Loading...
Exhibit CC 07-05-2011 Item No. 20 Cleo Ave Housing i ►-�,.. • Cleo Avenue Housing TM- 2011 -01, DP- 2011 -02, ASA- 2011 -06, EXC- 2011 -06 Tentative Subdivision Map: To subdivide 0.30 acre into four lots and two common area lots For a single - family residential development Development Permit: For four, two - story, single - family dwellings Architectural and Site Approval: For four, two - story, single - family dwellings Parking Exception: To allow a parking ratio of 2.0 open stalls per dwelling, in lieu of the required 2.8 stalls (garage & open) per dwelling, for a small lot, single - family, residential project. _- _ i r f ''' ' O \ ri 1 1 y ( .1 . • . Background • August 2005 - City acquires excess property from CALTRANS for affordable housing project. Paid for from housing mitigation funds. • December 2007 — After RFP process, City agrees to transfer property to Habitat for Humanity for construction of 4 single family homes for low to very low income Cupertino households. • 2008 - City rezones property from R3 (Multi - Family Res.) to P(Res) (Planned Residential). City also sets aside CDBG monies as a loan to pay for pre - development costs. • Nov. 2008 & June 2011- Habitat for Humanity conducts due diligence, including holding neighborhood meetings to familiarize neighbors with project. 1 .._....— - � T ea I - --. W-° — I < s F t i ,- ...t 1 ,,,,-- ,.........._ ,..,,..., _i,..,,,_,,,,,,,, ......„ /_.,„,,,,,..„,„,______ ,...„.._:,...„...,,, , . ___., 1, ..- _,,...._ ,LL . . _, ,...__ I _ ,t_.,:_,.,„ .4_, ,_____ . ,_ 4 . ....._ . , .L.,,, ,.„..,_ ....,. , may 1n ll Ih Plan I All Exterior Elevations Previous Discussion Items • Noise • Buyer Screening • Maintenance of Common Areas • Address Privacy Protection • Parking Exception 2 Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval (5 -0 vote) of TM- 2011 -01, DP- 2011 -02, ASA- 2011-06, EXC- 2011 -06 per the attached resolutions. 3 Item #20 1 /� 7/5/2011 � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 CUPERTINO (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 Sumrnary Agenda Item Na. � .. Meeting Date: December 18. 2007 SUBJECT: Consider accepting proposal from Habitat for Humanity for the Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing Development. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal from Habitat for Humanity and direct staff to initiate rezoning the property from P(R3) to P(Res). BACKGROUND: Property Purchase In March 2000, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) notified the City of Cupertino of excess property located on Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85. Under California State law (Government Code §54220), Caltrans was required to first offer the subject property to the City for an affordable housing or park use. Cupertino completed the sale in August 2005 when the property title was transferred to the City for the purchase price of $615,000. The 11,938 sq. ft. parcel is currently zoned P(R -3), Planned Development, multi- family, with a land use designation of "medium to high density 10 -20 d.u. /acre ". The zoning district allows a maximum of four rental units. Request for Proposals On August 20, 2007, the City released a Request for Proposals (see Attachment A) for the Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing Development. Of the thirty-eight agencies on the mailing list (Attachment B), only one response was received. Habitat for Humanity presented the City with a proposal (Attachment C) on October 17, 2007. £ Habitat for Humanity Proposal Habitat for Humanity, with minimal modifications, can construct the project as specified in the City's RFP. In order to complete the project, the agency is requesting that the City donate the land, provide an additional $200,000 in the form of a 30 -year loan that is forgiven over time, conduct a city initiated rezoning of the property from P(R3) to P(Res) and assist in the use permit process. 24 -1 Consider accepting proposal from Habitat for Humanity for the Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing Development. December 18, 2007 Page 2 of 2 The proposal will result in four ownership units for very-low income households. These units will sell for approximately $185,000 and will contain energy saving features such as energy star rated appliances, solar units for heating and electricity, tanldess water heaters and fluorescent lighting fixtures and bulbs throughout the homes. In addition to the energy saving features, Habitat for Humanity plans to seek a GreenPoint rating from `Build It Green ", a non -profit organization whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource efficient building practices in California. Project Timeline The proposed schedule for construction can be found on page 9 of the proposal. In summary, Habitat for Humanity plans on seeking entitlements starting in January 2008, submitting plans for permits in October 2008 and completing construction in April 2010. Cupertino Housing Commission: The Cupertino Housing Commission concurred with the staff to recommend acceptance of the proposal at the November 15, 2007 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the General Fund is expected from accepting Habitat for Humanity's proposal since the land purchase and any construction cost is funded from the CDBG and Housing Mitigation funds, which can only be used for affordable housing. PREPARED BY: Vera Gil, Senior Planner ,9 - REVIEW i B ROVED OR SUBMITTAL: Steve Piasec . ', Director of David W. Knapp Community Development City Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Request for Proposals Attachment B: Mailing List Attachment C: Habitat for Humanity Proposal 24 -2 Conceptual Site Plan - Scheme 12 . 