PC 08-26-97CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1997
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
Austm, Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris
Doyle
Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy WordelL City Planner;
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the August 11, 1997 Regular Meeting
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the August 1 l, 1997 Planning Commission
minutes as presented.
Com. Austin
Com. Roberts
Com. Doyle
Passed 3-0-1
Minutes of the July 23, 1997 Adjourned Meeting:
Chair Harris r~quested the following changes to the July 23 minutes:
Page 6, 4th Paragraph from bottom: Delete paragraph and replace with: "Referring to tables on
City revenues for development by Sedway & Associates, Chair Harris questioned what the
difference in City revenues would be if you compared a 250,000 sq. ft. office building with an
equivalent-sized retail site. Staff was unable to derive a specific number, but the tables showed
retail had a higher revenue return than office." Chair Harris explained that the original text implied
that it was 250,000 sq. fL of land rather than 250,000 sq. t~. of building.
Page 7, 4th Paragraph from top: First line should read: "Chair Harms expressed concern and
disagreement about the comment...."
Page 10, 3rd Paragraph: Change "he couM support 1:1 which would still put the incentive there to
have it retail" to: "he could support a 1:1 shift of retad to office rather than a 1 to 1-1/2".
Page 10, 4th Paragraph: "$400,000" should read "400,000 sq. fi."
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 26, 1997
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of the July 23, 1997 adjourned meeting
Com. Roberts
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
V(RITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
8-ASA-97
SNK Development (Ariom)
10741 No. Wolfe Rd. & 19590 Pruneridge Avenue
Architectural review of landscaping and recreational plans for an approved aparlment complex.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNTNG COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT. 8, 1997
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
9-EXC-97 and 20-EA-97
Brian Peters
Michael & Darlene Billig
22040 Regnart Road
I-lill~ide Exception for a new residence and ac, cesso~y slxuctures to exceed the maximum floor area
ratio to be built on slopes greater than 30% and in the 100 ff. riparian corridor setback in accordance
with Chapter 19.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRO~AL DE I'ISRMINATiON: Negative Declaration Recemmended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
3. Application No.:
Location:
Emie Piccone, Tandem Computers
18880 Homestead Road
ENVIRONMENTAL DEl ERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Roberts moved to continue Item 1 to the September 8, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting, and remove Items 2 and 3 from the calendar.
Com. Austin
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 26, 1997
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
9-U-97 and 26-EA-97
Any Mountain, Ltd., Eldon Hoffman
10495 No. DeAnza Boulevard
Use Permit to convert an existing 27,000 sq. fi. retail building to office uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: M~. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, explained that the application was to convert
an existing specialty retail building that dealt primarily in ski equipment and other sports equipment
sales to an office building. He reviewed the background of the item, noting that the original
approval was with a reduced parking requirement of 80 smllg because of the seasonal nature of the
business. Mr. Jung referred to charts illustrating the permitted and existing building uses and square
footage for both buildings. He said that because of being underparked from an ordinance
standpoint, staff requested that the applicant look at the parking to see how they could maximize the
number of parking spaces; and as a result of the parking redesign, the applicant came up with 87
parking spaces in lieu of the 66 parking spaces.
RefenSng to the overhead of the site plan, he illustrated the proposed redesign of the parking space
areas and answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Jung stated that staffrecommended approval of
the application with conditions noted in the model resolution.
Mr. Bud HoFmtan, owner, Any Mountain, said that when he purchased the property in 1975, it was
one parcel of 2.82 acres and th,re was a subdivision 2 years later. He said that the rear building was
the headquarters and office facility, and a portion was used for a revolving ski deck. He said that in
today's ski business, the labor day sale would produce only about 100 people walling to get into the
sale; whereas ia the past, thousands of people would be waiting to get into the store for the labor day
sale. He said that the decline in business has necessitated converting the facility from retail to office,
and he planned to downside the new facility into a 17,000 sq. fL building on one level. Mr.
HoFmsen pointed out that the present two level facility was more conducive to office use. Referring
to the site plan, he discussed parking space allocations. He said that he was not opposed to adding
space on the Any Mountain configuration by mal~ng more compact spaces; however, he was
resistaat to removing large specimen trees.
Chair Harris clarified that the issue was restriping the life insurance parcel and leaving the access so
that the new office building occupants could park there if more spaces wero created. Mr. Hoffman
said that presently because of the lease arrangements, a cea-tm amount of spaces were allocated with
the one parcel, and that permission would have to be given by the office users if more spots were
required.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input;, as there was none, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 26-EA-97
Com. Roberts
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
Plaunin8 Commission Minutes 4 August 26, 1997
Chair Harris noted that ltem 5 in the conditions (bicycle parking) should be added and a decision
made whether to approve it as is, with the deficit of 8, or request the res~ping of the other lot and
arrange reciprocal parking.
