PC 07-14-03CITY OF CUPERTiNO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JULY 14, 2003 MONDAY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2003 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Chen, and the following
proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner
Angela Chen
Taghi Saadati
Chuck Corr
Marty Miller
Gilbert Wong
Staff present: Commtmity Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Recording Secretary:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
Elizabeth Ellis
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the June 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Woug to approve June 23, 2003
Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
Chairperson Chen noted receipt from Sally Carpenter of
information with photos relative to Item 2.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
TR-2003-05
Luke Bolinger
Request for removal of application of Luke Bolinger for tree
removal and re-landscaping of an existing office building (Intero
Real Estate Services) located at 10275 No. DeAnza Blvd.
Request removal from calendar.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 14, 2003
3. CP-2000-09,
EA-2003-08
Application from City of Cupertino for approval of Wireless
Communications Master Plan. Tentative City Council hearing
date of August 4, 2003; Request postponement to Planning
Commission meeting of July 28, 2003.
5. M-2003-03
Application of Louie Tsigaris on behalf of Flames Restaurant for
modification of a use permit for fagade improvements and
outdoor seating at an existing vacant restaurant. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed. Request
postponement to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28,
2003.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Corr, second by Vice Chair Saadati to postpone Applications
CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 and M-2003-03 to the July 28, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting, and remove Application No. TR-2003-05 from the
calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
PUBLIC HEARING
U-2003-03,
EA-2003-06
Tom Sloan
(Wolf Camera)
Application for a use permit (U-2003-04) to construct six
residential units and add 2,025 square feet to an existing building
located at 1357 So. DeAnza Boulevard. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed; continued from Planning
Commission meeting of June 9, 2003.
Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, summarized informational items submitted today:
· Revised conceptual parking lot plan submitted by applicant on adjacent commercial site.
· Letter from the applicant's attorney regarding Condition 13, with suggested changes.
· Letter from Mr. Russell representing Yamagami Trust.
· Commentary packet with photos from the owner of Bobbi's Coffee Shop.
· Sales tax information dealing with percentage of sales per season on adjacent commercial site,
primarily Yamagami Nursery.
Mr. Chao presented the staff report as follows:
· Reported the application was a use permit application to construct a six unit condominium and
addition of 1,825 square feet to the existing Wolf Camera building in a mixed use planned
development zoning district.
· Site located at northwest comer of DeAnza Boulevard and Wildflower Way surrounded by
similar commercial and office uses with the exception of residential homes to the west.
· Planning Commission considered the project On June 9, 2003 and directed applicant to provide
additional parking analysis for the commercial center and address parking concerns of
adjacent commercial property owner.
· Since the June 9th meeting the applicant directed Fehr and Peers to perform another parking
analysis surveying the actual parking demands of the commercial center including the adjacent
commemial property.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 14, 2003
· Results of an hourly parking survey on Saturday, Tuesday and Thursday of the week indicated
that the highest percentage of vehicles parked in both lots was 72% which occurred on a
weekday meeting at 11 a.m. Survey also showed that the adjacent commercial property
generates much more demands than the project property.
· The parking survey confirmed that the existing overall parking demands does not exceed at
any time the parking supplied between the two properties.
· There is currently an egress/ingress and parking easement between the two properties.
Although the two properties function independently in terms of parking and use, both property
owners have agreed to share any incidental customer parking between the two parcels.
· The adjacent property owner is concerned that the parking privilege will be negatively
affected by the proposed intensification of the subject property.
· Applicant has agreed to redesign Yamagami's parking lot in a more efficient manner and pay
for actual improvement costs up to $25,000.
· The revised parking lot layout yields approximately 35 stalls on adjacent commercial property.
· Applicant has submitted a preliminary construction management plan indicating the
construction equipment staging area will be located at the southeast comer of the subject site
in front of the existing Wolf Camera building.
· Applicant has agreed to complete the previously mentioned parking lot improvements on the
adjacent commercial property prior to commencement of construction of the proposed project.
· Reviewed the construction operation plan.
· Staff supports the proposed parking lot improvement plan.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit application and
negative declaration in accordance with the model resolution.
Com. Corr:
· Questioned why parking survey was not done all the time rather than just selected periods of
the day. Also the new parking plan had been presented but it is not shown where the
Yamagami people have agreed that it is the plan. They are asking more questions and making
more suggestions.
· Referred to Page 2-58 stating at this time they remain opposed to the plan; hence need to hear
from them on where they stand.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the conditions require the provision of 20 additional spaces; if approved tonight that
would be imposed on the applicant; whether there is agreement today or not is less material;
he knows that he would have to achieve agreement; it may put him in a poor negotiating
position with his neighbor.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Asked for clarification on the city's ordinance relative to the size of the parking stalls. He
asked if they encourage uniform parl(~ng stalls or allow compact and regular size.
Mr. Chao:
· Said that the Yamagami Trust wants wider stalls than the ordinance requires; the minimum
width for a standard stall is 8.5 feet, but is somewhat narrower than what is being requested by
the Trust. The intent is for the customers to have more room for loading products purchased.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July
The applicant can still meet the 20 stalls, but would have them confirm that. He said they
usually encourage uniform size stalls, but the applicant can choose to provide 33 compact
stalls and the remainder be full size. On the conceptual plan they are proposing uniform stalls
across the board.
Mr. Piasecki said they must meet the minimum the city has; if they wish to provide wider stalls, it
is acceptable, unless the total yield gets down so low that there is an uncomfortable feeling about
whether the parking is going to work.
Mr. Chao said according to the latest parking study, the numbers indicate that the majority of the
parking demands come from the adjacent property, not Wolf Camera. The parking on Wolf
Camera satisfied Wolf Camera's needs with no overflow onto other lots.