50 Summary (gtx.Parcei) Unit 1= 922 sf x 3 units Unit 2= 927 sf x 1 unit Total = 4 units 'arking = 6 stalls 1.5/ unit 0 15' 30 _ I i . I I 00,'j 1 . I i p frees y, , . ��r . ,.....„ .:- . .,,,,..,,, er p� ' C ore' R0 .-.5 MOWN. j CLEO AVENUE KTGYGroup,Inc ClryofCupertino •1,.1x2.2.133 . Cupertino, California Netanenipfrcfao0brf.h i.e. :0o,.e::6 L J Aup...:00, i • Item # 20 7/5/2011 \\ /� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 7 SSJp 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 CUPERTINO (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 Summary • Agenda Item No.1 of Agenda Date: March 4, 2008 Application Z- 2008 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Owner: City of Cupertino Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85 Application Summary: City initiated rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi- Family Residential • (P(R3)) to Planned Residential (P(Res)) to accommodate four single - family homes. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends on a 3 -0 vote (Commissioner Giefer abstained) approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA- 2008 -01; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z- 2008 -01, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution 6510. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Residential, Medium /High Density Zoning Designation: P (R3) Acreage (Gross): .27 acres i Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: In March 2000, the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) notified the City of Cupertino of excess property located on Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85. Under California State law (Government Code §54220), Caltrans was required to first offer the subject property to the City for an affordable housing or park use. Cupertino completed the sale in August 2005 when the property title was transferred to the City for the purchase price of $615,000. 12 -1 Application: Z- 2008 -01, EA- 2008 -01 Cleo Rezoning March 4, 2008 Page 2 DISCCUSSION: • On August 20, 2007, the City released a Request for Proposals for the Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing Development. Of the thirty -eight agencies on the mailing list, only one response was received. Habitat for Humanity presented the City with a proposal on October 17, 2007 and was selected by the City Council to develop the property on December 18, 2007. The City Council directed staff to initiate the rezoning of the property. The 11,938 sq. ft. parcel is currently zoned P(R -3), Planned Development, multi- family, with a land use designation of "medium to high density 10 -20 d.u. /acre." The current zoning district allows a maximum of four rental units. With the rezoning of the parcel from P(R -3) to P(Res), Habitat for Humanity could build a maximum of four ownership units. The proposed units range in size from 820 -950 square feet. The rezoning would allow this project to take place in the future and is not a final approval. Approval will result from future use permit and tentative map public hearings. Surrounding Uses /Compatibility: The subject property is adjacent to townhomes to the south, and existing single family parcels to the west and north. The parcels to the west and north are zoned P(R -3), while the townhomes parcels are zoned P(Res). The rezoning is compatible with the surrounding single family homes along Cleo Avenue and the townhomes to the south which are also zoned P(Res). DISCUSSION Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission heard this application on February 12, 2008. Commissioner Giefer abstained from the vote, but the three remaining commissioners supported the rezoning. Public Comments Two residents spoke on the application. One resident expressed concern that current residents and Cupertino employees be given priority in the application process for the units, while the second speaker expressed concern about access to the site. Staff Comments Staff explained that access to the site would not be through adjacent parcels, but contained on subject parcel. Also, Habitat for Humanity would target Cupertino residents in the application process. ENCLOSURES Draft Zoning Ordinance 08- Planning Commission Resolution No. 6510 Negative Declaration • 12 -0 Application Z- 2008 -01, EA- 2008 -01 Cleo Rezoning March 4, 2008 Page 3 Exhibit A: Zoning Plat Map. Exhibit B: Aerial Image Exhibit C: Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2008 Exhibit D: Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated February 12, 2008 Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner Submitte • y Approved by: Idol; Stems' iasecki David W. Knapp Director, Community Development City Manager G: \Planning \PDREPORT \CC\2008 \Z - 2008-01 CC.doc • 12 -3 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 08-2024 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL REZONING OF A .27 GROSS ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST END OF CLEO AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 