Loading...
PC 08-12-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 12, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Corr Commissioners absent: Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works; Glen Goepfert, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 8, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting: Chair Corr noted the following change to Paragraph 2, Page 5, Line 2: the word "or" should read "for". Chair Corr requested that the term "TDM" in the same paragraph be clarified to read "Transportation Demand Management". MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the July 8, 2002 minutes as amended Com. Wong Com. Chen Chaff Corr Passed 3-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chaff Corr read the communication from Mark Osborne, property manager, relative to his opposition to Item 4 on the agenda. Mr. Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director, introduced newly hired Assistant Public Works Director Glen Goepfert. POSTPONEMENTSfREMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Planning eommlsslon Minutes ) Augus{ 12. ~00~ CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-04, GPA-2002, EA-2002-09 Allen Wong (Keiki Place) 10931 Maxine Avenue Use permit to allow a child care facility in an existing quasi-public building. General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on a 1.57 acre parcel from Residential Low Density 1-5 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre to Quasi-Public Postponed from July 8, 2002 meeting Tentative City Council date: August 19, 2002 Com. Wong reported that because he lived adjacent to the subject property, he would not take part in the discussion of the application. Rtaff pree~ntatlnnr The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit for a child care facility in an existing quasi public building on Maxine Avenue, as well as a request for a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on a 1.57 acre parcel as outlined in the staff report. The applicant is also requesting a fee waiver for the General Plan amendment. Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, noted that the City Council authorized the General Plan amendment to change the land use designation. She reviewed the site location, floor plan and parking plan. She noted that the site was used for a child care center previously until three years ago. Ms. Gil reported that since Policy 2-80 was deleted from the General Plan, which would have allowed the child center to go in without a General Plan amendment, they have to apply for the General Plan amendment to use the site for quasi public activities. The applicant is also requesting a fee waiver because of the hardship the deletion of Policy 2-80 caused. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration, Use Pemfit, General Plan amendment, and fee waiver. Ms. Mae Ling Tien, applicant, explained that the location had been used as a day care center for many years, and said it was her goal to provide a center where parents and children could attend together. She explained that although it was a for-profit organization, they were requesting a fee waiver to offset the loss of revenue caused by delays in getting the business started because of the need for the General Plan amendment. She also clarified that initially the business would be a parent/child center and would not be a drop in child care facility since she did not have a license for child care. The child care center would be phased in at a later date if the parent/child center is successful and a child care license would be applied for to meet the demand. She said it was her goal to have the center meet the standards of the National Association of Early and Childhood Education before applying for a child care license. Comm ;o, l I;nute 3 AU Uet Chair Corr expressed concern about the amount of space available and the ability to house overnight guests on the premises. The applicant said she was not opposed to a condition in the Use Permit about residential uses. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati expressed concern about the fee waiver since it was a for-profit business, and questioned why the city would waive the fees. Com. Auerbach commented that Policy 2-80 enabled people to put those kinds of uses in the community and it was his view that churches, schools and daycare facilities were an important part of the community. Under 2-80 they would have been able to do it without incurring any fees. He said that businesses often get subsidies as well, and it would not be unreasonable to give them a break as a start-up business. Chair Corr said he felt it made sense to put the child care center back in the community since it was a child care center before. He recommended adding a 6th condition that no residential uses be permitted on the property. Responding to Com. Auerbach's request, the numbers and applicants' names were clarified. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application U-2002-04 with condition 6, entitled Approved Uses. The approval will allow operation of the child care facility with no residential use of the property permitted. Item 4 will also indicate that the decreased traffic impacts of the center shall be limited to a maximum of 30 adult students and no more than 30 children. Com. Saadati Coms. Wong and Chen Passed 3 -0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application GPA-2002-02 Com. Saadati Coms. Wong and Chen Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved approval of Application EA-2002-09 Com. Auerbach Coms. Wong and Chen Passed 3 -0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of a minute order to approve the fee waiver Com. Saadati Coms. Wong and Chen Passed 3 -0-0 Com. Wong returned to the meeting. Application Nos.