Com. Wong expressed concern about the impact of construction parking curbside on Wildflower
Way on the single family homes behind Wildflower Way.
Mr. Chao said it was proposed by the applicant, but said Condition 10 requires that the applicant
provide for interim employee construction worker offsite parking. According to the applicant they
have secured area across DeAnza Boulevard from the office building to use for that purpose; the
only curbside parking will be the customer parking of Wolf Camera.
Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect:
· Said the revised parking plan takes into account the letter from Borel Bank and meets the
intent of the letter.
· There are fewer parking spaces; do need 20 extra parking spaces but the lot is smaller. They
wanted to preserve a lot of the back lot to be flexible with adding storage of plant materials.
· When completed the site will consist of 6,500 square feet of retail space and 6 residential
condominium units and covered parking for 33 cars.
· The existing retail building will add 1,825 square feet of retail space on a new second floor
above an existing 4,475 square feet if usable retail space currently occupied by Wolf Camera.
· An existing ongrade parking lot behind the Wolf Camera building will be transformed into six
condominium residences with a dedicated parking garage. The new parking garage is shared
with the remodeled retail building.
· The residential units range in size from 2,600 square feet for the two-story unit to 2,700 square
feet for the three story unit, with one unit 3,200 square feet. The developer plans on
maintaining half of the units as rental housing.
· Transforming the existing parking lot into housing provides a buffer to traffic noise from
DeAnza Boulevard for existing residential neighbors; it also creates a gateway transition
between the commercial and retail use of DeAnza Boulevard and the existing residential
neighborhood.
· Existing traffic patterns will be maintained bringing no extra traffic into the existing
residential neighborhood.
· Existing driveway that bisects the site and serves as a secondary ingress and egress for the
adjacent retail businesses will remain as is. Each existing large tree surrounding the existing
parking lot will remain and be protected throughout the construction period. The new
development fits inside the existing parking lot. The trees will soften the overall impact of the
new construction as well as provide a measure of privacy between the surrounding properties.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 14, 2003
· Architecturally the new parking lot will be constructed so that it slopes gradually down about
4-1/2% toward the rear; allowing the massing of the building to step down toward the
residential neighbors, as well as giving those who park in the new lot a view towards the retail
building, providing a visual connection rather than being an underground parking lot.
· Architecturally the buildings reflect the current times; the abundant curving roofs of the
adjacent nursery buildings as well as the gentle hillsides that frame the valley floor inspire the
curving roof shape for the project.
· With respect to the 6 condo units, each distinct condo unit is articulated with separate
individual porches, rooflines, as well as a variety of materials such as stucco and wood siding
and varying colors. Walls modulate in and out to break up the massing and create the look of
separate living units. Balconies and lofts step their upper floors back away from the street,
giving the residential units a feeling of smaller overall height. The same balconies and lofts
promote views not to any neighbors' yards, but to the western hills beyond. Each unit had
luxury amenities, including several bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms, skylight, etc.
With the remodeling of the Wolf Camera building it will be articulated to blend architecturally
with the proposed condos. The existing white walls will be transformed with the addition of
bold, tile wainscoting at the base and a metal trellis structure at the top; a new upper floor will
be set back with surrounding balconies and similar curving rooflines that echo the curving
rooflines of the condos.
· An elevator and staircore will be located at the southwest corner of the retail building.
· Overall the project increases the supply of housing for Cupertino by creating 6 new condo
homes, on a site traditionally set aside for a non-residential use.
Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Greg Bunker, property developer:
· Said they worked hard on the project and have been amenable to the Trust requests; undergone
several design changes to their proposed parking lot and are willing to make further
adjustments.
· Said the project will enhance the property values to the adjacent homes and retail as well.
· Said that Norm Hulberg of an appraisal firm said that Yamagami property would increase in
value approximately 20% to 30% following completion of the project.
· Said the majority of issues with the Trust had been addressed but felt he did not want to give
up the cross easement on the property.
· He distributed the title report information and stated they had reciprocal agreements from the
80s.
· Said there was the ability to mitigate their parking problems, that theycould create 90 spaces
of their own with virtually no difficulty at any time. They could additionally solve their
parking problems by creating appropriate signage on their site that would limit to one or two
hour parking for people who frequent there. Said he felt it was a parking opportunity, not a
parking problem, and in some centers there were some spaces with different limits, with
signage to prevent commuters from parking.
Mr. Jason Vesdall, Fehr and Peers:
· Said they performed the initial shared parking analysis and the subsequent additional parking
surveys.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 14, 2003
· The survey shows the existing demand; and in response to Com. Miller's question about
individual comings and goings, that was not surveyed, just who was parked in what area at a
certain time. Because of the layout and the land uses he said he felt it safe to say that most of
the people parking in the Bunker property are going to Wolf Camera, but the surveys don't
reflect any kind of a determination as to exactly what land use has what demand.
· Responding to Com. Corr's earlier question about why certain times were used to measure
impacts, he said that they used Tuesday and Thursday mornings and afternoons; and Saturday
for a typical Saturday period; times were chosen based on the original analysis of the ULI and
the peak percentages at times of when they are the highest.
· Indicated on the illustration of the conceptual parking plan the areas covered in the study,
noting that some of the spaces were taken up by trash bins and some with patio displays.
· He said that the surveys were not meant to be comprehensive in any sense; but were times to
show the peaks during those time periods.
Said number of parking stalls required for the Bunker property would be 37, 4 per 1,000
square feet of retail and 2 for residential.
· Said the analysis didn't take into account the size of other properties.