85 FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MULTI- FAMILY (PR3) TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, P(RES) WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z- 2008 -01) for the rezoning of a property to Planned Residential, P(RES); and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned Planned Development Multi - Family to P(R3); and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to Planned Residential, P(RES); and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and • Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of March, 2008 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of , 2008, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino G:'.Planning\PDREPORDORD\Z- 2008 -01 ord.doc 12 -4 • Z- 2008 -01 CITY OF C :UPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6510 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE- ZONING OF A .27 ACRE Sr1'E FROM P(R3), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO P(RES), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL • SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z- 2008 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85 SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. 12 -5 f v Resolution No. 6510 Z- 2008 -01 February 12 2008 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z- 2008 -01 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z- 2008 -01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2008 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plot Map, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. The revised legal description shall be submitted to the City prior to final map approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Rose, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s /Steve Piasecki /s /Marty Miller Steve Piasecki Marty Miller, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission G: \Planning \PDREPORT\RES \2008 \Z - 2008 -01 res.doc • 12 -6 CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27,1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17 1977, May 1,1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was gran ed a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on March 4, 2008 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Z-2008-01 (EA-2008-01) Applicant: City of Cupertino • Location: Southeast End of Cleo Ave. Adjacent to Highway 85. DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi- Family Residential (P /R3) to Planned Residential (P /Res) to accommodate four single- family homes FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200801 12 -7 • City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CI of (408) 777 -3251 CUPEVINO FAX (408) 777 -3333 Community Development Department X10 �CEC�1�LIST a fINITIALSTUDlf E �/ R s , - Staff Use Only EA File No.EA- 2008 -01 Case File No.Z- 2008 -01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi - Family Residential (P(R3) to Planned Residential (P(Res) to accommodate four single family homes. Project Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue, adjacent to Highway 85 Project Description: Cleo Avenue CalTrans Excess Property Environmental Setting: Existing single family properties to the west. planned development townhomes to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - _ N /A Building Coverage — N/A Exist. Building — NIA s.f. Proposed Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone —R1 G.P. Designation — Residential Med/Hiuh 10 -20 DU /Gr. Ac. Assessor's Parcel No. — 362 -31 -004 if Residential, Units /Gross Acre - Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual ❑ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non - Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - Max. Employees /Shift - Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES © NO ❑ . i 12 -8 _ 1 1 AN1T A T T SD URCE L T A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 27. County Parks and Recreation Department Land Use Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 1. Safety Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 2. Land Public 3. Housing Element 30. Cupertino Union School District Transportation Element 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 4. Resources 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 5. Environmental 33. County Sheriff 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 34. CALTRANS 7. Land Use Map 35. County Transportation Agency 8. Noise Element Amendment 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District 9. City Ridgeline Policy 36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution 10. Constraint Maps Prevention Program B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 36c San Jose Water Company 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (Califomia History 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps Center, 1976) 39. USDA, °Soils of Santa Clara County" 14. Geological Report (site specific) 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 16. Zoning Map 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents Site 18. City Noise Ordinance 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances 18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution Site Prevention Plan 43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater C. CITY AGENCIES Site Discharge Permit Issued to the City of 19. Community Development Dept. List Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay 20. Public Works Dept. Regional Water Quality Control Board 21. Parks & Recreation Department 43c Hydromodification Plan 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES F. OTHER SOURCES 23. County AGENCIES Department 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 46. Experience w /project of similar 25. County Departmental of Environmental scope characteristics Health 47. ABAG Projection Series D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District sa n r- ...rn -: �•- s,c4Lkr`s"^ »�. k 1 e 'r RUCTIO A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical ") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many. explanatory responses as possible on each page. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ✓Project Plan Set of Legislative Document /Location map with site clearly marked BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL (when applicable) IS COMPLETE - INCOMPLETE MATERIALS MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAY ' f EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Z. +a' c c• c 4 :1 IU eo o ISSUES: c• a y h • a) o. y E a z [ and Supporting Information Sources] N E J y c J N E E . . I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ ° scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, • ❑ ❑ ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its • surroundings? [1,17,19,44] • d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the • California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? [5,7,39] 17_1Q 1 • 3t s 3 ° E tat ISSUES: c E; a o F- 4= c o e . [and Supporting Information Sources] o en E aw ; o �� E E 111. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ' ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] • b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] - d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ Ei riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game cr US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 12 .11 >' C c C = ++ C C t0 ea 3 V g t0 = .0 ISSUES: =c. y m a � ad, E E. y�c Z [and Supporting information Sources] c • E � C s E E a. in N c -IN pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ❑ ❑ ❑ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat • conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] • • VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ © ❑ • delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the 12 12 • R C C r+ C • is v '= v t 2 �. L v V ISSUES: cE H =mo yc a z . [and Supporting Information Sources] a N c N 3 c N E • State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault:? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑ loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: • ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] 12 -t3 0 (5 (5 2 "( ISSUES: c ! a ~ t; `° 0 F- y_ a z o . [an Supporting Information Sources] c v, E d .� 3 E o H ' c E o.N JN c J C c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ • ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, . substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ . ❑ ❑ . list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ?[1,2,44] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ ° waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] • 12 -14 C C C '+ C C ea c eo O ea to ISSUES: eo F- 4 , o H w co o co a. o [and Supporting Information Sources] c v, E m Q, ; 2 o d � � E z E a -tin b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, • including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] • j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? [7,12,22,41] • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but • not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 12 - 15 O !0 V = v t � , 0 t v t� as ISSUES: c != a NEB moo. y4= a Z a [and Supporting Information Sources] c E m co 3 =' as E CL to -J rn 2 c J in mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the Toss of availability of a .0 ❑ ❑ ° locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other and use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ❑ © ❑ ❑ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] • b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ © ❑ ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 • ?'c c c g 75 co t � co t i° s ISSUES: c . n, H E M a� a � ' � c, z c . ° * 3 [and Sup Information Sources] 6 E 3 2 y � c E E a o N co -e c - in airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ . ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or • other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection? [19,32,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ ©. Police protection? [33,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? [29,30,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 12 - 17 c C C • R t4 o eo R R To* v '6 _ { � t c is ISSUES: Tic H =3a y ea Za [a Supporting Information Sources] c as E d o d o► E [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or require the construction or • expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ © ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ .❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4, ?