Com. Roberts questioned whether anything would be gained by adding restriping, and whether it
was a viable solution. He said they could see if by narrowing the traffic way through it might gain a
row of parking spaces. He said he was opposed to removal of any specimen trees; and asked if one
condition to oppose is that part of the main building be set aside for amenity space in which case the
parking requirement would be reduced. He said at a previous meeting, the issue arose that if they
took properties, because of the economic interest to the city, should they consider opening up areas
elsewhere m compensate for retail converted to industrial? He said he felt it was an appropriate
point to consider.
Chair Harris said that Com. Maboney raised the point at that same meeting about going to a l:I
instead of 1:1-1/2. Mr. Cowan recommended that it remain at 1:1, and be made a condition.
Mr. Jung said that results of an analysis concluded that the parking supply and parking requirement
would be close when looking at both buildings together, because the other building is slightly
overparked if discounting the basement. He said the basement is set up for storage and Any
Mountain has not leased it out. He said as long as the restriction was in place for 5,000 sq. fr. of
basement, it would not be generating paddng; and if considering both buildings, discounting the
basement space, it would be close to meeting the parking reqmrement.
Com. Maboney said that relative to parking, he was not optimistic about squeezing a whole row in
there, and noted that the space between the top row spaces and the double middle row is the same as
to the wall in the back. He said it appeared to be the smdard space for turning; and didn't fed
another row could be added. However, he said he felt they should have a tradeoff of three spaces,
noting that it was worth having it be one big lot, because the bigger the pool, the better it is to have
peaks and valleys rather than breaking it into small chunks. Therefore, if a few more spaces could
be added by getting rid of the islands without denuding the parking lot, he would prefer to leave the
illustrated section open. He said he felt the overflow situation could be on the street. He concluded
by adding he wanted 4 additional deficit.
Com. Austin said she was opposed to the 4 additional deficit; the remaiulng restriping was
appropriate; she did not want to sacrifice any trees; and agreed with Com. Mahoney about restriping,
moving a row, and spreading it out. She said she would be in favor of approving the application
without the 4 spaces, totaling 12 deficit, with the caveat that it be addressed within a year. She
recommended checking on an annual basis, and if it was a problem, recommend to the City Council
to have outside parking in the back. Com. Austin said she felt it would not be a problem and would
approve it, as is, less the 4, totaling 12 deficit; nothing on the basements; and recommended it be
Chair Harris said she felt that the access to the other parking lot should not be closed off. She said
that the parking lot was inefficiently striped and should be restriped because a 12 deficit was a high
percentage deficit and set a bad precedent. She said she would approve it with the 8 deficit and they
should pick up the other 4 on that site. She said that projects such as this should be handled
diffem-nfly than a new project, which is the reason she was willing to go with a deficit of 8. She said
it was a redeveloped site, and they should not have to rebuild the entire thing. Chair Hams said it
was a good precedent to consider redevelopment and show that they would be more confederate of
Plannin$ Commission Minutes 5 August 26, 1997
parking. She said that she could not approve the application with a 12 deficit; she was in favor of
the conversion to office, but felt it was too large a percentage.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 9-U-97 per the model resolution,
with the addition of 5 bicycle spaces; ratio to remain at 1: I; basement to remain as
storage; parking lots to remain interconnected; option to redo back
Com. Roberts
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
Applica~on No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
8-U-97 and 2 l-EA-97
James Liang, T Square Consulting Group
Golden Park, L.L.C.
Southwest comer of Lomita and Imperial Avenues
Use Permit to construct a new 3,453 SCl. ft. mixed-use building with an automobile tire repair shop
on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ME~:i lNG OF JULY 14, 1997
Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reviewed the apphcation to construct a new 3,453 square foot mixed-
use building with an auto tire-repair shop on the first floor and two apartment units on the second
floor. He refened to a map ill,hating the industrial, multiple family residences and subject site,
single family residences, office and vacant industrial sites.
Mr. Jung explained that the auto tire-repair shop would be limited to work related to tires, brakes,
lire balancing, some minor engine work; and would have two service bays. He said that the use
meets the industrial parking requirements. Refen'ing to the overheads of the site elevations, Mr.
Jung illustrated the location of the repair shop and the two apb, tment buildings.