· Said it was not taken into account which customer was parking where and it was difficult to
tell who was generating what demand.
· Said Mr. Bunker's development was under-parked per the code.
Com. Corr said it was understandable not to try to build for the absolute maximum peak, but it
raised the question what the numbers show if what is seen as the peak times is ignored, such as
Saturday and Sunday when the coffee shop is the busiest, and when customers are shopping at
Yamagami's, but few dropping film off at Wolf Camera. As a customer, one knows those are the
heavy times and customers drive around looking for a space to park. He said he did not
understand why that would not be included in the mix.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said there was a reasonable level of assurance that if they add the parking spaces shown, if
Mr. Bunker reaches an agreement with the Trust and is able to then add those additional
spaces, there should be a good comfort level; under no circumstance should those numbers get
up to the high 80% or 90% after the number of parking spaces are added.
· Said the bottom tine is if the Planning Commission was not comfortable with it, and wanted a
count from Saturday moming, it would require a continuance.
· In response to Com. Wong's question if conditional approval would be that they build a
parking lot before they construct Wolf Camera, Mr. Piasecki said they would restripe the lot
next door to add the specified number of spaces. He said it should be in the revised version
now available.
Com. Wong questioned why the second provision was added requiring that if there was a survey
done, less parking would be desired.
Mr. Chao said it was actually suggested by the applicant; staff recommendation is to keep the
conditions the way it is drafted in the staff report for 20 extra stalls. Parking analysis has already
been done several times so there is no need to do additional ones unless the Planning Commission
wants to.
Planning Commission Minutes ? July 14, ~2003
Chair Chen asked for the ordinance requirement, how many spaces were required for a restaurant
that size and how many spaces were required for the nursery of that size.
Mr. Chao said there currently was no category for nurseries; if a parking analysis was conducted
on Yamagami's the parking consultant would be asked to provide an analysis in terms of the type
of ratio it generates; for restaurants one per four seats, and one per each employee.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the intent wasn't to ask the applicant to provide all of the theoretical parking that the next
door neighbor may need under code or ideal conditions; the intention was to ask them to
provide sufficient number of parking spaces that his development would have no impact on
the parking condition or the situation out there.
· When calculating the demand for additional uses on the property, the number 20 was needed
to completely offset any potential impact.
Mr. William Seligmann, attorney representing Mr. Bunker:
· Said it was important to bear in mind that the role of the Planning Commission is to ensure
there is a good project that complies with the city's laws and makes good development sense.
It is not the role of the Planning Commission to try and determine the relative property rights
between the adjacent property owner Mr. Bunker and whoever else might get thrown into the
mix.
· Said the question is if it is a good project and will the parking, if built, satisfy the parking
demand? In that regard staff has provided a reasonable condition requiring 20 extra parking
spaces to be developed which his client is willing to do if he can work it out with the adjacent
property owner which would guarantee sufficient parking as staff has advised.
· Said that they did not expect the city to be bound to approve any other parking analysis, but
wanted the opportunity to come back if the client could not work something out and present an
alternative to staff or the Planning Commission, which would prevent a deadlock and may
foster resolution of the parking issue in the interim.
Mr. David Gibbons, Barry Swenson Builders:
· Said that they were cognizant of the neighbor's concerns during construction, making sure to
keep materials in the designated storage area, keep the access ways open and schedule
interruptions that may be potential problems in advance and on a schedule that meets their
needs and remain good neighbors through the entire process.
· Said most of the lumber and tresses would be delivered on top of the deck, hence area would
not be needed all the time. To prevent loss from thievery, most of the materials when they are
delivered would be put in the units quickly.
· Said construction would take one year.
· He explained the phasing of the parking lot; the area under the condos could be used for
construction parking and would be done in the first three or four months.
· Mr. Chao said that the condition requires that the 20 additional stalls be installed before they
start the project. Mr. Piasecki said that parking for Wolf Camera's needs would be offsite for
employees and onstreet for their customers.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 14, 2003
Mr. John Golden, attorney for Borel Bank:
Stated that Mr. Bunker's easement for parking is for only 11 spaces that join the Wolf Camera
property.
The Yamagami's easement extends to the existing Wolf Camera parking area including all the
area under the condos.
· Expressed concern about the loss of that space and concerned that the staffhas a requirement
that 6 of the underlying spaces be devoted solely to residential use which will take away
parking spots they feel they have a legal right to.
* Stated that other concems are when and if Mr. Bunker and the Yamagami Trust and its tenants
reach an agreement and after further discussion there is still no agreement, the requirement
that the Yamagami property be parking-wise retrofttted may invoke considerable additional
governmental oversite, permitting variances. He said they do not know the outcome, but does
not want to get embroiled in a design review on their property to accommodate Mr. Bunker.
· Commented on the statement in the report that implies Mr. Bunker has agreed to commit
$25,000 to the improvements discussed; stating it was correct although there has been no
agreement and there is more than half a point to be worked out between the Trust and Mr.
Bunker.
Mr. Lawrence Russell, Trust Officer, Borel Trust, said he was responsible for the day to day
administration of the Yamagami trust which is the legal owner of the property contiguous to Mr.
Bunker's:
· Stated that he has been involved with the Trust for 15 years.
· Provided a history of the Yamagami property.
· Said at the time of Mr. Yamagami's death, there was not enough cash available to pay the
federal estate taxes and the executor felt they had to sell the property that is now owned by
Mr. Bunker.
· Said throughout that period of time both on advice of counsel and research what is shown is
the existing Wolf Camera parking lot, which in his opinion has clearly been a property right
possessed by the Yamagami Trust; and when the development was proposed as much as they
were willing to work with Mr. Bunker, he said they did not want to give up any property fights
they may have.
