be a health hazard; he was an electrical PC-350 Page 18 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING engineer, and knew this to be true. The neighborhood had only one or two weeks of notice that there would be a tower put in the area, and to his knowledge there had only been a few letters sent. Some of his neighbors had not known. He requested a delay to sit down and organize as a group to give their viewpoint to the Commission. He believed the human factor had to be ,taken into consideration in this case. Had any environmental impact statement been drawn up? If so, he would like to know the results. United Cable had mentioned they needed an 80 ft. tower to pick up Sacramento; he felt it was not required. CHR. KOENITZER thanked Mr. Hauser and stated that all property owners within 300 ft. were notified by mail. Also, there had been a public notice in the paper of record. Apparently, Mr. Hauser was in the 300 ft. area and some of his neighbors were not. Mr. Hauser pointed out that even if this was so, it did affect them. COM. CLAUDY believed it was also true that the applicant paid for the notice, thereby answering Mr. Tassicker's question of the envelopes, postage and printing being provided by the applicant, and why that was so. Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that notices were also sent to the Cas a de Anza Homeowners Associatiofl and the Nathanson Homeowners Association, so that organized groups had been notified. Richard Heaps, resident of Casa de Anza, said he lived in a unit near the ~ northern border and looked directly towards the site of the proposed Cable television tower. It struck him that the comment made at the beginning of this particular segment of the Hearing was compelling, that the City, when it went through the process of permitting the building of a Corporation Yard, was specifically required to provide landscaping which had not as yet been provided. An eyesore had been created by that process, and the addition of a cable television tower would add to the horrendous view. He had checked with the Homeowners Association and the Property Management Association, and neither had received the letter. The notification process had been poor in this case, and if the City had not met its obligations in terms of notice and landscaping, if it was not illegal, it was certainly immoral to add an another eyesore to the area. On this basis, the application was untimely. COM. BI~NEWEG inquired if Mr. Heaps was familiar with the process of how he app~icant would contact the residents. Mr. Heaps presumed that they would use the County tax rolls. Comm. Binneweg said that was correct. She thought he had a valid point that the City had not fulfilled its landscaping obligation. Hr. Alf Modine commented that maybe the City had helped United Cable choose the site t~_pay for the shrubbery. Associate Planner Piasecki had counted up the notices sent out; there were eighty. Of those, only eleven were'returned. MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 19 Mr. Dermody had heard in previous discussion that the Sunnyvale ¿·ish was located across from this planned dish. Would it not be cheaper to connect up to the Sunnyvale dish? It seemed to him with as many communities that there were in the area, a master plan between them would be more appropriate than to have an antenna system in every communi y. COM. CLAUDY felt it would be nice and probably advantageous to share a system, bùt there were different types of receivers for different re- transmission networks. CHR. KOENITZER thought that the antennas and basic receivers would be the same, but thE companies were in competition, so probably would not cooperate. Mr. Dermody wanted to make two other comments. He recognized that the City had an obligation only to notify people within 300 ft., but since this structure was grossly out of the ordinary he felt people in adjacen tracts should be notified. Also, earlier in the evening there had been a great deal of discussion on the Master Plan. People had purchased homes in this area on the reliance that the Master Plan called for a residential area. .... Mr. Tom Paddock, resident of Casa de Anza, said he had been annoyed for a long time by the equipment, noise and pollution emitting from the Corporation yard. It had lowered property values, and property values would go even lower when this facility was installed, he felt. The residents of Casa de Anza would not stand idly by while this facility was erected. He questioned why the facility was necessary, which surrounding communities would benefit and which communities had facilitie of this nature already constructed. Cupertino was a beautiful community but an eyesore of this nature would be detrimental to the community and the people that lived around it. CHR. KOENITZER explained that the Council had decided because of the educational and citizen access channels a cable television system was warranted. Sunnyvale, San Jose and other cities in the area had cable systems. The franchise was only for Cupertino, so that signals would not be