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or • dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] 12 18 O ri c w ISSUES: 2 a ~ 'F- m •= c o 1." ' ° a [and Supporting Information Sources] c E m �� •3 ; o H ' E z • a. in C) c � y b) Require or result in the construction of • ❑ ❑ ❑ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant • environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XV�I MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - (To be complleted by Clay Staff) a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, • substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anirnal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of 12 - 19 +r c O . � _ c„ c E wR • �w R `o H V R p R ISSUES: c c E a H = 1 3 au a Z y ea a [and Supporting Information Sources] o gag d m x c m E n.vs stn c -iin other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study . may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparers Signature Print Preparers Name • • 12 -20 • ENVIRONMENTAL (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology / Water ❑ Land Use / Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: D The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) • have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. • Staff Evaluator Date ERC Chairperson Date 12 - 21 , , 1 -ZONING EXHIBIT A _ : . • i 1 L. \ \ , . . .,., .\ sn..„ , • f •50 /71... SanJose •, \ . s N a „ . -v „, \-.,. \ . N. -•94, , N . J \ r t ..t.., .,_ _,, ,,. 1 1 • 1 i i i 1 j 1 1 _I ,.,_ear_, .....r ..,..iii ..iwi.. i \ • \ N , 1'. 200 . Rezone: 0.27 Ac From: P(R -3) To: P(Res) 12 -22 ` 3, ` T t J s ,� } EXHIBIT B % • i c ",,. r, ' ♦ �, T • t ; r mr P , / _ • , E 4 + _ , d • [ c _ r , 0 T � tY + y 1,.; Il b�' A `y t "' ' • . •- # 414- ' Nvf • _ _ i� �` 11 ., , i . , 1 ♦; i • 1 _ 4_ •• • f .S i____ T ... ..._,I J f ! • ` ' i - + ‘+' 1 _r13 r al 1.00,40' ' _ 1 k f 1 I`. I r 1 r'b °'qr id3 i 1 • ' . M1 .6k y ^af' . l 7 • , - 4 `f . � • • or es MN ik ,...- -3," -,-- Ir.__ 3r- _ io: . _ . .. _ _. --•-r 1 1 of 7 1 j�j�� � f £ - ® e { r F . -- 1� .L. 1 • T J ' ; 1 _ t - "a ' 1 . • ~ A I a I. , { !mil . ... i 1� _. F •r —4-- L 3 . L l... „ ___,.. : , • 1 , i t rAr 4 -,- IA, -- J i ---,-fr —. , — 4 t -:- . ' 1 , IL h.�`'_"t *-41---- • y - - t - *me ''s' ' 1., �' Id , CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z- 2008 -01 Agenda Date: February 12,2008 Applicant: City of Cupertino Owner: City of Cupertino • Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85 Application Summary: Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi- Family Residential (P(R3)) to Planned Residential (P(Res)) to accommodate four single - family homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA- 2008 -01; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z- 2008 -01, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Residential, Medium /High Density Zoning Designation: P (R3) Acreage (Gross): .27 acres Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: In March 2000, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) notified the City of Cupertino of excess property located on Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85. Under California State law (Government Code §54220), Caltrans was required to first offer the subject property to the City for an affordable housing or park use. Cupertino completed the sale in August 2005 when the property title was transferred to the City for the purchase price of $615,000. DISSCUSSION: On August 20, 2007, the City released a Request for Proposals for the Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing Development. Of the thirty -eight agencies on the mailing list, only one response was received. Habitat for Humanity presented the City with a proposal on October 17, 2007 and was selected by the City Council to develop the property on December 18, 2007. The City Council directed staff to initiate the rezoning of the property. 12 -24 Applications: Z- 2008 -01 Cleo Rezoning February 12, 2008 The 11,938 sq. ft. parcel is currently zoned P(R -3), Planned Development, multi- family, with a land use designation of "medium to high density 10 -20 d.u. /acre." The current zoning district allows a maximum of four rental units. With the rezoning of the parcel from P(R -3) to P(Res), Habitat for Humanity could build a maximum of four ownership units. The proposed units range in size from 820 -950 square feet. The rezoning would allow this project to take place in the future and is not a final approval. Approval will result from future use permit and tentative [nap public hearings. Surrounding Uses /Compatibility: The subject property is adjacent to townhomes to the south, and existing single family parcels to the west and north. The parcels to the west and north are zoned P(R -3), while the townhomes parcels are zoned P(Res). The rezoning is compatible with the surrounding single family homes along Cleo Avenue and the townhomes to the south which are also zoned P(Res). Enclosures: Model Resolution for Z- 2008 -01 Negative Declaration Initial Study Exhibit A, Zoning Plat Map Aerial Image Submitted by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm • 12 -25 2 Z- 2008 -01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 • MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE- ZONING OF A .27 ACRE SITE FROM P(R3), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO P(RES), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL • SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z- 2008 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85 SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City . of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. 