· Said the parking studies may show there is adequate parking at the present time; but they are
hopeful of future growth since the trust revenue is dependent on increased revenue from the
nursery, and the beneficiary of the trust may decide to develop the property in ten to thirty
years. If they hindered or gave up any of their property rights at this time, he said they may
hinder their rights in the future as to the development of their parcel.
· Said they had many discussions since the last council meetings and appreciated the
cooperation of Mr. Sloan in getting the parking studies; and in response to the earlier question
about where the 9 feet, 3 inches derived from and their request for parking spaces of that size,
he said he went to the parking lot of their building and measured from center line to center line
and it was 9 feet 3 inches. He said he felt it was the minimum necessary in a retail situation
where people have carts with large packages and trees.
· Said he was hopeful it could be worked out. He acknowledged staff's work and said he
appreciated the insertion of the requirement for the 20 spaces.
Planning Commission Minutes O July 14, 9~003
Mr. Darrell Fasekas, 8160 Park Villa Circle:
· Said he was in favor of the project.
· Said staff and architect have done an excellent job in creating a pedestrian friendly front porch
classic townhouse look to the project; improvements of the exterior on the Wolf Camera are
fantastic and will improve the neighborhood.
· Expressed concern about the opposition from the Yamagami group; they have made no effort
and no landscaping at all currently between any of the parking and the street; expectation
would be that a landscaper would at least could put in some landscaping on their own
property.
· Said he did not understand why Yamagamis are opposing improvements to their parking area;
the parking has none of the modem touches that the striping of the new plan shows; hence he
said he favored the new plan for that project.
· Said that the Yamagamis could free up parking as they store patio furniture in the parking lots
and have storage in the rear parking area.
· Said in the city of Cupertino, each property must have the parking it needs for its own project
and Cupertino has always required cross easements; rarely do they require cross parking.
· Claims about not being able to park are groundless; it is a legal, private dispute.
· City should look at the project as it stands on its own, staff recommends the 34 cars are more
than adequate for the project.
· Urged approval of the project.
Mr. Barry Behr, 10540 Crescent Drive, Los Altos:
· Said he was a member of NARDA, North American Retailer/Dealers Association and
participates on the board.
· Said that the project would impact three locally owned businesses that employ many people
employed in the community.
· Questioned the parking lot study, stating that on Saturdays and Sundays it is difficult to find a
parking spot.
· Said there was a 15 minute limit sign by Wolf Camera; questioned how 15 minutes would be
enough time to do several things, such as have breakfast, and shop within 15 minutes.
· Expressed concern about traffic on DeAnza Boulevard; bad situation with 280; people stop on
DeAnza Boulevard waiting for a parking spot to open up.
· The property generates employment for at least 50 individuals and their families.
· It is a unique piece of property with all deliveries in front of the building which makes parking
and availability of parking more critical.
· Bad situation at BJs with valet parking; it is not feasible.
· Cannot see how to take 33 parking spots away.
· It is a gorgeous project, but in the wrong place at the wrong time.
· Said he questioned the parking study; it does not match the reality of the existing marketplace.
Ms. Sally Carpenter, owner of Bobbi's Coffee Shop:
· Said at June 9th Planning Commission meeting there were a series of photos illustrating the
impact of the parking in all lots.
· Since that time on June 27th, 22 of the spaces have been painted out to read 15 or 30 minute
parking which has had a major impact on Bobbi's business.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 July
· Signs with 2 hour minimum or 90 minutes would be appropriate so customers could eat and
shop.
· Brochure shows how impacted parking is on Wildwood Way; it is difficult to park there and
the entire shopping center is full.
· Customers say they can't patronize Bobbi's because there is no where to park and they don't
want to park in the 15 minute lot and get their car towed.
· The restaurant across the street is busy, while Bobbi's is not because of lack of parking.
· Parking has always been a problem.
· Bobbi's Coffee Shop provides an important contribution to the community; some customers
eat there daily, some twice daily; it is a meeting place; it is important to preserve the strong
community feeling.
· Employees are fearful of losing their jobs because of the reduced parking.
· She said if the construction plan is passed, she was asking for a parking plan for before, during
the construction, as well as the staging equipment that will not take away from the present88
spaces because they are already impacted.
· Bobbi's has been in business for 32 years; the last 3 years 8 restaurants have gone out of
business in Cupertino and she did not want to be the 9th.
Ms. Leslie Prindel Klein:
· Said she and her husband supported Bobbi's and Yamagami's.
· Said not to endanger the livelihood of the owner of Bobbi's.
· Stressed that parking has always been difficult in those lots.
· The new 15 and 30 minute limit spaces in the Wolf lot have exacerbated the situation making
it almost impossible to find parking at the noon hour and Saturdays and Sundays.
· 15 minute parking is unreasonable; who put those signs up; not a good neighbor policy.
· Wouldn't park in the 15 minute area because of the possibility of being towed away.
· Said the parking survey must not have been done on Saturday or Sunday because it's almost
impossible to find parking there on Saturdays and Sundays.
· Impacts people on Wildflower Way.
· Compact parking spaces would impact Yamagami's since most vehicles picking up
merchandise are SUVs, trucks, contractors' trucks.
· The overflow of people in the condos will park in Yamagami's.
· Yamagami's and Bobbi's have been paying taxes to the city for a long time and she urged the city's
support for them.
Mr. Preston Oka, owner/operator of Yamagami's and resident of Cupertino:
· Said he had points to present that need to be satisfied in order for him to support the
project.
· Asking that the parking stalls, the majority of them measure at least 9 feet and have an 18
foot length.