Mr. Jung discussed the internal and external noise concerns as outlined in the staff report. He
reported that the consultant concluded that mitigation measures including heavy duly insulation in
the floor could reduce the noise decibel level to 45 dBA which was an acceptable level for interior
noise. He added that staff was recommending that the developer provide air conditioning units for
the apartments to further mitigate the effects of the noise level f~om the mackine shop, which would
allow the residents to keep the aparanent windows closed.
Staffrecommends approval &the mixed-use project and approval of the Negative Declaration.
Mr. Jung explained the justification for the hours of operation. Chair Hah'is suggested that opening
time should allow an early drop of time for customers, and the closure be earlier than proposed, so
that the residents in the apartment building would not be inconvenienced around the dinner hour. It
was noted that the hours of operation could be specified as opening hours and operating hours.
Chair Hams expressed concern that the term tire trading limited the shop to non-sales. In response
to Chair Hams' concern relative to the landscape plan showing only tree screening, Mr. Jung said
that the conditions could specify that the application include shrubs and fuller landscaping as well.
He clarified the justification for the 2 year use permit time limit as outlined in the resolution, and
concurred that the wording be changed to "..date of the permit, unless exercised. '
Planning Commission Minutes 6 Allgllgt 26, 1997
Mr. James Liang, T Square Consulting Group, project architect, said that they worked closely with a
noise consultant in an attempt to reduce the noise for the aparanent buildings on the second floor.
Ms. Mci Wu, Colin Gordon & Assoc., noise consultants, referred to the noise level report, and
stated that in addressing the noise mitigation for the residential area, they used a scenario of 89 dBA
noise level fxom the machine shop. The recommended mitigations included floor/ceiling, exterior
walls, windows, and roof constructions as explained in the staff report, Page 5-24; which if
incorporated, reduced the noise level to 45 dBA.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Ann Anger, President of the Monta Vista Improvement Association, expressed cencem that the
proposed stmcturefonsiness was on the comer of Imperial and Lomita Avenues which was a light
indnsmy area. She presented a list of light indusmy businesses. She expressed concern that
Cupertino is working with mixed uses; old Monta Vista was txying to keep evevythin$ on one floor;
and in the past Dick Childress suggested building residential atop commercial to ma,ximiTe the use
of the valuable land. She noted that the proposal was light indnstxy and said she objected to mixing
light industrial with residential. She suggested that the Planning Commission deliberate fiather
before rendering a decision.
Mr. Bmen Wanninger, Monta Vista Improvement Association, said he also felt it was an
inappropriate zone mix, as Imperial Avenue is industrial and should remain indusWial. He pointed
out that Measurex owns propemj across from the proposed development which includes a steel
vacant building with a lot of debris and weeds on the proparty. He said he felt it was not a desirable
area to have an apartment complex looking down on the industrial area, nor would there be
anywhere for children to play if any resided in the apartments above the machine shop. He reiterated
that it would not be a suitable mixed use to have the apartments atop a noisy machine shop.
in response to Chair Hams question, Mr. Liang said that the applicant was proposing ap~atments
atop the machine shop because of the zoning, and they felt the apuatment dwellers would not have
children as the apamnent units were small. He said the applicant felt that the most obvious residents
of the apartments would be employees of the machine shop and it would be convenient, and
eliminate the need to drive to work. He said the floor area ratio wes .6127.
Chair Hams closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, addressed Ms. Anger's and Mr. Wenninger's concerns, and said
that staff concluded that if the measurable noise could be mitigated, the proposal would be
acceptable. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, said that there was also a
concern relative to the use of hazardous materials in industrial zones. He noted that the fire district
participates in pre-hearing conferences and it was concluded that because of the proximity of the
other residential areas, it did not flmher ancumber other industrial activities or existing residences.
Mr. Cowan said that he met with Ms. Anger and discussed the proposal, and he felt that her concern
about possible unaihactive appearance of the mixed used would be alleviated because the building
was attractive. He noted that another advantage of the mixed use was that the residents were able to
keep watch of the businesses easily.
Chair Hams summarizes the issues: 7 foot wall; landscaping; hours of operation; mixed-use
concept; FAR; and addition of tire sales.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 Aug~ 26, 1997
Com. Austin said that the area was mixed industrial, and she was a proponent of residents living near
their place of employment, and being afforded the benefits of living in Monta Vista. She said that
she was in favor of a wall for visual aesthetics, with planting for noise mitigation; the 7 foot height
not mandatory. She suggested that the hours of operation be modified to working hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00/5:30 p.m. and drop offhours fi.om 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Com. Austin suggested adding
fire sales to the p~mfit; she was in favor of the mixed use; expressed concern with the FAR. In
response to her concern about the FAR, Mr. Jung explained that the residential is discounted from
the FAR in the mixed-use projects and discounting the residential, the auto shop FAR would be
under .33 FAR for the industrial. Relative to lanscaping, Com. Austin said that she would prefer to
include shrubs and bushes as well as the trees.