supplied to any other city. COM. ADAMS suggested continuing the application for a month to firstly obtain the planned landscaping schedule of the Corporation Yard, secondly to have United Cable verify that the 80 ft. tower was necessary, and thirdly, to see if other sites had been studied and, if so, how they had been rated. COM. CLAUDY noted that there was within the City a Citizens' Advisory Committee on the Cable television system, which he believed was made up of engineering-type people who understood the technical aspects. The city ~ad also hired a consulting firm to advise on the aspects of the system. MaYbe they would also advise on some of the issues that had been raised. PC-350 Page 20 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. ADAMS commented that some of the public input had been relevant to the application, but some had not. He suggested that the citizens take their complaints to the City Council, as the' Commission was only a recommending body to the Council on planning items. COM. CLAUDY felt that the Council needed to be made aware of the landscaping issue, though it was up to Staff to see that the landscaping went in. CHR. KOENITZER suggested sending a Minute Order to Council that the landscaping of the Corporation Yard be completed as planned two years ago. COM. BLAINE observed that one of the City Ordinances allowed antennas of 50/55 ft. without a permit. If United Cable decided to put in a 50 ft. tower, would they need to come in again? Planning Director Sisk answered that on this site, and in this zone, any change to the plan would require a Use Permit. COM. CLAUDY observed that the plan for the Corporation Yard was being changed at the same time. COM. BLAINE felt that Com. Adams' idea of continuance was a good one, and she would be in favor of it to see if the Commission could get some input. Planning Director Sisk thought the applicant should be consulted, as a decision might be required tonight. He explained to the applicant that one option was to agree to a 3D-day continuance, and the other ,was to ask for a decision. Mr. Cribb felt that if they agreed to a continuance, they were prolonging the construction of the cable system, which could not begin until the site was located. Quite a number of sites had been tested and this was the site they needed. The necessity of a cable system had been addressed at City Council in the past year and a half. They wanted a decision now. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy to close the Public Hearing Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 COM. CLAUDY said he was not convinced that the facilities at the proposed site were required, nor was he convinced on the site. On that basis, he was in favor of denial. MOTION: Com. Claudy to deny application 2l-U-76 (revised) on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated the need for the facility at the site proposed. The motion died for lack of a second. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine that 2l-U-76 (revised) be approved, conditions 1-14 as in the Staff report, condition 15 with a 50 ft. tower with whatever antennas and dishes were ne€ded, condition 16 modified .to limit the cost to United Cable to the equivalent of installing similar landscaping on their 72 ft. of frontage. Corn. B inneweg MOTION: P AS SED 4-1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 9. 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 21 Assistant City Attorney Foley pointed out that there were five days in which to appeal, starting from tonight, to be made in writing,· filed witl *** the City Clerk's Office. ITEM #5, Applications l-Z-8l and l-U-8l of ALI YASDill~MANESH: REZONING approximately .9 of an acre from P (Planned Development with residential 10-15 units per gross acre intent) zone to P (Planned Development with commercial and office use intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct a 13,500 sq. ft. office building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately mid-block between Randy Lane and Blaney Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 2, 1981. Associate Planner Piasecki said that the original submittal had contained a request for 13,600 sq. ft. of office building. The applicants had handed out a slightly revised sketch incorporating changes and providing a 16 ft. setback to conform to the Clear lake development to the west. The entrance driveway had been slightly modified, and 600 sq. ft. had been added to the building and accompanying parking spaces. It had been suggested in the conditions of approval that some minor changes would be necessary, i.e., there were now no surplus trips, condition 16 which referred to a 15 ft. landscaping strip was eliminated, and the exhibit had been modified to a first revision. Staff felt that it was an attractive building, complying with all standards and requirements, and recommended approval. Alex Mazetis, 214 Front Street, San Francisco, the architect on the project, wanted to add that they had tried to give the building a residential quality to be more pleasing to the single family residences to the north. They would be coordinating with the properties to the west and east to get a joint agreemen,t on ingress and egress from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Þlr. Alf Modine said he had been among the people who had objected to a condominium development on the site. This had certainly been a cooperative project between the people in the area, the owner, the architect, etc., and he wanted to speak in favor of the present development. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine to close the Public Hearings Corn. Binneweg PASSED 5-0 Com. Blaine to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy to recommend approval of l-Z-8l, subject to the findings and subconclusions in the Staff Report. Cum. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy to recommend approval of Application l-U-8l, standard conditions 1-14, the resolution modified to read 14,400 sq. ft. office building, condition 15 modified to read "the exhibit is based upon exhibit A, first revision, condition 16, 17, 18 modified to read 14,400 sq. ft. and no surplus tuips. *** for Neg. Declaration, see P.23. PC-350 P.;¡ge 22 MINUTES, FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 ITEM 116, request. Application 3l-U-80 of HELEN E. LOPEZ: withdrawn at applicant's UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM #7, Discussion of new State legislation concerning Mobile Homes. (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of December 8, 1980). MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy to continue Item #7. Com. Blaine P AS SED 5-0 ITEM #8, Applications l2-Z-79, l2-U-79 and ls-TM-79 of HYMEL-HATHAWAY ASSO- CIATES: Clarification of air space condominium project located on the south- west co~ner of North De Anza Boulevard and Lazaneo Drive. MOTION: Com. Blaine to the air space Com. Claudy PASSED adopt the resolutions in the Staff Report concerning condominiums. SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS CHR: KOENITZER reported on the Mayor's Meeting, and said that anyone going to the Commissioners' Dinner on the 20th should call Mrs. Quinlan. Her honor the Mayor had asked him to introduce each Commissioner at the February 20th banquet, and he needed some data on each. COM. BLAINE said she had heard a lot of concern about high school closures in the area. Were there any zoning rules on these sites at the moment. Planning Director Sisk stated that the only work that had been done was the same as had been done on the elementary sites. Basically there was a state- ment in the General Plan that the school sites would be consistent with the neighborhoods around them. COHo BLAINE suggested that something more be done fairly soon, because the public was saying to the School District that one consideration should be the money that could be received from a site. Before pressure started, it should be looked at. Planning Director Sisk asked if what was now in the General Plan was not sufficient. COM. BLAINE said it caused problems. For was a commercial site down the street. or office it would bring a higher price. closing, one by September with a decision instance, at Homestead there If it was zoned all commercial They were talking about two schools to be made in April. MINUTES, FEBRUARY 9, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-350 Page 23 Planning Director Sisk advised that a lot of population projection had been done, and Staff had sent off for all the data and would share it with the Commission when received. It was unlikely that anything could be done until the decision was made, if they were going to make it in April, because of timing. He felt the best information at present was that it would be consistent with the neighborhood. On the Use Permit for cable television the granting of a Negative Declarati n had been forgotten, and Assistant City Attorney Foley had advised that it could be done now. *** MOT ION : Com. Blaine to accept the Negative Declaration on application 2l-U-76 (revised). Com. Binneweg PASSED 4-1 SECOND: VOTE: REPORT OF THE PLAi"<NING DIRECTOR Information was passed out on the Wednesday through Friday, next, Planning Commission Institute Meeting, and a sheet was passed around for the Mid-Peninsula luncheon. The Planning Director brought up the matter of garage conversiot;ls in the City. Some homeowners associations were insisting that the City process them back to a 2-car garage. San Jose was having hearings to make the 2-car garage requirements obsolete, saying it was more important to shelter people than cars. He wanted to know if it was something the Planning Commission would want to look into.· COM. BLAINE observed that if Ordinances were not going to be enforced, the City should not have them. Perhaps one answer was to allow carports, as there was a problem with housing in the City. It was agreed that the matter could be discussed after the General Plan Hearings. MEETING ADJOURNED: 12:15 a.m., February 10, 1981. ATTEST: APPROVED: ~ r::Z¿,_~ City Clerk V RR~~~~~ma~ *** for other Motions, see page 21.