· Parking improvements be completed prior to beginning of the Bunker project. Parking
improvements not start until after the third weekend of October of any given year.
· All phases of the Bunker project not start until July of any given year; reason explained on
second page of handout given; a breakdown showing Yamagami's proportion of sales tax
revenue generated by quarter, April-June is the biggest quarter and if impacted negatively
in those months, that business will not come back and it is revenue lost by the city.
Planning Commission Minutes I1 July 14, 2003
· Prior to reading the last report asked for maintaining a maximum of 80 parking spaces, but
according to latest report, the Bunker project will allow or make possible up to 76 parking;
the existing 56 and the new proposed 20.
Said he needed to know if the redevelopment of the parking in Yamagami's nursery would
trigger easements by the city, as those easements would take away parking.
· Said that the rows should be at least 25 feet, however the parking stalls are only 16 feet
and now are in the neighborhood of 18 feet. The reason the 25 feet is crucial is when the
deliveries with large semi trucks and bigrigs park, the customer vehicles must be able to
negotiate around the parked trucks.
· If the project goes forth, a variance would be needed to allow the acceptance of delivery
of goods and conduct of business; request that it range between 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
· The new residents should be informed that they are moving into a commercial/retail area.
· The construction plan needs to be more detailed to show what is going to happen to
Yamagami's employee parking who presently park along Wildflower Way which is for
Wolf Camera customers in the new plan.
· Request a comprehensive construction plan for Phase 2 because Phase 2 needs to be
developed in the current proposed staging area; need to know what is going to happen to
that staging area once phase 2 goes into effect.
Relative to the question whether design review would be required for the restriping plan, Mr.
Piasecki clarified that the Planning Commission could declare that it is not considered significant
enough to require any more than staff level approval for restriping; and it does not have to provide
any additional improvements.
Mr. Roger Costa, 10932 Canyon Vista Drive:
· Said he was a frequent customer of Bobbi's and Yamagami's and the current parking situation
on weekends is impacted; and said when there is no parking space, people go elsewhere.
· Said in current economic situation it is bad policy to take a piece of property not designated as
residential and develop it in that way and marginalize long-standing retail establishments that
presently generate revenues for the city.
· He encouraged the Planning Commission to be diligent and skeptical as to whether or not this
project really does make sense in this location.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive:
· Said in the past the city has shown good ideas and unintended consequences; Seven Springs
Ranch was allowed many years ago and the schools and areas are paying for it now since the
children have to go further than before and it is not as safe.
· Stated examples of traffic impacts at various locations in Cupertino.
· Questioned the need for six units, other than for profit.
· New development vs. old; give consideration to people who have been here for many years
and not penalize them for someone who wants to do something new.
· Not against mixed use; mixed use may work here; but on the other hand, do not allow the
numbers you have; when you allow certain buildings to go on, we don't allow for people to
come and socialize with residents; just allowing enough parking for people that reside there;
need to make allowance for more than is there.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 14, 9003
· Allow for quality of life; allow long time institutions to last and survive. The complaint is
there is no money coming in, but the city keeps forcing people out; keep it to a minimum to
allow for these people to continue their successful concerns.
· Questioned if it was above 36 feet height; what is the reason for going against the General
Plan in place?
· Requested that heights be lowered and get the setbacks away from where it is.
Mr. Piasecki:
· clarified that there were no height exceptions requested in this application, and no setback
exceptions.
· Responded to Com. Wong's question if the limited 15 minute parking and 6 spots for
neighborhood parking would infringe on the easement. Said that for the 6 dedicated spaces,
the Planning Commission could simply say there would not be dedicated spaces; it does not
need to be a requirement; it was a convenience that was envisioned would be necessary for the
residents; not an absolute necessity. In terms of the 15 minute parking, he said he felt it is
something the applicant has done; not sure it violates any provisions, but not a very good
neighbor policy. Applicant may want to speak to that.
Com. Miller:
· Questioned if there is no agreement between Yamagami and Mr. Bunker on the 20 spaces, are
the 20 spaces what is needed in order to satisfy Wolf Camera's parking needs or is that just for
the interim period during construction? Do the 20 spaces have to be on the Yamagami
property?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The 20 space requirement is to ensure that the project has no impact above and beyond the
current condition. He is providing basically all the parking that he would need for the
additional 6 condo units and the additional square footage of retail.
· It neutralizes any impact that this project may have on any neighbors. The conditions state
that he shall provide these which gives the comfort level that you are not creating any greater
impact. Whether they can work out the business about the reciprocal parking arrangement is
up to them and it doesn't matter in this case because now his impacts have been neutralized.
· Relative to the 20 spaces, he said they should specify that it would be per this plan and be very
close to modeling the plan received. No other area has been identified where it could be
accommodated other than the interim parking for employees across the street, which is fine for
construction but doesn't take care of the long term needs.
· It is anticipated that it would have to happen at least on the Yamagami property; there is no
room on the Wolf Camera site.
Chair Chen asked how many parking spaces were required for the parking which had to be
constructed prior to construction.
Mr. Chao said 20 parking stalls would have to be constructed on the Yamagami site prior to the
construction of the Wolf Camera project. During construction also addresses the interim or
incidental shared customer parking concerns that are being expressed by the Yamagami nursery
owner as well, because they can park there as well.
Planning Commission Minutes Ig July 14, 2003
Mr. Piasecki said that construction employees would be asked to park across the street, there are
20+ employees parking across the street, both the permanent employees that work at Wolf Camera
as well as construction workers, which would presumably free up the onstreet parking for the
incidental customers of Wolf Camera seeking out the site; otherwise most of their activity will go
through the drive-through. He said it would take care of their current demand especially during the
construction phase.