Discussion ensued relative to the proposed wall, wherein Mr. Liang answered questions.
Com. Mahoney said that the wall along the property line was appropriate; hours of operation be
modified to reflect operational and drop off/pick up; mixed-use is appropriate which allows
affordable housing; FAR is appropriate; landscaping to include shrubs.
Com. Roberts said the concept was appealing and provided affordable housing. He questioned if
there was a market for a small tire shop in light of the many larger companies to compete with. He
said the proposed development would be an improvement of what is presently on the site and un
asset to the community. He suggested 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday for hours of
operation; he supported the wall along the property line, but not along the street, landscaping to
have more shrubs for reasons discussed; the FAR is not excessive if the mixed-use is approved. He
said he was willing to support the application.
Chair Harris said she would prefer the 6 foot wall along the property line area to stop at the edge of
the parking; shrubs to m~t~k the bays in the shop; hours of operation fi:om 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for
operation and 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for drop off/pick up; mixed-use is appropriate as it is un
improvement to the area. She expressed concern about the .61 FAR although others In the area had
been approved, and did not feel discounting the residential was appropriate. She suggested that
another formula be used. Chair Harris said she was in favor of the application with the adj~tments
as well as the wording changes to Item 2, lt~n 3 relative to tire sales, as discussed earlier in the
meeting, and hours of operation adjustment agreed to.
MOTION:
SECOND~
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 21 -EA-97
Com. Mahonoy
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to Application 8-U-97 per the model resolution, with changes
including partial wall to be 6 feet high, extend along the side rather than fi:om;
landscaping plan to be approved by staff; to include addition of 3 foot shrubs to
screen the auto bays; oper~ng hours to be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and
drop off/pick up hours to be limited to 7:30 a.m. 6:00 p.m.; fire trading and sales to
be added to use p~mlt; modifications to Items 2 and 3 of the resolution as
discussed, be added.
Com. Mahoney
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 26, 1997
Staff clarified the appeal process to Ms. Anger.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
Bret Avenue Interpretation regarding single family residential use in Heart of the City
Specific Plan.
ENVLRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the background of the item wherein the property owner
had the existing home on 10053 Bret Avenue demolished to build a single family residence. When
the County issued the permit they did not inform the applicant that a total demolition would trigger
the annexation requirement, requiring the applicant to approach the City of Cupertino for processing.
As explained in the staff report, the applicant's proposal does not conform to Cupertino's Heart of
the City plan. Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission to initiate a public
hearing to emend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to accommodate single family development.
There was a brief discussion relative to options 2 and 3.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Robert E. Catalano, Real Estate Connections, explained the dilemma caused by the city/county
zoning conflict r~lative to 10053 Brat Avenue. He said that if the county had informed them of the
regulations, the home would not have been completely demolished.
As there was no one else who wished to address the isst~, the public input portion was closed.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney movb:l to direct staffto initiate a public hearing to investigate
modification of the Stevens Creek Specific Plan, related to Options 2 and 3 to
rectify the situation relative to 10053 Bret Avenue.
Com. Austin
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-0
OTHER BUSINESS
There was a discussion regarding agenda topics and schedules for futme Planning Commi~siun
meetings.
REPORT OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Chair Harris thanked Vera Gil for the excellent report on the housing issue.
Mr. Cowan reported that discussions are ongoing with Federated and the Vallco Shopping Center
relative to the Macy's outlet located in the center. He said it is felt that their use is inconsistent with
the temps of their master lease.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 26, 1997
Chair Harris noted that the Planning Commissioners have been invited to attend the September 20
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Tour, beginning at 8:00 a.m.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Cowan noted that a summmy of the Economic Development Committee meeting was listed in
his report in the agenda packet. He said that a complete summary would be available prior to the
September 3 meeting.
Relative to the mixed-use development on the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnTa
Boulevard, M~. Cowan said the application was dependent on the Planning Commission's and City
Council's decision involving the transfer of retail dollars.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
AD,IOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. to a special planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on September 3, 1997.
Respectfiffiy Submitted,
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary
Minutes Approved as Presented: September 8, 1997