12 -26 Model Resolution Z- 2008 -01 February 12, 2008 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z- 2008 -01 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the .Public Hearing record concerning Application Z- 2008 -01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2008 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXI-IIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plot Map, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in. this Resolution. The revised legal description shall be submitted to the City prior to final map approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Marty Miller, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission G: \Planning \PDREPORT \RES \2008 \Z - 2008 -01 res.doc 12 -27 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 12, 2008 2. Z- 2008 -01 (EA- 2008 -01) Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi - City of Cupertino Family Residential (P/R3) to Planned Residential Southeast End ofCleo Ave. ( P(Residential) to accommodate 4 single- family Adjacent to Highway 85 homes. Tentative City Council date: March 4, 2008 Vera Gil, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi- Family Residential (P(R3) to Planned Residential P(Residential) to accommodate 4 single - family homes, as outlined in the staff report. The City of Cupertino purchased the parcel from Caltrans in 2005 and Habitat for Humanity submitted the sole proposal to develop the property in 2007. • Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and rezoning application. • Staff noted that notification of the project was sent out to neighboring residents; the site is an awkward site, but any access to the units will be from the city -owned property, not from any adjacent properties. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Discussed the importance of current residents of Cupertino and people who work in the city, as well as those on the waiting list for affordable housing, having the opportunity to apply for the Habitat for Humanity housing. Cecelia Atex, owner of property next to proposed project: • Said she was not opposed to the rezoning of the parcel for the project; but wanted assurance that the access to the units would be as stated, and that adjacent properties would not be affected. • She applauded the effort to build the affordable housing. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Vera Gil: • Explained that Habitat for Humanity would do outreach to the people on the waiting list for housing through West Valley Community Services. They have an outreach program and target the very low income families; the program is a `sweat equity' program and they have a list of requirements they follow. She said that they usually target the community that they are building in for applicants. • She noted that Habitat for Humanity builds ownership homes, not rental units. She said that the RFP was for rental or ownership homes and Habitat for Humanity was the only proposal received for the project. Com. Rose: • Said it was a good project and she was pleased that the neighborhood was supportive. • Said she supports the project. Com. Kaneda: • The city needs more affordable housing; pleased that the community supported the project. • Supports the project. • I 12 -28 • Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 12, 2008 Chair Miller: • Supports the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application Z- 2008 -05. (Vote: 3 -0 -0; Com. Giefer absent) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: • Com. Gieferr eported that they discussed the Cupertino Village project they are working on several outs ding issues which will come back to the ERC at a later date. Housin Commissio : No Meeting.. • Ma or's Monthl Mee 'n with Commissioners: No Meeting. Economic Develo ' ment mmittee: • • Steve Piasecki reported e committee met last week at the Hewlett Packard facility and toured the Smart Home. \ ritten report tinder Misc Item 2) HP demonstrated their home electronics, including big screen TVs interconnected with computer systems, for programming lights, heaters, iusic, etc., selected for the comfort of the home owner. A tour of the Smart Home will be sche tiled for the Commissioners. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 0 OMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Reported on the Economic Develop , ent Committee meeting (noted above). • Noted articles on Cupertino Square in ercury News and editorial regarding BART. • Reported that the Planning Commissi• appointment hasn't occurred yet; Council has not reached agreement yet, and next round ,f interviews including the new Councilmember is scheduled for March 18. • New Commissioner will be signed up for P1.. er's Institute. • City Council agreed with Planning Cornmi • ion regarding the 6 home development off DeAnza Boulevard and denied the application. • • Announced that City Planner, Ciddy Wordell is r. ' g effective April l after 18 years with the City of Cupertino. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to hie next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 26, 008 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary 12 -29