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: TMo2002-01, V-2002-01 San Jose Water Land Company San Jose Water Land Company East side of Sterling Blvd, 60' northeast of Barnhart Avenue Tentative map to subdivide a .5 acre parcel into two parcels in an R1-7.5 zoning district Variance to allow lot widths of 54 feet and 57 feet, respectively, instead of 60 feet tbr a proposed two parcel subdivision, as required by Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of July 8 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed ~qtaff preeentatlcm: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide a halt'- acre parcel into two parcels of 9,478 and 9,174 square feet in an R1-7.5 zoning district; and for a variance of lot widths. Staff recommends approval of the application. Ms. Gil reviewed the background of the application, including the site plan, variance lot width, Riparian Corridor Protection, and Santa Clara Valley Water District permit requirements for any work within 50 feet from the top of a creek bank. Mr. Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works, briefly discussed the part of the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail located in Cupertino. In response to Com. Auerbach's question regarding the possibility of the city purchasing the two lots for use as a trailhead, Mr. Quails said at this time there was no structured agreement to purchase the property, and the city's capital improvement program does not provide any funding for such a project at this time. Com. Auerbach referenced the existing General Plan and said that some readings of the existing General Plan would give ample authority to protect the creek further. He noted that the staff report indicated that increasing the setback requirements in this particular property would not reduce the ability of homeowners to construct a sizable home commensurate with the land area. He questioned if they had the authority within the scope of the existing General Plan to put the setbacks in. Ms. Gil said that she was certain it could be done. She said there was no doubt that the riparian corridor is important in the current General Plan and will be very important in the General Plan amendment. It was a matter of equity; should there be 50 tbot setbacks on Plannlng Commission l~inu{es J } ll l]flt 12, 2002 these parcels and not require it for any other parcels along Sterling or any other creek, or was a better approach to this setting a General Plan policy doing a study which is similar to what other cities are doing now; having the public hearings and actually establishing a setback for any type of development along the creeks. Mr. Piasecki said the issue was whether it should be 50 or 30 feet and on what creek it is adjoining, and the equity issue of taking the two parcels or 50 parcels that back up to Saratoga Creek running from the expressway onramp down to close to the Barrington Bridge development. Rather than picking a number to try to apply it incrementally to this particular project, staff felt more analysis was needed and discussed in the context of the General Plan and then incorporated into whatever that requirement ended up being into the ordinance structure. There is some risk of loss of that property, but in the interest of equity and consistency, staff felt it was better to hold back at this time. Mr. Quails said the trail project, while not the subject matter of discussion for the meeting, was a peripheral consideration, and as pointed out is a partnership between the city of Cupertino, city of San Jose, the county, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the Water Company. All parties are various owners, permittees, and the trail property is actually in San Jose except for water company section. The district the county, and both cities have scrutinized it carefully and as part of the permit, the county is adding riparian mitigation as a measure of mitigation from other projects, and is incorporating it into the project. Riparian vegetation is being added to the creek along the channel. He added that the water district, in giving the permit, had a number of issues including erosion, and the planting and the disturbing of the riparian creeks. He said this particular case because of the trail project, it is very well cared for, which was a prime consideration in developing the trailhead. He assured that all parties have enforced that. Mr. Ray Hashimoto, HMH Incorporated, representing San Jose Water Company, said they concurred with staff's recommendation. He said it was a partnership and he felt they helped to further the trail system by providing and dedicating the 18 foot wide actual dedication to the city of Cupertino to provide the bridge and trailhead, a genuine benefit to the city. He said he hoped to move forward, but allow for San Jose Water Company to be able to look at some future development on the site as well. Com. Wong said that he concurred with Com. Auerbach that the Rancho Rinconada area was lacking parks, and questioned whether the San Jose Water Company would consider selling the property to the city, or add on the right of first refusal, offering the land to the city. Ms. Jennifer McCombs, San Jose Water Company, said that the possibility was being considered, and they were currently in discussions about some compromise as to what to do with the parcel. She said they had a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, but were open to the possibility. Plarm~ng ~ommlsslon Minutes 6 Augur{ 15l, 5100] A discussion ensued regarding the setbacks in the subject location, wherein Mr. Hashimoto answered corrtmissioners' questions. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Wong said he preferred a limit if the 50 feet was selected, since there is no public hearing. He suggested an amendment for the right of first refusal for the city if they were to sell to someone else, if the city could come up with the capital improvement funds. Com. Saadati said since there is no policy in place to set the guideline, he was willing to accept the proposal. Com. Auerbach commented on the main focus of the request to have substandard width lots. He said that when they amended the R1 zoning ordinances, it was at the time of the Rancho annexation and it did not contemplate 5,000 square foot or smaller lots, and he would like to readdress the R1 zoning with special attention to sub 6,500 square lbot or perhaps 6,500 square foot or less lots, particularly the two car garage requirement. He said he felt some of the other things which on narrow widths force the garage to be the main feature of the house and do not permit some things were valuable in smaller frontages, and based on that he was not opposed to the frontage requirement. He said if adding a 50 foot setback that expires with the creation of a riparian ordinance on the part of Cupertino or perhaps some date certain if that is not to occur, it is a valuable amendment that does no harm in terms of the buildable square footage, but sends a strong message that the city is interested in protecting the creeks. Com. Auerbach said he was intrigued with Com. Wong's idea to include a option for right of first refusal in the ordinance, and would support it if it could be accomplished. Chair Corr said he was not opposed to it and agreed that moving the setbacks had to begin somewhere and to include everyone. He said he would support something temporary on the property to expire at the time another General Plan was adopted. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application V-2002-01 Com. Wong Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application TM-2002-01 with the addition of a clause restricting development within 50 feet of the top of the bank, to expire either at the adoption of an ordinance for riparian protection by the City of Cupertino, or two years from the recordation of a final map, whichever occurs first Com. Saadati Plannlng Commission Minufe~ ? Augugt 12, 2002 AMENDED MOTION: Com. Wong amended the motion to include the right of first refusal to purchase the property Mr. Qualls said he was not certain if it could be imposed as a land use condition. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attomey, concurred with Mr. Qualls and said there were many conditions tied to the right of first refusal. It would have to be considered and the property owner would have to agree, a right of first refusal cannot be arbitrarily imposed. Com. Wong said there was a shortage of parks in Rancho Rinconada, and asked how long the right of first refusal procedure would take if the San Jose Water Company were to entertain such a motion. Ms. Murray suggested continuing the item to discuss further with San Jose Water Company if they were considering it, as they could not arbitrarily impose that condition now. Mr. Qualls urged approval of the tentative map, since a different property transaction to acquire the trail easement would be needed and it could potentially hold up the project. The amended motion failed for the lack of a second. Mr. Qualls and Mr. Piasecki emphasized San Jose Water Company's cooperation and willingness to deal with the issue and expressed appreciation for their cooperation. Com. Wong reiterated that in the General Plan there are no parks in the Rancho Rinconada area, and said if they could identify potential land, the property next to the creek would be an ideal location. ABSENT: Com. Chen VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Ms. Gil suggested an amendment to the Use Permit; adding the 50 foot setback to the covenant running with the land as well, so that the property owners would be notified. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to add the 50 foot setback to the covenant running with the land Com. Wong Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-05, GPA-2002-01, Z-2002-01, EA-2002-06 David Chui (Monta Vista Church) 10051 Pasadena Avenue Use Permit to allow a quasi-public use (church) in a portion of an existing office building. Planning ~omm~ss;on ~nu~¢s ~ ~,UgUflt Il. ~00~ General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial/Residential to Neighborhood Commercial/Residential/Quasi-Public Rezoning of a 0.45 acre parcel from P(CN, MI, Res 4-12) to P(CN, ML, BQ, Res 4-12) Tentative City Council date: August 19, 2002 Staff pr~a~ntatlcm~ The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to locate a church in an existing office building; a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial/Residential to Neighborhood Commercial/Residential/Quasi-Public, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application, including the summary of uses for the first and second floors of the building and parking requirements. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr. David Chui, applicant, said that the church was in the process of being purchased, and that 50% of the building was leased and 50% remained vacant. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati said that considering the building is vacant and there is ample parking space available, he supported the project. Com. Auerbach said it was in line with mixed use, with four different changes to make it a suitable mixed use. There has been prior discussion about the possibility of having mixed use zoning, rather than having to specifically zone for each type of use as obvious as it might be, and it may be justification for the argument rather than having to go through all the motions. For the record Com. Auerbach stated that the Use Permit specifies the Church of Los Altos, and asked if changing it to the Church in Cupertino would be part of the Use Pe,nit. Mr. Chui clarified that currently the purchase contract is signed with the Church in Los Altos since they are operating under that current name. After close of escrow, the Church of Los Altos name will not be used for the Cupertino building. Com. Wong said he supported the project as it added to the diversity of the neighborhood. Chair Corr said he had no questions. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to approve Application EA-2002-06 Com. Auerbach Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission M~nutes MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to approve Application GPA-2002-01 Com. Saadati Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application Z-2002-01 Com. Saadati Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve Application U-2002-05 Com. Wong Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location EXC-2002-05 The Alaris Group, LLC (Cingular Wireless) 1-280 at Foothill Expressway Exception to exceed the 55' height limit for an antenna by constructing a 70' antenna panel on an existing 91' utility pole. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff pr~q~ntatlnn: The video presentation reviewed the application for a height exception to allow three PCS panel antennae to be mounted on an existing 92'8" tall utility pole, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Jung referred to the site plan and photo simulations and reviewed the application the height exceptions, including the coverage plot at proposed heights and reduced heights. He reviewed the findings listed in the staff report: (a) That the literal enforcement of the provisions of the title will result in restriction inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the title; (b) That the granting of the exception will not result in a condition that will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; and (c) That the exception to be granted will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Staff recommends approval of the height exception per the findings and model resolution, with the added proviso that Sector 8 panel antenna be lowered to a height of not more than 55 feet; thus a height exception will not be needed and without any real degradation in the coverage to the areas to the north. Ms. Kelly Pepper, Cingular Wireless, explained the purpose of the facility was to provide coverage primarily along 1-280 and Foothill Expressway and in the surrounding areas. She said as described in the request for height exception, there are dramatic changes in topography and there are existing dense trees surrounding the site, which would significantly block the signal if they had to lower the antenna height to 55 feet. She said it Plann;ng Cornmls,[on Minutes 10 August 1~/, was designed to be as visually unobtrusive as possible, flush mounted to the pole, painted to match, and the associated cabinets would be screened by a fence and existing landscaping. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Auerbach said that the antennas should be allowed to be antennas; people want the cell phone service and more coverage should be provided. He said that the addition of some antenna panels hardly decreases or increases their aesthetic value, as they are eyesores on the landscape and the antennas do not change that. He said he was opposed to screening them and making them look like something else. The application is suitable since it uses the existing tall pole, to put a relatively unobtrusive antenna on. Com. Auerbach said he supported the application. Com. Wong said he concurred with Com. Auerbach and noted that he did not notice the antenna there when he frequently traveled past the area. He said he supported the application. Com. Saadati concurred and said that it would have minimal impact. Chair Corr commented that one more antenna would not make a major difference. He inquired about the status of the study and pointed out that the Planning Commission had said it would not keep approving the addition of antennae unless the study was completed. Mr. Jung reported that the draft of the study would be completed in two months and submitted to the Telecommunications Commission. Mr. Piasecki added they anticipated being in hearings before the end of the year. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application EXC-2002-05 Com. Wong Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-2002-03 Hewlett Packard Building 44, 19111 Pruneridge Avenue Building 46, 19091 Pruneridge Avenue Architectural and Site Approval for exterior seismic upgrades and other architectural changes on Buildings 44 and 46, involving tree removal and re-landscaping. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Com. Auerbach reported that he had financial interest in Hewlett Packard in the form of shares and after consulting with legal counsel determined that the amount is not significant enough to recuse himself from discussion. .qtaffpree~ntatlnn: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectural and site approval for exterior seismic upgrades and other architectural changes on Buildings 44 and 46, involving tree removal and landscaping, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application; Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated the areas where the proposed seismic upgrades would be located on Buildings 44 and 46; as well as architectural changes outlined in the staff report. Thirty-seven trees are proposed for removal or transplanting since they will be directly affected by the project; and approximately 64 trees will be planted as part of the landscaping plan. She also noted that some small patio areas will be eliminated and additional patio areas will be put into the courtyard of building 46, as some of the areas have not been used and will improve the other patio areas in other buildings where people will use them. Staff recommends approval of the architectural and site approval. Mr. Rick Callas, architect, illustrated photographs of the campus and the views of the buildings which will receive the seismic upgrades and architectural changes. Mr. David Nelson, landscape architect, MPA Design, San Francisco, said he was aware that tree removal was a major concern of the city of Cupertino. Part of the idea on the project was to do minimum tree removal and only take out trees directly in the footprint of the substructural base. It was concluded that 37 trees had to be removed. He explained the redesign of the landscape, removal and transplanting of trees. Mr. Callas said that the seismic braces were installed on the exterior of the buildings, and explained how the braces operated in the event of an earthquake. He said that seismic upgrade of buildings 44 and 46 were part of a business decision of Hewlett Packard's by their own criteria and they would decide if other buildings would be subject to upgrade. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati said that as a structural engineer, he had an appreciation for seismic upgrades; the State encourages this type of work and Hewlett Packard was moving forward in the right direction. Com. Wong said he supported the application. He commended the excellent job the architects did with the aesthetics and their efforts to save as many trees as possible and plant more trees. Com. Auerbach concurred and complimented Hewlett Packard on their careful attention to trees. He reiterated his stance on large trees stating that it seems the development cycle is so rapid now that it outpaces the ability for trees to grow to maturity, and perhaps Hewlett Packard would be interested in this angle among other things besides cooling and other benefits. He said his overall concern in Cupertino was the continued chopping down of trees that are only 10 or 20 years old and that never get a chance to reach maturity. Chair Corr said that he felt it was a good project, and commended Hewlett Packard performing the seismic work when it was not a requirement. He said he felt they had traditionally done a good job in keeping the aesthetics hidden on campus so as not to negatively affect the greater community. Chair Corr said that he viewed it as the Emperor's new clothes in that the braces were not attractive and he was concerned what would happen if Hewlett Packard decides to move forward and put them in Building 45 which is more exposed to the sight lines of the city. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application ASA-2002-03 Com. Saadati Chair Corr Com. Chen Passed 3-1-0 Chair Corr clarified that his own personal reaction to the aesthetics of the braces was that it appeared the walls of the building were being propped up. Mr. Piasecki said that it was a pleasure working with Hewlett Packard and their consultants; and complimented them on including the city in their thought process, and anticipating and addressing city issues. Chair Corr reiterated that their experience had been positive and expressed his appreciation to Hewlett Packard. OLD BUSINESS: None In response to Com. Auerbach's question about the intent of the category entitled Old Business, Mr. Piasecki explained that it is the appropriate category to place items in that have been presented to the Planning Commission before, and were continued to a subsequent meeting or if there is some unsettled matter to discuss in the future. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that the last meeting included some of the projects on the current agenda. Housing Committee: No report. Mayor's Breakfast: None held since last Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 12, 2002 Other: Com. Auerbach asked for a status report on the following: (1) The timing of the presentation of the second dwelling unit ordinance; (2) Tree ordinance; and (3) Revisiting the R1 ordinance. Ms. Wordell said that the tree ordinance was on the work program and the second dwelling unit ordinance is scheduled for the next meeting. Mr. Piasecki clarified that because of the General Plan, telecommunications ordinance and other issues, staff has not been able to address some topics. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reminded the Planning Commission of the following events: (1) Meeting with the City Council from 5 to 6 p.m. on Monday, August 19th to hear a presentation from the VTA; (2) August 15th tour of the Stevens Creek trail, beginning at 5 p.m. at City Hall; and (3) September 23rd study session on downtown village plan beginning at 5 p.m., followed by the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on August 26, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: August 26, 2002