Ms. Murray clarified that there is an easement for shared parking between the two properties; the
easement exists but is vague. It states shared parking; and from the plan, currently that lot on
Wolf Camera property has 33 spaces, which are shared spaces; less 12 of those for the condos,
leaving 21 shared spaces, which has to be made up somewhere. She said she did not understand
why the shared spaces are made up on Yamagami's property. If they decided to develop later in a
more intensified way, where would they get the extra spaces? She said she wanted to know what
they agree the easement means. She said she did not feel the city could approve a project when it
is not clear what the easement means; what the property owners agreed to; and she felt they were
given the direction at the last meeting to come back with that.
Com. Miller said it was also not clear to him; and that Vice Chair Saadati asked a question before
and the answer was that this site under the ordinance would require 37 parking stalls. Mr. Chao
said that was correct. Com. Miller said that what was proposed is 34 on the site plus an additionM
20 on the Yamagami site for a total of 54. Mr. Chao concurred, stating that the 20 stalls are to
help offset the incidental customer parking that is being shared between the two properties and that
number is based on the intensification being proposed by the Wolf Camera site.
Mr. Piasecki said the concept was relatively simple; neutralize the impact of this development with
20 additional spaces on the neighbor; obviously it requires the neighbor's consent to restripe their
lot, so there will have to be an agreement between the two parties relating to the reciprocal rights
they have; whether they continue to have reciprocal rights after the project is completed, is up to
them. They will have an additional 20 spaces in the interim period so they will take care of any
impacts that the additional development would cause on their property. In terms of the future, they
have some choices to make as well; how much will they build; do they have enough parking,
because as discussed early on in this case there seems to be a reciprocal parking agreement going
on between the properties. Presently, they have not come to an agreement, and the condition states
that they have to come to an agreement because they can't do any work on the property without it.
Ms. Murray said the easement is so vague and counsel does not want to be in the position of
interpreting it; they want to interpret it as the property owners interpret it.
Mr. Piasecki summarized that Mr. Bunker has an encumbered piece of property with a very vague
easement that constrains what he can do.
Chair Chen closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Com. Miller:
· Said he initially felt Mr. Bunker had the right to develop his property; at the same time we
need to make sure that whatever development he does is mitigated in terms of the impact on
the other properties.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 14, ~003
· Said he was initially concerned about and asked who was generating the most traffic felt in
terms of the businesses there; Mr. Bunker's current situation with 33 spots fulfills his parking
needs and does not impact other neighbors; which leads to possibility that the other areas of
the center are under-parked and they need to do something to address that.
· Said he frequents Yamagami's and also at Bobbi's and is confused about the parking relative
to B obbi's because most of it is marked Yamagami Nursery; confusing since Bobbi's seems to
have very few parking spaces. It would be beneficial if all participants got together and
straightened out the situation.
· Said staff's comments of the need to be sensitive to this easement and address any incidental
impacts that might occur is legitimate and he supported doing that; and felt the project could
move forward as staff recommended.
· In response to Chair Chen's question, he said he considered the parking striping a minor issue.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Reported he drove by the area on DeAnza Boulevard and Wildflower 5 to 6 times including in
the morning, and at 7 and 8 p.m. and didn't see cars parked in the parking lot next to
Wildflower; most of the time there was congestion in the area next to the coffee shop which
indicates probably some of the employees park there.
· Said based on the study performed, usually the maximum peak parking level is not provided;
if attempting to provide for all the traffic, it would be impossible to find enough land to let all
the cars drive around the city, hence there is a level that needs to be taken into consideration.
Said additional 20 parking stalls is a reasonable effort to try to mitigate the parking situation.
· Parking lot as a whole does not have a good configuration, the circulation is not good, but it is
an inherent problem that existed for a long time.
· Unless one develops the whole site and reconfigures the parking with some underground
parking, that is not going to go away.
· The construction plan addressing the staging area seems to be reasonable; it is away from the
parking area and there are going to be some issues during construction but there has to be
communication on a regular basis to try to eliminate any potential issues that come up and
there needs to be good neighbor relationship. He questioned who put the 15 minute parking
limit sign out, and said it did not seem to be the right approach and hopefully it will not
continue.
· Parking issue is minor; no need to go to DRC with it. Said he concurred with Com. Miller and
felt it should be approved based on the conditions stated; that all parties need to come to an
agreement to resolve those issues.
· Supports the project.
Com. Corr:
· Said it was a quandary; coming from the parking study where he would rather be up front and
honest and admit that Saturday and Sunday mornings it is a mess and doesn't work, but for
most of the time it does; Vice Chair Saadati was correct in stating they don't build airport
parking for holiday traffic, or build a highways to handle the maximum peak; it is built for
something less and as a result people stand in lines.
· Said there was also the issue of one owner's rights to use his property vs. another's, and was
confused by the vague easement issue.
· Where the applicant is with his project seems fine, especially if there is an easement with an
adjacent property which there is, although vague; he has offered to add additional parking to
Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 1~-,
make it workable; yet there is still a major parking issue out there. There is major congestion,
and on the one hand they state that it is appropriate to approve the project, because on its own
it works as long as it has some adjacent parking, but for much of the time, the adjacent
parking really is not available because of the number of people using it at those peak times.
Said he understood the applicant wanted to retain part as rental property and part for-sale
property; originally all six units were for sale units.
Mr. Piasecki said the applicant intends to map them so they are available for sale, but also wishes
to make them available to family members of his own for lease or rent. He said a for-sale unit
could always be rented.
Com. Corr:
· Said he was concerned about the parking issue during construction; relative to use of area
under the podium, said he was concerned about the safety of the people entering a
construction site during construction.
· Said it was dependent on the parking and the easement and what the easement means; the
finding to be made is that the proposed use at this location will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience. If approved tonight, as staff pointed out, it cannot be
built unless something is worked out between the two parties yet without knowing that that is,
a judgment cannot be made that it meets that requirement.
· Not ready to approve the project at this point.
· Said they need to see what the details are even though it can't be built unless an agreement
comes to fruition; but it is not known what the agreement is and they may not like it if it does.
Com. Wong:
· Said he was a parking advocate.
· Drove by on the weekend about 12:15 and the parking lot was 90% full; Monday 11 a.m.
about 50% full; Wolf Camera is usually very empty; Wildflower was full both on weekdays
and weekends; expressed concern about Wildflower.
· Said he felt giving an additional 20 spaces to this project and applicant paying at his expense,
is very generous of Mr. Bunker.
· Zoned for mixed use; is private property.
· Said they were well designed condos; underground parking appropriate;
· Building of the garden center needs to be painted;
Removal of lawn patio furniture will free up many parking spaces;
· Agreed with Com. Corr that it is cluttered around the coffee shop and said byrestriping it, it
would give a better circulation plan on the other property.
· Said he supported the city's attorney;
· Expressed concern about the horizontal mixed use; prefer more vertical mixed use, but for the
small property, it seems appropriate.
Chair Chen:
· Said biggest concern is the legal obligation on the Wolf Camera site and providing parking for
the area; it is confirmed that there is a legal obligation but the question is how many parking
spots is considered enough for the area, and they have to reach that agreement before the
building permit; and that agreement will be reviewed and approved by the city attorney.
Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 14, 2003
· Said she was comfortable with the parking issue.
· Said relative to the construction management plan, the understanding is that during the
construction the same amount of parldng will be maintained and also Wolf Camera will stay in
operation; hopefully Wolf Camera will produce the least disturbance to the neighborhood
business during the construction and also Wolf Camera has agreed to as part of the conditions
of approval to provide 20 more parking spaces which will create minimal impact to the area
after completion of the construction.
· Said she supported the project.
· Relative to parking striping, she said it was a minor issue that can be reviewed by DRC.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application
U-2003-03 and EA-2003-06 as per staff's recommendations including the
additional item that restriping is a minor issue. Mr. Piasecki suggested
language be included that relative to Item 13, referring to the plan submitted
by Metro Design Group dated July 14, 2003 that the restriping plan shall
closely approximate this exhibit.
Com. Miller agreed to modification to motion; Com. Wong seconded the
change in motion. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Corr voted no.)
(Mr. Piasecki clarified that the spaces have to be provided on the Yamagami property and not
somewhere else.)
M-2003-02
Sy-Cheng-Tsai
Application of Sy-Cheng Tsai for modification of a use permit
(9-13-97) to modify the parking lot located at 20600 Mariani
Avenue/10495 No. DeAnza Boulevard and to allow office uses
in the building adjacent to Bandley Drive. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows:
· Reported the application was a modification to an existing use permit from 1997, formerly the
Any Mountain retail property.
· He reviewed the prior uses of the property dating back to 1976.
Said because of the specialized use of the property with a seasonal type business, the City
Council supported a reduced parking requirement on the property.
· Parking lot as presently configured does not have adequate parl(~ng to support an office use.
· Reviewed the proposed parking and circulation, providing 41 parking spaces where 38 are
required.
· Said the owner is preparing to sell the rear portion of the lot to a different individual for
medical and office uses.
· Reviewed the proposal to remove 8 Liquidambar trees and replacement with Oklahoma
Redbuds.
· Staff supports the tree replacement.
· Part of the recommendation for approval of the project includes a requirement for a lot line
adjustment to move the parking already counted toward the main building fully.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approved the use permit modification per the
model resolution.
Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 14, 2003
Mr. Jung responded to commissioners' questions:
· Said medical office use included dentists, medical doctors, any of the practitioners of the
healing arts.
· The area is zoned for office uses although the particular use permit for these particular
buildings was especially for the ski retailer and there were conditions in the resolutions that
said any time the use is changed, a use permit is needed because that is what these buildings
were originally designed for.
· If approved tonight it would be changed to a general office and medical office building;
wanted to allow the applicant some flexibility in terms of uses. Condition 3 says you can vary
the amount of offices and medical offices in that building but it needs to meet the city's
parking requirement; the aggregate parking requirement and that the basement area be used
strictly for storage as it was in the original permit.
· Said all requirements for medical building use including parking and traffic are addressed.
· The medical uses have a slightly higher parking requirement.
· Noted that he felt the owner was unaware of the strict uses on the property for the rear
building and he was probably illegally tending the rear building for office uses since vacating
in 1997. It has been used as an office; the rear building has been used as an office in an
unpermitted condition, which is being corrected with this application.
Relative to Chair Chen's question about future use for medical, Mr. Jung responded:
· It could not be entirely converted to a medical office use; for a medical office they have
certain specialized tenant improvements. They will need to come back to the city to apply for
building permit and at that stage they are asked to provide a parking study or do a parking
analysis to see if the building can accommodate additional medical office use above what is
currently there. It happens throughout many of the office buildings in Cupertino. The
potential buyers of this property are aware of the ceiling relative to the medical office use.
Chair Chen referred to Page 4-2, parking and circulation, and stated that the parking area has been
redesigned using the city's unisize standard and narrowing the center landscape island.
Mr. Jung referred to the parking plan, and illustrated where the existing parking was, with the 4
foot wide landscaping strip between the two rows of parking. He stated that the applicant
narrowed the driveways to the minimum that the city allows to put in an additional row of parking,
and narrowed the landscape strip. He said there was a unisize parking standard, 8-1/2 feet wide,
16 feet long; developed for parking garages; size for compact is 8 x 16, full size is 9 x 18, as stated
in the parking ordinance 19.128. The ordinance is written for full size with a percentage of
compact, or the alternative as specified in the parking ordinance to go to all unisize; it is the choice
of the applicant.
Vice Chair Saadati clarified that in order to maximize number of spaces one looks at both options
to see which way they can increase the number of parking stalls. Relative to the option of full
size, compact and unisize, study to see which one gets maximum number of stalls; that is how
number is maximized. Certain jurisdictions require specific one of these.
Ms. T. E. Tsai, representing the new owner:
· Said relative to the lot line adjustment, they asked that the Planning Commission reconsider to
not put it as a condition; there is in place a recorded document of a reciprocal parking
Planning Commission M;nutes 1~ July 14, 9003
easement agreement on both properties. The easement agreement recorded in 1997 has been
submitted and it is the attorney's opinion that it is sufficient for them to use each others.
· Said with new parking proposal there would be 41 parking spaces.
Referring to the site plan, she illustrated the area owned by her client, and the number of
parking spaces. There are currently 27 spaces; with the new proposal there will be 41 which
includes an increase of 14 spaces. With the required increase of 11, there are 3 extras.
· Said the client is reluctant to give up the property because of the high price and also the time
and cost to do a lot line adjustment.
· Said if there is a need to have an overflow or vice versa, it should not pose a problem, and
requested review of the easement agreement and said they were willing to tighten the language
to satisfy the Planning Commission needs to preserve this piece of land for the client, since
when they purchased it, the value was considered the whole entire parking and if lost, may
lose the building and the land ratio.
· Said that 20 years in the future was not known and they may want redevelop the property, and
would rather not have the lot line adjustment if possible.
Mr. Piasecki asked the city attorney if they added language to Item 5 stating that alternatively the
applicant may record a covenant condition and restriction indicating that the parking spaces are
devoted to the adjacent building to the east and cannot be utilized to justify any additional
expansion or re building on this particular property, expansion of use or expansion of the building.
He said it would cover the issue Mr. Jung raised about allocating the spaces; and would work as an
alternative, which should satisfy the applicant's request.
Ms. Tsai said it would satisfy their request, as they did not want to lost the piece of land. She said
they would indemnify each other in the insurance coverage for that strip and the maintenance
agreement covers how to take care of the parking spaces.
Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Com. Wong:
· Supports the project with staff's recommendation.
Com. Corr:
· Supports the project with the addition relative to the use of the strip of land that is the split
parking.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Supports project.
Com. Miller:
· Supports project with staff's suggested changes.
Chair Chen:
· Supports the project.
Planning Commission Minutes 19 July 14, 9003
Motion:
Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Miller to approve Application
M-2003-02 with change to Condition 5 on the lot line adjustment as indicated
by staff. (Alternatively the applicant may record a covenant running with the
land agreeing that the parking spaces bisected by the property line along the
east side of the building shall be credited and utilized to support uses and
activities on the adjacent building to the east and may not be utilized for uses
and expansion of the building on the subject property). (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider cancellation of one Planning Commission meeting in August.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Corr, to cancel the August 11th
meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Chen noted for the record that she may not be available to attend the July 28, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
· Com. Wong reported that he attended the recent meeting on behalf of Com. Corn Topics
included the Oaks Shopping Center mixed usc, voting unanimously to support the
Environmental Review Report.
Housing Commission
Com. Miller reported he did not attend the meeting as he was out of town. Vera Gil attended
the meeting and noted that the meeting looked at the site plans and elevations for the Oaks
project and the Menlo Properties project.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting
· Ms. Wordell reported that the July and August meetings were canceled.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director accepted as
presented.
In response to Vice Chair Saadati's request for clarification on the item that the City Council
overruled the DRC on, Mr. Piasecki reported that it was also an item recommended by the
Planning Commission, the Mann Drive application; there was an appeal and the City Council
agreed with the Planning Commission that it was reasonable to allow this particular building to
have a taller eave height and taller wall than the guidelines would normally allow; the case
does set a precedent and will be honored for other applications in similar situations; so it does
indicate the little flexibility now in the design guidelines for the R1 ordinance. It is strict
interpretation that staff utilizes has been altered by that case.
Planning Commission Minutes 20 July 14, 200~
Relative to the Director's report regarding Randy Lane and Larry Way, Com. Wong reported he
attended the July 8th resident sponsored meeting at Quinlan Center. He said he looked forward to
seeing the project go forward to the Planning Commission.
Com. Miller said the meeting was July 23rd at 7 p.m. at city hall.
Mr. Piasecki provided an update on the Vallco negotiations; the property sold in June; new owner
has met with Mr. Piaseeki and the city manager and indicated that their intention is to go forward
and lease out the lower level of Vallco with an international market place with long terms plans
potentially to put residential on the Vallco Fashion Park property. He said that the owners did not
indicate that there would be any change in the short term; in the long term indicated that the Ice
Rink is tied to the development agreement and is not required after 2006 when the agreement
expires, when the city may make it a priority or not.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS:
Com. Corr discussed the newspaper article regarding the demise of the Cupertino Oaks theater.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the next regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on July 28, 2003.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
/s/ Elizabeth A. Ellis~-C ~c%dJ.Z~'~
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Sectary
/s/ Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
/s/ Steve Piasecki
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Approved as amended: July 28, 2003